Germany’s ‘Green’ Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States

“No nation has anything approaching a clean energy economy. And those that have promised to build one are all struggling.”

Germany’s ‘Green’ Energy Disaster Is A Warning To The United States

By: David Harsanyi, The Federalist, June 21, 2022:

As gas hit historic highs, leftists keep arguing it’s a perfect time to transition to a “clean energy” economy. “Now is the moment to double-down, triple-down, and quadruple-down on clean energy,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted on Friday, linking to a CNN piece that contends “wind and solar” have been “bailing out” Texas during its recent heat wave.

In the piece we learn that wind, solar, and nuclear have “powered about 38% of the state’s power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%.” That’s quite the sleight of hand; tantamount to bragging about how Babe Ruth (60), Lou Gehrig (47), and Joe Dugan (2) combined for 109 home runs in 1927. True, but deceptive.

Subsidized solar power generates less than 2 percent of Texas’ energy during the year. Nuclear power generates around 10 percent and wind nearly 20. Coal accounts for nearly 15 percent and natural gas for more than 52 percent of electricity generation. It would be far more accurate to say that coal, nuclear, and gas are bailing out Texas.

No nation has anything approaching a clean energy economy. And those that have promised to build one are all struggling.

More than a decade ago, after a major earthquake caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster, German chancellor Angela Merkel announced her nation would close down all its nuclear power plants, at the same time quadrupling down on the decarbonization of its economy—energiewende. Once there were 17 reactors in Germany. Now there are only three remaining, all of which are scheduled to go offline by the end of the year.

The move to “clean energy”—without nuclear—has accomplished three things:

1. It has prompted Germany, and the rest of the EU, to begin relying more heavily on Russian natural gas as it “transitioned.” Putin, who has begun demanding EU nations pay for their energy in roubles, is now able to undercut the European economy at will.

2. It has created the highest global electricity prices per household in the world. In 2019, German households were paying 34 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to 13 cents in the United States. The price of energy has doubled since 2000, when Germany first mandated decarbonization, an effort that forced energy companies to purchase long-term inefficient renewables at high, fabricated prices.

3. It has meant the burning of coal. Even before Russia began cutting off supply, Germany was more reliant on coal than the United States. This week, Germany’s Economy Minister Robert Habeck, who earlier this year rejected a European Union label of nuclear energy as “green,” announced that in an effort to avoid future gas shortages—because cars can’t run on wind—the government would incentivize the use of more coal-fired power plants.

The “transition” to green that Germany began 30 years ago has not worked. In 2000, Germany obtained 84 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. By 2019, it was 78 percent. As Vaclav Smil pointed out a couple of years ago, at this rate, Germany would still be deriving 70 percent of its energy from fossil fuels by the year 2050. With a move back to coal in 2022, it will surely be even later, if ever.

Setting aside the high cost of transitioning to renewable energy, and the failure of wind turbines and solar panels to produce energy in the winter, the intermittency problem is not going to be overcome in any season. To pull back on the only reliable “clean energy” source that can mitigate this problem has been suicidal.

Unlike Germany, we don’t even have to worry about pipelines from Russia; we are situated on a continent with abundant energy sources. Germany’s problems are self-inflicted. Ours will be, as well, if we follow its lead.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Biden and Oil: Destroy America in Order to Save It

Germany turns to coal

Dutch join Germany, Austria, in reverting to coal

Green-pushing Germany turns to coal to offset gas crisis from Russian gas restriction

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Adams Blasted for Promoting ‘Drag Storytellers’ in NYC Schools

In a tweet posted Thursday evening, NYC Mayor Eric Adams promoted “drag storytellers” and “the libraries and schools that support them,” claiming they are advancing the city’s core values.

“Drag storytellers, and the libraries and schools that support them, are advancing a love of diversity, personal expression, and literacy that is core to what our city embraces,” he wrote.

In, Adams argued that the education system must “educate” and make students “emotionally intelligent” through such programs.

“At a time when our LGBTQ+ communities are under increased attack across this country, we must use our education system to educate,” he added in a follow-up tweet. “The goal is not only for our children to be academically smart, but also emotionally intelligent.”

A wave of online backlash ensued.

“No @NYCMayor men dressed as highly sexualized women do not belong in schools. It has nothing to do with diversity or literacy,” wrote New York congressional candidate Maud Maron.

“Why not just advocate for taking kids to strip clubs while you are at it?” asked media personality Lisa Boothe.

“They are just dudes in women’s clothes grooming kids. Stop it,” wrote journalist Kyle Becker.

“Grooming is at the core of what NYC embraces?” asked Claremont Institute Communications Director Nick Short.

“Flee NYC while you still can,” wrote Rubin Report host and free speech advocate Dave Rubin

“This is the hill the Democrats want to die on. Pushing drag queens in schools. What insane clownworld are we living in?” wrote President of the New York Young Republican Club Gavin Mario Wax.

The mayor’s comments come as New York City’s public schools continue to use tax money to pay drag queens to perform for children, often without parental knowledge or consent. Since its creation in 2018, Drag Queen Story Hour NYC — which recently changed its name to Drag Story Hour NYC — has received $207,000 in taxpayer funds.


Eric Adams

10 Known Connections

At an April 4, 2022 press conference at City Hall, Adams announced the start of a new advertising campaign that would use five digital billboards to try to entice Floridians to relocate to New York City. The billboards’ pitch would focus on the alleged injustice of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had signed into law a week earlier. Though the legislation was misrepresented by leftist critics as a “Don’t Say ‘Gay’” bill that supposedly prohibited any and all use of the word “gay” in Florida schools, the bill merely banned classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity by teachers of young children in grades 3 and below. The billboards — which would be displayed for eight weeks in Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach — contained the following messages:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

Adams voiced his hope that these billboards, by depicting New York City as a place that welcomed LGBT people much more readily than Florida, might help reverse the recent trend that had seen massive numbers of New Yorkers relocating to Florida. Said the mayor: “We are going to loudly show our support, to say to those who are living in Florida, ‘Listen, we want you here in New York. Want you right here in New York City.’ It’s more than just saying that. It’s also standing up and aligning ourselves with the men and women of LGBTQ-plus community, and state that we are in unison with you and your right to have a self-identification, your right to live the lifestyle, live the life that you choose to live, without any form of harassment…”

To learn more about Eric Adams, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: US Supreme Court rules against Maine’s ban on tuition aid to religious schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

BREAKING: U.S. Rep. Curtis Campaign EXPOSED

*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*


Project Veritas Action published undercover footage of a Utah congressional campaign staffer discussing the multiple ways the campaign tries to “manipulate” voters while hiding not only the candidate, but also the candidate’s true intentions.

