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.


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.


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.

VIDEO: Can Students Name One Good Thing Trump Has Done?

Can Colorado State University students name one Donald J. Trump accomplishment? You might be surprised!

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

Energy & Environmental News [+Video]

Here is the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

Maybe due to the recent US elections, there’s a very high quantity of reports and articles in this cycle. I’ve tried to simplify this by having a special section on Nuclear Energy in this issue of the Newsletter. There are quite a few excellent (and surprising) articles in that part (like this and this), so please check them out.

In my continuous effort to make it clearer to citizens how to succeed in a local wind war, I just added a new page to my website: Winning. Let me know if you have any questions, or suggestions for improvements to that significant page.

I was asked an interesting question: what are some of the better books about the Climate Change issue? I know others have tackled this before, but I thought an update was appropriate — so I put together a list of good book related to this topic. If you have corrections and/or additions, please let me know and I will update.

Speaking of Climate Change, I’m starting the highlights of this Newsletter with a short video from Dr. Jordan Peterson — a phenomena. If you don’t know who this no-hold-barred scientist is, you’re in for a treat and a breath of fresh air.

Some of the more informative Global Warming articles are:

Short Video: Jordan Peterson on Climate Change
IPCC: Where Dictators Overrule Scientists
Report: IPCC SR15 Climate Change Report is Based on Faulty Premises
Moving The Goalposts, IPCC Secretly Redefines ‘Climate’
UN’s Solution to Climate Change: End Capitalism
The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud
3 Surprises About Nobel Laureate Nordhaus’s Model of Climate Change
Levin TV: Dr. Pat Michaels on Global Warming, wind energy, etc.
National Association of Scholars: Making Science Reproducible
The Intrinsic Value of Nature and the Proper Stewardship of the Climate
500 Million Years of Unrelatedness between Atmospheric CO2 and Temps
Video: Is the Global Temperature Record Credible?

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles are:

Federal renewable energy subsidies reduce reliability, hinder the market
BBC Mislead Again — This Time About the Cost of Wind Power
Report: Natural Gas Economics Outshines Solar, Blows Past Wind
The Production Tax Credit: Corporate Subsidies & Renewable Energy
Green Energy Mandates Could Double Your Electric Bills
Former Wind Energy CEO Charged In Million Dollar Fraud Scheme
MA Town Board of Health Says Turbines Negatively Affecting Public Health
New Medical Research: Infrasound Negatively Impacts Heart Health!

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone. Some documents (e.g. PDFs) are easier to read on a computer. We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. The most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

Trump Calls Out Embattled County Election Official in Florida Vote-Count Mess

President Donald Trump is scrutinizing the Florida election-recount process, and he isn’t the only one—largely because of Broward County.

On election night, it appeared likely that Rick Scott, the outgoing Florida Republican governor, had defeated Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson for his seat. It appeared even more likely that Republican ex-Rep. Ron DeSantis defeated Democrat Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, to be Florida’s next governor.

By Friday morning, both Nelson and Gillum were challenging the outcome.

Also still in question is the outcome of the race for the state agriculture commissioner, with the candidates separated by fewer than 500 votes as of Thursday night.

Automatic recounts are triggered under Florida law when the candidates are separated by less than 0.5 percent of the vote. The office of Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, a Republican, will review the returns on Saturday.

Scott’s Senate campaign and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee sued both Broward and Palm Beach counties, seeking to make the counties’ vote counting more transparent and ensure that each is following state election laws. Late Friday, a Florida court ruled in Scott’s favor in the Broward County case.

Nelson’s campaign sued the state Thursday to force a recount. Nelson’s lawyer, Marc Elias, a former attorney for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, called the Senate race a “jump ball.”

“We’re doing it to win,” he said.

Departing the White House on Friday morning en route to Paris, Trump said there “could be” a federal role for sorting out the electoral mess in Florida, when asked about it by a reporter.

He also referenced Brenda Snipes, the supervisor of elections for Broward County—though not by name. Snipes, a Democrat, was most recently re-elected in 2016.

“If you look at Broward County, they have had a horrible history,” Trump said. “If you look at the person, in this case a woman, involved, she has had a horrible history.

“All of the sudden, they are finding votes out of nowhere, and Rick Scott who won—it was close, but he won by a comfortable margin,” the president said of the Republican hopeful’s vote edge. “Every couple of hours, it goes down a little bit.”

As The Daily Signal reported last year, Snipes admitted, in a lawsuit over the county having more registered voters than eligible voters, that noncitizens and felons might have voted.