In the footage, Field Director, Daniel Stephens for U.S. Representative, John Curtis, is seen discussing the switch Curtis made from Democrat to Republican in 2006 saying that Curtis did so “to be able to run.” Stephens added, “he [Curtis] thought that it was ineffective to be a Democrat in Utah Valley.”

Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:

  • Project Veritas Action published video of Field Director, Daniel Stephens, who works for U.S. Representative, John Curtis (R-Utah). Stephens appears in undercover footage talking about Curtis’ campaign strategy to “manipulate” voters with a litany of hidden motives and agendas, including lack of support for Utah’s abortion trigger law.
  • Rep. John Curtis’ Field Director, Daniel Stephens, on Abortion Trigger Laws: “Here in Utah it means abortion is completely illegal. Which is fascinating…I never thought that Governor Cox would get into something so restrictive. I don’t think it solves any problems. I think you’re going to run into a lot more unhealthy, you know, marginalized communities that get, you know, unproductive care… he [Curtis] does not like the trigger laws.”
  • Discussing Representative Curtis’ switch from Democrat to Republican in 2006, Curtis’ second time changing parties, Stephens said, “I think he switched that year to be able to run” adding, “he [Curtis] thought that it was ineffective to be a Democrat in Utah Valley or Utah County.”
  • Stephens also made questionable comments about misrepresenting Curtis’ views to voters saying, “it might not be the truth, right?” before saying voters were, “not willing to do the research.”

You can watch the full video HERE.

When reached for comment, the manager of Rep. Curtis’ re-election campaign, Adrielle Herring, offered an official comment saying, “Statements made by someone who is not authorized to speak for the Congressman are not relevant.”

When pressed on specifics, Herring replied “no” to a litany of questions about whether statements made by Stephens were true and laughed about a question regarding Stephens’ comments about hiding from voters.


*CLICK HERE TO TWEET OUT THE VIDEO*


EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas video exposé is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Proposed Government Solutions Ignore the Presence of Nuance, and Perpetuates Unintended Consequences

Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.


We continue to see a push for legislation to cure America’s ills.  Red flag laws for guns, on demand abortion available in the name of women’s rights, prosecution of “insurrectionists”, all of these are being touted as a solution or cure.  But the reality still remains, that evil will always be present in this world.  Evil acts are a physical manifestation of Satan and the control that he has over our flesh.  You cannot pass legislation to end evil.  You can take action to minimize evil and incentivize moral behavior, but you cannot stop the Prince of Darkness with a bill that comes out of congress.

There are nuances that come with these “feel good” proposals in congress, and there are unintended consequences that result from those nuances.  Sometimes the proposed government solution can be abused and manipulated in order to expose loopholes in the law.    The worst legislation to ever come out of the halls of congress, has been a result of a knee jerk reaction to an event or crisis.  It is the “do something” mentality that has destroyed liberty in America. The definition of tyranny is said to be, “The deliberate removal of nuance.” The USA Patriot Act is a prime example of the government abuse that is tolerated by the people when there is fear among the citizenry.  If you acknowledge that the government has the authority to suspend portions of the constitution in a time of crisis, then the government, in its quest for power and authority, will create a crisis to exploit. Use the Reichstag fire in pre Nazi Germany as a point of reference.  There is too much trust in government. People have a tendency to believe the government narrative, even when it doesn’t make sense, because they believe that our government has credibility. Jim Garrison once said, “Is the government worth preserving when it lies to the people?  Doesn’t it become a dangerous country when you cannot trust anyone anymore, when you cannot tell the truth?’ Garrison then sternly asserted this familiar maxim, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”.  He was of course referring to his case against New Orleans business man Clay Shaw, regarding the alleged conspiracy in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Do we seek justice anymore, or have we decided to forego justice and replace it with political expediency?  Garrison’s words are still very relevant today.

Do you not think that the government creates crises to push agendas?  Try running “Operation Northwoods” through an internet search and read the declassified documents.  Or maybe dig into the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to justify going to war in Vietnam.  Our government does not deserve our trust or respect, if they continue to lie to us, take advantage of us and waste our hard earned tax dollars on other countries and promotion of sexual deviancy.  All of this while our so called representatives, enrich themselves and become multi-millionaires after only a few terms.

Why is knee jerk legislation dangerous even when it sounds good on paper?  The answer is nuance and unintended consequences.  These two forgotten components are never part of the legislation being proposed and there is little thought into how these things may affect implementation of said law after it goes into effect.  We’ll start with Red flag laws and the very concept of imposing such law on the masses, opening Pandora’s Box when it comes to abuse and manipulation. Hypothetical scenario, a couple is getting a divorce and the woman wants to get under the skin of her soon to be ex so she makes an accusation that leads to a man having his guns confiscated in the absence of due process, because a bitter ex-wife or husband to be fair wanted to get back at their former partner.  What about a leftist progressive that lives in a neighborhood where they find out their next door neighbor possesses firearms?  An accusation is made about the gun owner to trigger confiscation of a law abiding citizen’s weapons.    These are just unintended consequences that make things worse.  This is on top of the fact that due process is being scrapped here totally.  Even if the allegations are legitimate, the accused still has a right to due process.  Suggesting anything less is putting forth a “minority report” enforcement mentality. These loopholes and the total disregard for due process and the 5th and 6th amendment, are not highlighted in the legislation, and there is no acknowledgment of these pitfalls as congress scurries to appease the activist mob.

Let’s move onto abortion laws, and the potential abuses that may exist in drafting state legislation if the SCOTUS sends regulation on the issue back to the states.  Once again, a hypothetical but realistic scenario; a woman gets pregnant and does not want to have the baby, and she lives in a state that has strict abortion restrictions but makes exceptions for rape and incest.  In order to justify her abortion, she accuses the partner that she had of rape, which leaves the accused no alibi, because he was with her.  Even though it was consensual from the perspective of both parties, the woman screams rape because she wants an abortion.  I believe that if a state passes abortion restrictions with an exception for rape, that state would see rape accusations skyrocket.  So on abortion, we must not attempt to appease the moderates.  Life is life, period.

Now onto the so called “insurrection”, and the screams from the left to prosecute any and all involved.  BLM and ANTIFA are generally given a pass, and released soon after arrest, but because they subscribe to a leftist ideology, they are handled with kid gloves.  They are certainly not subjected to the same scrutiny.  This is my warning to both sides of the aisle, and to all ideologies across the spectrum of the electorate. Be careful what you wish for, because there will be a day when there is someone in the White House, in control of the DOJ, that wants to target political opposition, and they are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from where you are. Be careful when you demand peoples’ heads on a silver platter. German born Martin Niemöller, son of a Pastor, wrote a poem that I think is relevant to this subject.

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Martin Niemöller

We have to stand up for the rights that we have as individuals as dictated by God, not government. We must be consistent in our defense of these rights, not selective, based on political ideology. If we don’t take this seriously, the law is dead, and all that is left is tribalism and warring factions. I hear many people cite the 14th amendment when it comes to equal protection under the law. However, I have to submit, that if we are all given equal protection, we must all be held accountable under the same law. Translation: government officials from either side of the aisle, should not be immune to prosecution when corruption/wrongdoing are present.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

The News from the Border Is Not Good

Today, I get you caught up on the latest news from Joe Biden’s border crisis.  It’s not good.

Fifteen people on the terrorist watch list were caught trying to cross the southern border in May, a surprising record number.   That makes 50 so far this year, more than the total number apprehended in the last five years combined.  We wouldn’t know about this if Republican lawmakers hadn’t pressured the Biden administration to resume publishing the numbers.  And these are only the ones we know about.  We don’t know how many terrorists got away.  Border patrol agents unofficially put the total number of ‘got-aways’ at more than a million since Joe Biden took office.  It stands to reason more than a few of those are on the terrorist watch list.

Another record was set in May.  Border patrol agents encountered nearly 240,000 illegal aliens at the southern border last month, topping the previous record encountered in April.   More than 95,000 of them were released into the U.S.   This brings the total number of illegal aliens the Biden administration has deliberately released into the interior of the country to more than a million.   Woke math problem for you:  if a million illegal aliens got away and another million were deliberately released into the interior, how long will it be before Kamala Harris solves the root causes of illegal immigration?

These staggering numbers are overwhelming border agents who are now having to spend a lot of time on paperwork and babysitting.  This means that drug seizures are down and it’s “a field day for human traffickers.”

As you can see, all of this is going in the wrong direction.  The Biden administration’s answer is to speed up asylum claims, not close the border.   Another standard Biden maneuver is to cover it all up.  Not only did the administration try to hide the ball on the number of potential terrorists coming across, it continues to stonewall a congressional investigation into the number of unaccompanied alien children taken to New York last year.  It’s been eight months and congressional investigators can’t get any answers.  Other researchers can’t get the answers they want about criminal aliens and traffickers because the Biden administration has clammed up on those subjects, as well.

All of this leaves state officials to try to put a finger in the dike.  Texas and Arizona combined have so far sent more than 90 busloads of border crossers – more than 3,000 in all – to Washington, D.C. to make them the Biden administration’s problem.   However, as I reported to you previously [5/26/22], left-wing volunteer groups are picking up the slack and the administration isn’t feeling any pain.

As I heard an immigration expert say on the radio, Joe Biden’s open borders policies could be reversed tomorrow and we’d still be dealing with the problems these policies have caused for years to come.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

AUN-TV and its 11 TV Stations are Seeking Conservative Shows and Programming

A new era of independent news has started with an eye to revolutionizing the way America views the news, as American Uncensored News has made its debut!

American Uncensored News Network, (AUN-TV), was founded to solve what may be America’s biggest problem: the near monopoly on television of corrupt and censored news that advances the world view and policies of a small group that is hostile to American Values. These values, such as Liberty and Justice for All, Economic Freedom, and Limited Government have already been severely damaged. The future of America depends on exposing and defeating this monopoly by having a truthful and legitimate alternative.

All the news that’s true has a home at the AUN-TV network, The Uncensored News Network! AUN-TV has a mission of creating “uncensored” news, talk and documentary programming from independent media and grassroots production. The network’s goal is to report the news and features other networks are afraid to touch. AUN-TV Network with its sister website AUN-TV.com will air and post hard hitting credible stories that no other television network will touch.

AUN-TV will open with a 11 station television broadcast network based in Northern California. Broadcasting outlets will include: Channel 3 (San Francisco, CA), Channel 12 (San Francisco/Marin County) CA, Channel 8 (Fort Bragg/North Coast CA), Channel 27 (Santa Rosa, CA), Channel 45 (Wine Country, CA), Channel 23 (Redding, CA), Channel 11, (Chico, CA), and Channel 28, (Sacramento/Chico, CA). All combined, the network covers a market of over 10 million people, with many yearning for AUN-TV’s unvarnished and uncensored take on news and views. Future stations in process include outlets in Monterey, CA, Carson City/Lake Tahoe, NV, and Reno, NV.

Dana Allen the founder of AUN-TV has also announced the appointment of Rick Trader as President and CEO. AUN-TV and its companion website – http://www.aun-tv.com, – is proud to announce the launch of the AUN-TV Television Network. There is an unmet need in America for uncensored news and investigations. Most TV news sources ridicule and demonize the majority of their own viewers, something unheard of in other industries. For example in polls only 15% of Americans believe that evolution is the sole source of humans, yet that 85% of Americans is ridiculed as if they were an extremist 2% group by most TV news channels. The same is true on other issues. AUN will respect our viewers right to think for themselves. The majority of Americans believe the news media has covered up multiple government corruption scandals, they are right. As someone who has been in the news media I have first hand witnessed news censorship. It is the mission of AUN to end that censorship.”