In May of this year, a state judge ruled that Snipes violated state and federal law when she destroyed ballots from a Democratic congressional primary in August 2016, even though there was a pending lawsuit seeking access to the ballots.

Her office also posted results of an election 30 minutes before polls closed, which was a violation of the law.

Days before the election this year, the Miami Herald ran an article anticipating problems in Broward County, noting Snipes and her background.

“Bad things have gone on in Broward County, really bad things. She’s been to court. She’s had a lot of problems. She’s lost,” Trump said. “I say this: He [Scott] easily won. But every hour it seems to be going down. I think that people have to look at it very, very cautiously. … What’s happening in Florida is a disgrace.

“Go down and see what happened over the last period of time, 10 years. Take a look at Broward County. Take a look at the total dishonesty of what happened with respect to Broward County,” he said.

Scott was also critical of Snipes.

For her part, Snipes told a South Florida ABC affiliate that her office was counting five or six pages for each person who voted by mail.

“It’s a serious issue with me. … We ran 22 sites, we ran 14 days, we ran 12 hours. We had a big vote by mail, so don’t try to turn it around to make it seem like I’m making comedy out of this,” Snipes told a reporter.

The Associated Press reported Snipes said she wasn’t certain how many ballots remain to be counted.

J. Christian Adams, a former election lawyer with the Justice Department and now president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, argued against Snipes’ office in a two-week trial in 2017 in Florida.

“Brenda Snipes is one of the most incompetent election officials in the United States,” Adams told The Daily Signal. “She does a terrible job maintaining the voter rolls and enforcing the voter laws. She has been sued three times in the past two years. It’s astounding to me that she keeps her job.”

In 2014, her office was sued over a confusing ballot layout. In 2016, she was again sued regarding the destroyed ballots. Scott’s legal action marks the third lawsuit against her.

Interestingly, Snipes was first appointed to the post in 2002 after her predecessor, Miriam Oliphant, was removed for incompetence. She has since been elected and re-elected to several four-year terms to the county office.

Ballots were counted slowly every year except for 2008 and 2010 under her watch, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The last time the eyes of the political world were on Florida was after the presidential election of 2000. That’s when Florida recounts and a Supreme Court case decided the presidential contest between then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Republican, and then-Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat.

Still, there’s scant legal comparison between then and now, Adams said.

“I don’t even think there’s any similarities,” Adams said. “In 2000, the question was about the intent of the voter. In these cases, we’re not even there yet.”

During his briefing with reporters Friday, Trump also referenced Nelson’s lawyer, again though not by name, and the connection Elias had with the infamous so-called “Steele dossier,” the unverified opposition research document that suggested ties between Trump and Russians.

Elias works for the Perkins Coie law firm, which retained Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump. That resulted in the document written by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, that became the basis for the federal investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

“Then, you see the people, and they were involved in the fraud of the fake dossier, and I guess I hear they were somehow involved with the [Fusion GPS] people,” Trump said referencing Elias.

Elias, Nelson’s lawyer, bickered Thursday with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Twitter.

Elias also heralded the tightening Senate race.

Gillum, the Democratic candidate for governor, said he is just interested in seeing all votes counted. He previously conceded the race, but subsequently rescinded his concession.

DeSantis, the Republican candidate for governor, who has declared victory, has generally continued acting like the victor, the Associated Press reported.


Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.


Dem-Leaning County in Florida Won’t Meet the Recount Deadline. Here’s What That Means For Voters.

BREAKING: Avis Employee Finds Provisional Ballot Box and Election Signs in Back of Returned Broward County Car (VIDEO)

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Dan Anderson/ZUMA Wire/Newscom.

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.



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.

VIDEO: Jim Acosta Finally Gets What He Deserves

Veteran Navy SEAL and CEO of Contingent Group Eddie Penney joins Bongino to discuss the importance of security in preventing mass killings. Plus, President Trump calls Jim Acosta a terrible person. Does Bongino agree? And, a look at all the progressives who lost the midterms.

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.


  • 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.


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.


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.


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

Suffrage to Suffering: Women Empowered Democrats in Midterms [+Videos]

Well, ladies, you did it again. No, not all of you. But here’s the reality: If only men had voted this election, the GOP would have held the House and picked up some seats. The Senate’s Republican majority would be even greater (than plus six or eight) and the Trump train would be full-steam ahead. But women breaking for Democrats by roughly 20 points made this impossible — and Mad Max (Waters) a committee chairman. Egads!

Here are the stats: Women constituted 52 percent of the electorate and went for Democrats 59-40. Men went for Republicans 51-49. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t the guys’ finest hour, either; when almost half my fellow “men” are voting for the party of irrationality, well, we’re perhaps seeing the consequences of the recent decades’ 30-percent drop in testosterone levels.