Rick Trader is also the producer and host of the Conservative Commandos Radio Show (CCRS). Over the past 10 years, the CCRS has interviewed a “Who’s Who” of thinkers, authors, writers and policy makers from Washington and around the world.

Trader will be responsible for bringing the best of uncensored talk shows to the AUN-TV Network.

“I am thrilled and excited at the prospects of AUN-TV! Now, many great shows, views and voices will have a television platform to call their own” says Trader. “The AUN-TV Network is badly needed to report on the stories the alphabet networks do not want the American people to know of. Our goal is to bring original, thought provoking programs to the viewing public that has a thirst for the truth, and to return our country to the principals of Liberty, Rule of Law and Judeo-Christian ethics our founding father created it for.”

INTERESTED?

CONTACT: Rick@ConservativeCommandosRadioShow.com

Thank you,

Rick Trader

©AUN-TV.com. All rights reserved.

Made in America Series: CREEKKOOLER & American Fireworks for the 4th of July

Here at 2ndVote we always advocate for the three pillars of shopping your values; shop local whenever possible, shop the highest 2ndVote score whenever possible, and shop American whenever possible. American production has been outsourced overseas for the sake of labor costs, sometimes even using slave labor, for far too long. It is high time that we as Americans demand that the goods and services we purchase are made by Americans, for Americans, in AMERICA!

That’s why we at 2ndVote endorse a product Made-in-America every week. This weekly message features various products that have been verified to be 100% American produced so that 2ndVote shoppers can better support American economic independence. It should be noted that while any products or companies featured in this series have been vetted for being American-made, there is not a guarantee that all such companies have been scored by 2ndVote at the time of publication.

Made-in-America product is the CREEKKOOLER:

Introducing the CreekKooler. An innovative patented floating cooler designed with dual-wall construction and top quality insulation resulting in superior ice retention. 

The CreekKooler glides across all surfaces and easily navigates behind your kayak, canoe, SUP or raft. With tow points allowing users to tie it to their boat or canoe, users favorite beverages and food are always within arms reach. 

The CreekKooler, whether used as a cooler or for safe storage, is at home anywhere, especially in the water.

CreekKooler is made in Rogers, AR


Check them out here!


Made-in-America product is American Fireworks:

American Fireworks Company was started in 1902 by Vincenzo Sorgi, the fourth generation of his family to be involved in the field of pyrotechnics.

Starting out in one small building, Vincenzo Sorgi quickly gained recognition for his handmade products of beauty and quality. In 1929, “Jimmy the Bomb” (as his friends referred to him) gained worldwide recognition by becoming one of the first attempting to shoot a rocket to the moon. Though never achieving his goal, his designs and plans closely parallel those used today and he was regarded as an innovator, well ahead of his time.

Today, over a century later, things at American Fireworks have changed very little. The business is still family owned and operated. Vincenzo’s son Jim and grandson John guided it from the late 20’s to the early 2000’s; they were the fifth and sixth generations of the Sorgi fireworks family. Now, over a hundred years later, Jim’s wife Nancy, John’s wife Mercy and the seventh generation of Sorgi’s, his great grandsons John and Roberto, are carrying on the family’s passion. Over their seven generations they have always tried to raise the bar in terms of quality and most importantly safety.

Vincenzo’s one building on 1/2 acre has grown into more than 60 buildings on 70 acres. Special formulas, handmade craftsmanship, and unique touch for each show are still hallmarks of the company. Although they are no longer trying to shoot rockets to the moon, their firework displays are still like Vincenzo said, “ahead of their time.”

American Fireworks are made in Hudson, OH

Check them out here!

The best way to make positive change in the world of woke businesses is to vote with your wallet, so remember: shop local, shop the highest score possible, and shop American! 2ndVote is not paid for this feature. While any products or companies featured in this series have been vetted for being American-made, there is not a guarantee that all such companies have been scored by 2ndVote at the time of publication.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote Made in America Series column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Twitter Unanimously Approves Elon Musk’s $44 Billion Purchase Bid

Twitter’s board unanimously recommended Tuesday that shareholders approve billionaire Elon Musk’s offer to buy the social media site for $44 billion.

Musk told Twitter employees earlier in June that he still planned to move forward with the purchase, despite shares in the company remaining significantly lower than his offer price, The Associated Press reported. He noted on Tuesday that approval of the purchase by shareholders was one of a number of unresolved matters halting his purchase, the outlet continued.

The Tesla billionaire’s offer would net a profit of $15.22 per share for investors if it closed now, the AP noted. Musk offered to pay $54.20 per share, despite them falling short of this number upon opening bell Tuesday, the outlet reported.

Twitter’s board of directors said in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that it “unanimously recommends that you vote (for) the adoption of the merger agreement.”

Musk has previously said that Twitter “will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.” He then offered to buy the entirety of the company in order to “unlock” the “extraordinary potential” of the social media platform. Twitter founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey has praised Musk’s decision to purchase the platform and has also said that he will “never be CEO again.”

AUTHOR

KAY SMYTHE

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Rape Office’: Elon Musk Hammers NBC’s Many Scandals

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

An Interesting Take on Electric Cars from a Conversation

If electric cars do not use gasoline, they will not be paying a gasoline tax on every gallon sold for automobiles, which was enacted to maintain our roads and bridges. They will use the roads and bridges, but will not pay for their maintenance!


As an engineer I love electric vehicle technology However, I have been troubled by the fact that the electrical energy to keep the batteries charged has to come from the grid, and that means more power generation and a huge increase in the distribution infrastructure. Whether generated from coal, gas, oil, wind or sun, installed generation capacity is limited.

In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car.

Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.

Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things, yet they’re being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.
If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, you will face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On a small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.

This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So, as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This later “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an ‘OOPS…!’ and a shrug.

If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.

Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes, “For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.

I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 Mpg = $0.10 per mile.

The gasoline powered car costs about $25,000 while the Volt costs $46,000 plus. So the Canadian Government wants loyal Canadians not to do the math, but simply pay twice as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA!

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: The Truth Behind Electric Cars EXPOSED

RELATED ARTICLES:

Driving An Electric Car May Be The Worst Thing You Can Do For The Environment

Replacing The Battery Pack On A VW E-Golf Costs More Than You Think

VIDEO: After the Guns Were Confiscated, the Killing Fields Began

“Our Founding Fathers didn’t give us the Second Amendment for duck hunting or simply for self-protection in a country that at the time had a vast and yet unknown frontier. They bestowed it upon us so that we could protect our precious nation from devolving into tyranny as so many others have done.”

Watch this flashback video of Pamela Geller on the Dr. Drew Show debating gun control:

After the Guns Were Removed, the Killing Fields Began

By: J. William Middendorf, June 16, 2022

J. William Middendorf is a former secretary of the Navy and author of “The Great Nightfall: How We Win the New Cold War” (2020).

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.

An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.

Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.

Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.

Cuba and Gun Control

Everybody ought to have a gun, Castro maintained—until he took over Cuba in 1959. At a rally in Havana before he assumed power, he explained: “This is how democracy works: It gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, to Negroes, to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.”

Weapons ranging from Czech submachine guns to Belgian FN automatic rifles were handed out to 50,000 soldiers, 400,000 militiamen, 100,000 members of the factory-guarding popular defense force, and to many men, women, and children in Cuba’s 1 million-strong “neighborhood vigilance committees.”

Immediately after assuming power in 1959, Castro changed his position, following Mao’s rule that guns should not be in the hands of the people.

For three weeks after the Castro government was formed, Radio Havana warned, “All citizens must turn in their combat weapons. Civilians must take arms to police stations, soldiers to military headquarters.”

Radio Havana’s explanation was somewhat contradictory: The guns were in bad shape anyway and the “struggle against our enemies requires a rigorous control of all combat weapons.”

There was an urgency about the new policy that suggested serious concern. Failure to turn in military weapons by Sept. 1, 1959, warned Radio Havana, would be punished not by criminal courts but by the dreaded Revolutionary Tribunals—those kangaroo courts that sentenced thousands of Cubans to death after Castro took over.

Venezuela and Gun Control  

Venezuela is now paying the price for allowing Chavez to implement the Mao rule when he came to power in 2012.

The shocking nature of an economic collapse that led Venezuela from being one of the richest countries in Latin America to one of the poorest has been well documented.

One aspect of the Venezuelan crisis that does not receive much coverage is the country’s gun control regime. All guns were outlawed when Chavez came to power, and harsh penalties were imposed on violators. The Venezuelan Armed Forces have exclusive power to control, register, and potentially confiscate firearms.

Many citizens now regret the repressive gun control legislation the Venezuelan government implemented in 2012. Naturally, this regret is warranted. The Venezuelan government is among the most tyrannical in the world, with a proven track record of violating basic civil liberties such as free speech, debasing its national currency, confiscating private property, and creating economic controls that destroy the country’s productivity.

Elections have proven to be useless, as they’ve been mired with corruption and charges of government tampering. For many, taking up arms is the only option left for the country to shake off its tyrannical government. But the Venezuelan government has prevented such an uprising with its draconian gun control.

These life-and-death lessons of history are lost on too many Americans. Our Founding Fathers didn’t give us the Second Amendment for duck hunting or simply for self-protection in a country that at the time had a vast and yet unknown frontier. They bestowed it upon us so that we could protect our precious nation from devolving into tyranny as so many others have done.

Politicians who respect the American ideal don’t try to diminish the Second Amendment or blame it for other ills of society that they have failed to solve, but rather embrace it as part of the legacy of rights that helps keep America free.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE: More Than A Dozen Republican AGs Demand Senators Reject Biden’s ‘Anti-Gun’ ATF Nominee

Five Major Cities on Pace to Pass High 2021 Homicide Totals Halfway Through 2022, UP 25% – All Run By Democrats

Muslim Privilege: Cleveland ‘Officer of the Year’ Ismail Quran Under Investigation for Jew-Hating, Pro-Hitler Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

From ‘your choice’ to familism: A path for 21st century feminism

The discussion which should follow the Supreme Court decision on abortion.


This is the second part of a review of The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, by Erika Bachiochi. The first part is here.

When the US Supreme Court in its 1992 Casey decision doubled down on Roe v Wade, the court majority claimed that “an entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe’s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society”.

What was Roe’s concept of liberty? That of the autonomous individual, the hero of American libertarianism and a parody of the self-governing (virtuous) individual of the founding era.

Roe’s heroine is the one who “chooses”, behind the veil of “privacy”, all by herself, what to do about an “unplanned” child she has conceived.

Her options are stark. Will she keep the baby and risk her marriage or career, or both? Is she prepared to see the last of her uncommitted partner, and face years of poverty and loneliness as a single parent, trying to balance work/welfare and care of her child?

Or will she “get rid of it” and simplify her life, make progress in the job market – and hope for better circumstances next time around?

Since 1973 American has, through its laws and economy, told women that they are on their own in this matter. Caring for children is a choice, a private thing. Society is interested in women as workers, not mothers. Workers just like men.

As Erika Bachiochi observes in her book, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, “When Casey reaffirmed the ‘right to choose’ abortion, employers and other public institutions remained ‘free’ to be unchanged by women’s participation in them.”

In support she quotes a pro-choice law professor, Deborah Dinner:

“The discourse of reproductive choice continues to legitimate workplace structures modelled on the masculine ideal [with no caregiving responsibilities] as well as social policies that provide inadequate public support for families.”

“In the end,” adds Bachiochi, “it may just be that an unmitigated right to abortion serves of profit-driven market above all else.”

How did “women’s rights” end up in this blind alley?

In the second-last chapter of her book, Bachiochi explores the work of Harvard legal luminary Mary Ann Glendon to throw light on this question.

Family law in America vs Europe

Glendon, whose early experience of single parenthood was formative for her views, traced the source of the problem to the libertarianism of the Anglo-American rights tradition and its effect on family law and culture.