Yet this merely reflects a simple truth. Regarding voting, men really stink.

Women stink worse.

For the unacquainted, know that the electoral sex gap (called the “gender” gap by those misusing the quoted term) manifests itself every election. Men went for Trump in 2016 by 12 points; women for Hillary Clinton by 12; Men chose Mitt Romney by eight in 2012; women, Obama by a dozen. Even in the 2010 wave midterm election that vaulted the GOP to legislative power, women supported Democrats 49-48.

As commentator Ann Coulter put it in 2003, “It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in ’64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.” (Video below of Coulter discussing the matter; relevant portion begins at 2:32.)

Another woman thus opining is journalist Megan Fox. Appalled by the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus, she wrote Oct. 6,

“Never have I felt more ashamed of my sex than in the last two weeks watching hysterical harridans trashing tradition, decorum, and common decency.” The performance of these “screeching gorgons,” as she put it, “during this uproarious time has called into serious question their fitness to even participate in any serious matter of state. For the first time in my life, I felt I needed to go back and see what the arguments against letting women have the vote were. I had a sneaking suspicion I might find some sage warnings of what we are witnessing today.”

Fox then presented the following very interesting passage from British politician Viscount Helmsley, articulated during a 1912 parliamentary debate:

The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex….It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life…it is little short of nauseating and disgusting to the whole sex…

Note that this aligns with a principle I promulgated many years ago. It’s a sort of a catch-22 called Duke’s First Rule of Women in Politics:

You can’t find good traditional women in office because good traditional women won’t be in office. They’re at home taking care of children.

This is so universally true that if there is an exception, she’s the one proving the rule.

So why are women empowering leftists? As many have pointed out, including a female writer whose name escapes me, “Women are natural-born socialists.”

This is necessary within the family unit, which reflects very much a socialist model. The children are provided for even if they create little or no wealth, as it’s “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” The governed, the children again, also have no power; they don’t get to vote. They in addition require, especially when young, a “nanny state” to micromanage their lives — to dress them properly; ensure they brush their teeth, exercise manners, eat healthful food, etc. Being detail oriented, most women tend to this beautifully. Is it coincidence that “nanny state” is a feminine characterization?

This mentality is disastrous when applied to the wider society, however. What mature citizen wants to be treated as a child by an actual nanny state?

Yet it’s no surprise that those whose DNA prescribes a (required in the home) nanny-state mentality would empower statists. An aspect of this is that, as I explained in 2011, women are “The Security Sex.” In brief, women are more risk-averse and crave security, for themselves and their children, which is why they’re generally attracted to strong, competent, successful men. Yet insofar as they don’t find this in a man, they look to the state in a vain attempt to achieve this security. This is the main reason why married women vote more conservatively than single women; it’s also one reason why leftists attack marriage.

Principle vs. Preference

John Stuart Mill once wrote, “I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man.” A successful civilization is one of laws, not men; it elevates principle above preference, adhering to principles such as due process, “innocent until proven guilty,” constitutional adherence, etc., even when doing so sometimes displeases the mob (e.g., the Kavanaugh hearings).

Thus is it instructive to note that, roughly speaking, men are creatures of principle, women of preference. Years ago a female writer (whose name also 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, is that boys instinctively reference principles, the objective; fairness is a principle. The girls, of course, are referencing feelings, the subjective.

Now, being emotion-oriented is invaluable when interpreting the needs of infants, who can’t communicate them verbally. Yet the two methods are not qualitatively equivalent within a given context. Emotion is mercurial. Insofar as it influences governance, its inconstancy does violence to the constancy the rule of law requires. “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Interestingly, it appears easy finding support for ending women’s suffrage — even among women — as the below video evidences.

Of course, not understanding the term, the interviewees above associated “suffrage” with “suffering.” While a comical mistake, some may ask in light of recent events: Is the association really all wrong?

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

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Chris Barbalis on Unsplash.

PODCAST: Judicial Watch’s Weekly Update: New Awan Bros Dem IT Suit

Clean House at Justice Department

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has resigned, bringing an end to his controversial tenure as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. He advanced some significant policy advances for the rule of law, but made a terrible mistake in recusing himself needlessly from the so-called Russia investigation. This led to the abusive, unconstitutional Mueller special counsel investigation of President Trump. Frankly, President Trump has been terribly victimized by Justice Department and FBI corruption.

And disappointingly, the Justice Department under AG Sessions was a black hole in terms of transparency. It covered up institutional misconduct and, unbelievably, went out of its way to defend misconduct by Hillary Clinton and other Obama administration officials.