By the mid-twentieth century, she found, “self-sufficiency” had become the guiding principle in US family law, leading to the removal of legal protection from the family unit (through, for example, no-fault divorce) and to the idea of marriage as, “an association of individuals”.

In Europe, things were different. In many countries the civil law, reflecting classical and Christian ideas about human dignity and the common good, had more to say about spousal rights and duties, and envisaged marriage as a community of persons for the nurture of children. As women won equal status during the twentieth century, marriage law was not emptied of content as in the US.

In most modern European constitutions the basic social institution of the family (and often the status of motherhood itself) remained protected, as it had been in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thus, in 1970, the Federal Constitutional Court in West Germany stated:

“The concept of man in the Basic Law [i.e. the Constitution] is not that of an isolated sovereign individual; rather, the Basic Law has decided in favour of a relationship between individual and community in the sense of a person’s dependence on and commitment to the community, without infringing on a person’s individual value.”

Though European countries have since bought into autonomy and individualism, most have far better supports for families. They are also more conservative regarding abortion.

A dignitarian vision of marriage

Glendon pointed out that while American law advanced women’s rights in the sphere of work and public life, it simultaneously devalued women’s role in reproduction and the concrete caregiving work they had traditionally done at home, and which still had to be done by parents – or someone. She wrote, in 1996:

“[In modern times, women] have adapted to that situation in two ways. They are having fewer children, and they are maintaining at least a foothold in the labour force even when their children are very young. But that strategy still does not protect mothers very well against the risk of the four deadly Ds: disrespect for non-market work; divorce; disadvantages in the workplace for anyone who takes time out; and the destitution that afflicts so many female-headed households.”

Having men do half the caregiving and other domestic work, as advocated by mainstream feminists, could never remove these risks because of the deep “asymmetry” (not simply “difference”) between their reproductive roles. Like Mary Wollstonecraft, Glendon advocated not strict equality but, as Bachiochi puts it,

“an equal dignity that admits the special ‘power’ and ‘privilege,’ and ‘disability’ too, of childbearing and childrearing, seeking not the erasure of these facts of life, but a reconciliation of them within reciprocal relationships of mutual respect, interdependence, and collaboration in all realms of life.”

To make this dignitarian vision a reality for women Glendon called for a cultural turn towards the family, in recognition of the fundamental importance of stable, self-governing families to public order and a flourishing society.

As Wollstonecraft insisted: “If you wish to make good citizens, you must first exercise the affections of a son and a brother. This is the only way to expand the heart; for public affections as well as public virtue must ever grow out of private character…”

Familism, communities and society

This would entail a “social ecology” in which smaller groups and systems (“communities of memory and mutual aid”) would play their supportive role in the neglected space between the state and the family or individual.

With others, she proposed to the Clinton administration in the early 1990s that society should:

  • Support infant-parent bonding in the home until the age of one year. This through a combination paid leave (for six months at least) flexitime and work-from-home arrangements.
  • Provide a generous, European-style child allowance, and tax policies which did not favour those who work outside the home.
  • Foster a culture of familism to shore up the essential work parents do and reaffirm the value of children over “excessive careerism or acquisitiveness”, so parents could put their children first.

The aim, here, was not some kind of “work-family balance”, but a fundamental change in the way parents in the workforce – both men and women – are seen: not as employees first and caregivers second, but as caregivers first and employees second. The economy should serve families and not vice-versa.

Coming to the present, the fate of those ideas can be judged, perhaps, by President Biden’s recent (failed) attempt to spend more than $200 billion on subsidising childcare for millions of poor and middle-class families where both parents work, while offering nothing to families who would like to have one parent stay at home with their young children – as many would.

Reimagining feminism

Yes, despite more flexibility in the workplace and diversity in familial arrangements in the direction of “gender equality”, Glendon’s call for a family-friendly culture remains unfulfilled. And some things are worse.

College-educated fathers may be doing a larger share of caregiving and domestic work, but further down the social scale they are often simply missing. More than a third of children in the US live without their father in the home, Bachiochi notes. Marriage rates and fertility are at historic lows, and the happiness of women has also fallen. Where there are two spouses or partners, they often both need to work full-time to keep the small family afloat.

In the face of all this, most feminists remain obsessed with the gender pay gap and abortion rights.

However, there is nothing inevitable about the present, and Bachiochi concludes her historical study of the rights of women by imagining a 21st century feminism shaped by the dignitarian values of Wollstonecraft and Glendon.

The new feminism, while preserving the real gains for women of the last two centuries, would correct mistakes and carry forward the work of harmonising marriage, parenthood and the social and economic equality of women.

Importantly, it would disentangle the sexual revolution from the movement for women’s rights. Given the role abortion has played in enabling the sexual chaos and in delaying proper recognition of the work of the home, repudiating abortion would be a good place to start, Bachiochi suggests.

It’s a big ask, but Bachiochi’s own history is proof that it is possible. She was a pro-choice feminist when, at 20, she read Mary Ann Glendon’s Rights Talk, with its appeal to human dignity as the basis for human rights, and could not shake off its arguments.

Later, when she started her research on theories of women’s rights, she was stunned to discover Mary Wollstonecraft’s view that male chastity was the precondition for equality between the sexes.

There is much, much more in her book, but by bringing the thought of these two women to light for today’s scholars and students, Bachiochi has done them a great service. And the timeliness of her work is only enhanced by the pending Roe and Casey decision, since it lays out the terms of the discussion that should follow.

While Abortion Activists Vandalize Pro-Life Clinics, Senate Dems Want Google to Ban Them

The political and terrorist arms of the American Left are in sync.

A few weeks after the Buffalo mass shooting, another domestic terrorist attack occurred in the upstate New York city. CompassCare, a pregnancy care clinic guiding new mothers away from abortion, was firebombed by the pro-abortion hate group, Jane’s Revenge. The group has been linked to the firebombing of at least two other pro-life offices and organizations last month.

Its threatening graffiti included the warning, “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.”

“We demand the disbanding of all anti-choice establishments, fake clinics, and violent anti-choice groups within the next thirty days,” the Jane’s Revenge communique threatened. “We are forced to adopt the minimum military requirement for a political struggle.”