I hope transparency and rooting out corruption and abuse becomes the focus of any new attorney general.

Now that President Trump has removed AG Sessions and appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general, the new DOJ leadership should end the abusive Mueller investigation and finally do a serious prosecution of Clinton’s email crimes and other misconduct.

In the meantime, your Judicial Watch will continue its independent oversight of the Justice Department through its myriad Freedom of Information Act lawsuits on Deep State abuses.

Major New Lawsuit on Awan Brothers Democratic IT Scandal

Of the many bizarre corruption stories in Congress, one of the strangest was the IT scandal in the House of Representatives on the Democratic side of the aisle. This scandal is of heightened public interest now that Democrats have gained control of the House.

As is often the case when the government refuses to fully investigate itself, we have stepped in, filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records of communications relating to the investigation into former Democratic information technology (IT) staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan and Hina R. Alvi (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House’s top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran is “an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems,” and that a server containing evidence had gone “missing.” The inspector general said server logs showed “unauthorized access” and procurement records were falsified.

Imran Awan was Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July, trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

Imran Awan was allowed a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to federal bank fraud, but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan “violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems.”

Color us skeptical that DOJ conducted a full investigation.

In October 2017, I participated in a discussion between House members and experts regarding the Wasserman Schultz/Awan Brothers/IT affair. During this discussion, I stated:

“Frankly when it comes to crimes with a political component, I fear the Justice Department is going to fear to tread. And because of the political nature of what went on (with the Awan family) they’re not going to push the House … and I fear that the Justice Department will be fearful of raising these issues with the House for fear of embarrassing the leadership of both parties … and that’s something we need to push the Justice Department on. That they don’t under-charge or under-investigate this for fear of the consequences that will happen if they push further and find something that no one wants to find, which is a national security threat at our breast here in the House.”

That is why Judicial Watch sued after the FBI failed to respond adequately to two FOIA requests.

The FBI claimed it could neither confirm nor deny records related to the first request, filed on May 26, 2017, seeking:

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, and Hina R. Alvi. As part of this request, searches should of records [sic] should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.
  • All records of communication sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the subjects in bullet item 1.

The timeframe for the requested records is May 2015 to the present.

Further, the FBI claimed that records related to a July 3, 2018, FOIA request were located in an investigative file and exempt from disclosure. That request sought:

  • All records related to any investigations or preliminary investigations involving former congressional IT support staffers Abid Awan, Imran Awan, Jamal Awan, Hina R. Alvi and Rao Abbas. As part of this request, searches of records should include, but not be limited to, the FBI automated indices, its older manual indices, and its Electronic Surveillance (ELSUR) Data Management System (EDMS), as well as cross-referenced files.
  • All records of communications, including but not limited to emails (whether on .gov or non-.gov email accounts), text messages, instant chats or messages on the Lync system, sent to or from FBI employees, officials or contractors involving the Awan brothers, Ms. Alvi and Mr. Abbas. Records of communications searched should include but not be limited to those between FBI officials, employees and contractors and officials with the Capitol Police, the Office of the Inspector General of the House, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House.

It’s time for the full truth to come out about the House Democrat IT scandal, especially with the impending change of power in the House. Let’s hope the new leadership at the DOJ will bring transparency to this case, as well as many other pending FOIA investigations.

President Trump is aware of this strange situation. On June 7, 2018, he tweeted, “Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook. The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a “plea deal” to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!”

“Really bad” is right and Judicial Watch aims to get more of the truth about this major congressional scandal.

Judicial Watch Sues for Docs on Influence Peddling Scandal At Energy Department 

Michael Cohen was a personal lawyer for President Trump from 2006 until President Trump fired him in May 2018, a month after a federal investigation of Cohen became widely public. On August 21, 2018, Cohen pled guilty to eight counts of campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud.

Coincidentally, we have also been looking into a questionable deal involving Cohen, the Energy Department and an investor in a nuclear plant project.

We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Energy for all records of communications relating to Michael Cohen and the application for a $5 billion federal loan guarantee for the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Energy (No. 1:18-cv-02208)). Cohen, who was reportedly offered a $10 million “success fee” and paid a monthly retainer for his efforts on behalf of the Alabama nuclear-power project, never registered as a federal lobbyist.