Since then the abortion domestic terror group has claimed responsibility for more attacks. And Senate Dems appear to be working in tandem with it.

A group of Democratic senators and representatives called on Google to look into search results and ads tied to “anti-abortion ‘fake clinics’” amid a recent report that showed their prevalence in 13 states with so-called “trigger laws” that would almost immediately ban or severely restrict abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Thirteen senators and eight representatives signed a letter to Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google parent company Alphabet Inc., dated Friday in which they highlighted a report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) that showed that in 13 states with trigger laws, searches for “abortion pill” or “abortion clinic near me” showed clinics that did not provide those services 11 percent of the time.

CCDH, as I’ve noted in the past, is a ridiculous organization.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate is a British leftist group run by Imran Ahmed, a former adviser to future London Mayor Sadiq Khan, now operating out of Washington D.C. CCDH Senior researcher Sophie Wilkinson used to write pieces for Vice and The Guardian. Samples include “I Posed as a Man Online for Sex”, “Slutdropping: the Dancefloor Move That’s Bringing Women Together”, and, “I Got My Faeces Tested to See If It’s ‘Super-Poo’”.

Absolutely the folks that Senate Dems should be relying on for intel, instead, they want Google to get rid of pro-life pregnancy centers from its search results.

This is the same agenda as their domestic terrorist allies are following, except they’re using Big Tech allies to do the destroying.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Ho Chi Minh, Che Guevara, Stalin: Leftists Give Away Game with Chants

You Know the Violence Is Wrong — Speak Out and Leave the Left

The FBI opened an investigation into attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and faith-based organizations around the country, after 52 attacks in 46 days.  Last week, Jane’s Revenge – the pro-abortion militant group claiming responsibility for some of the attacks – pledged to step up the violence.  In one incident, two masked individuals broke a window and threw a lit flare into a pro-life state legislator’s office in Washington state.  Why were they wearing masks?  If they were proud of their position, wouldn’t they want the whole world to know who they are?  If they felt compelled to mask up, they must have known what they were doing was wrong.  For its part, the White House has refused to condemn the most recent pro-abortion violence or the assassination attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which makes the White House complicit in the violence, as far as I’m concerned.

Abortion isn’t the only issue provoking attacks from the increasingly violent Left, these days.  A Florida Democrat was arrested and charged with five felonies for threatening to kill Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert.  Republican Congressman Barry Loudermilk received death threats after he was falsely accused of helping January 6th rioters by giving them a tour of tunnels and other key places on Capitol Hill the day before.  The people issuing the death threats didn’t leave their names.  They must have known it was wrong.  A man driving a car with an anti-Trump bumper sticker crashed it into a Trump merchandise store in Massachusetts.

Anti-Trump violence caused YouTuber Keri Smith to leave the Left.  She was troubled by videos showing Leftists attacking Trump supporters.   “There was one video where this mob surrounded this woman, a Trump supporter, and threw eggs at her,” she says. “There was another where they were chasing these guys down the street and throwing bricks at them. They bloodied this guy’s head. This was jarring to me.”  Her friends made light of these attacks, saying things like, ‘Well, some old white men are going to have to die.’” “That was a shock to my system,” she says.  “I started to see all of these think pieces from my social justice echo chamber saying that all Trump supporters are Nazis and that we should not feel empathy toward them,” Smith says.

So she started questioning the Left’s entire belief system.  But when she spoke up, her friends would tell her to sit down and shut up, ‘‘it’s just your white privilege coming through.’

She likens the techniques her Leftist friends were using on her to cult methodology.  Cults control the information environment and tell their members not to investigate anything beyond the slogans the cult gives them.  Everyone in the outside world is wrong. ‘Don’t listen to them, WE’RE your family now, the slogans are all you need.’  Cults also gaslight, that is, try to convince people they’re crazy if they dare to think different – ‘it’s just your white privilege coming through.’  Cults also shun people who try to leave and threaten the members they’ll be frozen out and lose their entire support network if they do.  Keri Smith calls it ‘The Great Unfriending’ where her so-called Leftist friends smeared her online after she spoke up.

This is what thought control looks like.  It’s cult methodology from start to finish.  Keri Smith was a victim of it, until she summoned the courage to leave the Left.  She has a warning for others and offers hope.  “If people don’t speak up in the early stages of an authoritarian belief system, an evil belief system—and I do call it evil—there’s going to come a time when you’re not allowed to speak at all,” she says.  So people trapped in the Left’s authoritarian environment must overcome their fear.  You can do it.  “You don’t have to have a podcast or shout it from a soapbox,” she says. “Just don’t be afraid in your daily life to say what you really think. Then maybe one day you’ll get a message from someone saying, ‘Thank you, I feel comfortable saying this now knowing I’m not alone.’”

If your Leftist so-called friends are doing these things to you, leave them behind and find new friends.  Others have done it before you.  You won’t be the first and you won’t be the last.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEETS:

VIDEO: ‘Policeman Of The Year’ Glorified Hitler, Spread Antisemitism

Police Officer Ismail Quran:

Quran began his journey to becoming a policeman in 2010 with a degree in Criminology from Cleveland State University. In April 2012, he received a Certificate of Completion for the Police Officer Physical Agility Exam from Cuyahoga Community College.  Throughout this period, Quran displayed hatred towards Jews. 

CHECK OUT ISMAIL QURAN’S FULL PROFILE


SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS:

On July 14, 2014, Quran tweeted: “…F**k that Jew. Say something!” His tweet featured an image of Hitler with a caption: “LET ME SALUTE TO HITLER THE GREAT. He said ‘i would have killed all the jews of the world, but i kept some to show the world why i killed them.’”

On October 15, 2015, Quran tweeted: “Lol bum ass Jew tried to intimidate me…don’t try that s**t with me.”

On July 2, 2014, Quran tweeted: “Scumbag Yahoodi [Jew].” The tweet featured a photo of someone wrapped in an Israeli flag.

On September 21, 2012, Quran tweeted: “I’ll beat the hell out of you like I do Nadiah the Jew lol.”

To see more of Quran’s anti-semitic posts, check out his full profile.

CHECK OUT OUR ‘PROFILE HIGHLIGHTS’ TWITTER THREAD

EDITORS NOTE: This Canary Mission column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Jan. 6 Committee Ignores Clear Evidence Of Mass Illegal Voting, Systematically Broken Election Laws

Of course they are suppressing election fraud, it’s the reason there are these show trials at all, that and keeping Trump off the ballot.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: What The January 6 Committee Might Have Been

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi forbade Republican nominees traditionally selected by the House minority leader to serve on the committee.

No speaker had ever before rejected the minority party’s nominees to a select House committee.

Pelosi’s own cynical criteria for Republican participation was twofold: Any willing minority Republican members had to have voted to impeach former President Donald Trump while having no realistic chance of being reelected in 2022.

A real investigation would have ignited argumentation, cross-examination and disagreements – the sort of give-and-take for which congressional committees are famous.

In contrast, the January 6 show trial features no dissenting views. Its subtext was right out of the Soviet minister of Internal Affairs Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria’s credo: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

If Trump was not considering a third run for the presidency, would the committee even have existed?

JAN. 6 COMMITTEE IGNORES CLEAR EVIDENCE OF MASS ILLEGAL VOTING, SYSTEMATICALLY BROKEN ELECTION LAWS

The Jan. 6 Committee completely sidestepped the verifiable evidence of systemic violations of election law, illegal voting, and more.

By: Margot Cleveland, The Federalist, June 17, 2022:

In its attempt to blame former President Donald Trump for the crimes committed on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, House Democrats have spent the week focused on Trump’s unsupported claims of widespread election fraud. The Jan. 6 select committee and the legacy media outlets promoting the show trial completely ignore, however, the verifiable evidence of systemic violations of election law, illegal voting, and the constitutionally deficient execution of the November 2020 election—including issues Trump challenged following the election.

Georgia provides a peach of an example. President Biden won Georgia and the state’s 16 electoral votes by a margin of 11,779 individual votes, but before the state certified the results of the November 2020 election, Trump challenged the outcome, raising several issues both in and out of court. Trump hammered accusations of fraud in Fulton County, claiming counterfeit ballots secreted in suitcases and vote-flipping by Dominion Voting Systems gave Biden the victory. But Trump also contested the Georgia results based on evidence indicating that tens of thousands of illegal votes were improperly counted.

While Trump’s legal team argued illegal votes in some 30-plus categories were improperly included in the final election tally, violations of Section 21-2-218 of the Georgia election code alone closed the gap between the two presidential candidates. That section provides that state “residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election” and “outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, ‘their vote in that county would be illegal.’”

Shortly after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, compared voting records obtained from the Georgia secretary of state’s office with the National Change of Address (NCOA) database. After excluding individuals who moved within 30 days of the general election, Davis “identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.”

Trump highlighted this evidence during a telephone conversation with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. His election lawyers, he said, noted from that data they “have actually hard numbers” of tens of thousands of votes that were counted illegally, and that with the margin of victory less than 12,000, “that in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt.”

The lawyers explained that they “would like to sit down with your office . . . if you are able to establish that our numbers are not accurate, then fine.” While the secretary of state’s representative indicated he was “happy to get with our lawyers and we’ll set that up,” Cleta Mitchell, one of Trump’s election lawyers, told The Federalist that meeting never happened.

“We had tried for weeks to get the secretary of state to sit down with us to review the data,” Mitchell said, noting that Raffensperger just kept saying the Trump campaign’s data was wrong and, “We said, ‘Show us, then, where it is wrong.’”

But instead of meeting, according to Mitchell, the day after their call with the secretary of state’s office, lawyers sent Trump’s legal team “a very nasty letter saying they wouldn’t give us any data until we dismissed all pending litigation.” Then, after Trump’s team dismissed the lawsuit following Senate candidate Kelly Loeffler’s withdrawal of her objections to the Georgia electors and asked for the promised meeting to review the data, the secretary of state’s office withdrew the offer, Mitchell told The Federalist.

While Trump’s legal team was unable to either present their evidence in court or secure a meeting with the Georgia secretary of state’s office to compare the data, Davis continued to pursue out-of-county illegal voting. Last year, Davis told The Federalist that in May 2021, he obtained an updated voter database from the secretary of state’s office and compared that data to the NCOA information he had processed in November.

As I reported at the time: “When Davis ran the data, he found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the secretary of state the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS. Those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.”

Davis’s follow-up analysis provided solid evidence that there were enough votes cast illegally in a county in which the citizens no longer resided to equal the margin separating Trump and Biden. And that was but one category of illegal votes identified by Trump’s legal team.

Mitchell, now a senior legal fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute, told The Federalist that in addition to the individuals who moved out of a county more than 30 days before the election and then voted illegally in their prior county, Trump’s legal team identified an additional 30-plus categories of illegal votes that were wrongly included in the certified totals.

“We never were able to present our evidence to the court, however, because the chief judge of Fulton County, Chris Brasher, failed to appoint a judge eligible to hear the election contest for a month,” Mitchell said.

None of those 30-plus categories involved the Dominion Voting System, claims of counterfeit votes, or ballot harvesting, but concerned specific violations of the Georgia election code. And those numbers far exceeded Biden’s 11,779-vote margin of victory.

Yet the January 6 Committee and their cohorts in the press cast all the challenges to the November 2020 tabulations as crazy conspiracy theories of fraud peddled by Trump to steal the election.

The same anti-Trump media lied about Trump’s telephone call with Raffensperger, falsely telling the country that Trump had “pressured the Georgia Secretary of State’s chief investigator Frances Watson” to “find the fraud,” promising that she would soon be a “national hero.” But two months later, when the transcript of the call was released, it became clear that Trump was speaking of establishing there were 11,780 illegal votes from the various categories identified by his lawyers.

Read the rest ….

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

AG Paxton Successfully Prosecutes Woman Who Pleads Guilty to 26 Felony Counts of Voter Fraud | Office of the Attorney General (texasattorneygeneral.gov)

Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’ (theepochtimes.com)

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.