The suit was filed after the Department of Energy failed to respond to an August 22, 2018, FOIA request for:

  • All records of communications between the Department of Energy (DOE), including oral communications, and Michael Cohen relating to the loan application for the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant.
  • All records of communications between the DOE and Michael Cohen in relation to any other loan application.
  • A copy of and all records related to the application of Nuclear Development, LLC for a loan application relating to the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant in Alabama.
  • A full and complete copy of DOE’s response to an August 9, 2018, letter to Secretary Perry from Senator Ed Markey regarding Franklin Haney, Nuclear Development, LLC, and Michael Cohen.

On August 2, 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin D. Haney, “a major donor to President Trump agreed to pay $10 million to the president’s then-personal attorney [Michael Cohen] if he successfully helped obtain funding for a nuclear-power project, including a $5 billion loan from the U.S. government …” The contract reportedly was given to Cohen “in early April to assist his efforts to complete a pair of unfinished nuclear reactors in Alabama, known as the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant …”

On August 10, 2018, the Washington Examiner reported:

“Cohen was also given a retainer payment for each month of lobbying on top of the $10 million ‘success fee’ for gaining final approval of a $5 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department. Cohen had made calls in the spring to the Energy Department to see if there was any way to speed up the approval process. The agreement between Haney and Cohen was reportedly rescinded, but Markey says the issue warrants further investigation to examine the integrity of the loan guarantee program that Perry oversees.”

Mr. Cohen may have broken basic lobbying disclosure and other laws in setting up a deal to advocate for a loan guarantee from the Energy Department. It is disappointing that the Energy Department is giving us the run around on this simple request, forcing us to go to federal court.

Government Warning: Narco-Terrorism will Worsen Under New Leftist Leader

Mexico held an election this year, too – on July 1 – and the result is not good for the United States, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports. Our border is about to get a lot more dangerous.

The overwhelming majority of illegal drugs in the United States already come from Mexico, and Mexican traffickers are the greatest criminal threat to the nation, but things are about to get worse when Mexico’s new leftwing president takes over. His name is Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known popularly as AMLO), he opposes hardline anti-drug policies and believes in amnesty for drug war criminals.

A State Department document obtained by Judicial Watch warns that Obrador, who takes over on December 1, will seek to decriminalize marijuana and poppy cultivation early in his term. He will also end Mexican military intervention in the drug war and pardon some drug offenders, according to the document which was issued recently by the agency’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and is titled “Mexico’s Drug War & AMLO” and subtitled “Crime; Drug Trafficking; Narco-Terrorism.”

Narco-violence and cartel-associated crime is already one of most dangerous threats against U.S. private-sector interests in Mexico, according to the State Department, and Obrador’s new policies will only worsen the crisis. “The promised amnesty deal with organized criminal groups and the pledge to investigate and prosecute corrupt politicians, many of whom are in business with the cartels, prompts concern about increased impunity for violent offenders,” the new memo states.

It identifies “hot spots” for Mexican Criminal and Narco-Violence and reveals that the drug war and cartel infighting has caused severe, nationwide security repercussions. Five Mexican states (Colima, Guerrero, Michoacán, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas) have such high levels of violence that the U.S. government warns against travel. Common crimes include homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery. “In these states, gang activity, including gun battles, is widespread,” the State Department writes. “Criminal organizations operate freely and sometimes with impunity. Local law enforcement has limited capability to respond to violence in many parts of these states, as criminal organizations have laid territorial claim to significant portions of the region.”

In 2017, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) handled 116 kidnappings in Mexico, 81 for ransoms, and during the 2018 general elections there were 774 attacks against politicians. More than 150 politicians were killed in the attacks, the State Department reveals, and 371 non-elected officials. On election day alone, 138 assaults were reported in Mexico and seven politicians were murdered, compared to nine during the entire 2012 election season. Clearly, our neighbor to the south is a perpetually unstable, crime-infested cesspool. Intra-cartel violence remains the most prevalent type of crime much like an outlaw society taken over by thugs.

“Although Mexico employs strict gun-control laws, criminals are often armed with guns, which has resulted in the increase of homicide incidents in Mexico,” according to the State Department memo. “While most of these homicides appeared to be targeted, criminal organization assassinations, turf battles between criminal groups have resulted in violent crime in areas frequented by U.S. citizens. Shooting incidents injuring or killing bystanders have occurred. In some states, members of these groups frequently maintain roadblocks and may use violence towards travelers.”

It’s difficult to imagine that the Mexican crisis will worsen in a few weeks. For years a variety of government audits have documented that the overwhelming majority of illegal drugs in the U.S. come from Mexico and Mexican traffickers remain the greatest criminal threat to the country. A recent one that comes to mind is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment proclaiming that Mexican cartels are in a class of their own, that “no other group can challenge them in the near term.” The government classifies them as Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCOs) and they smuggle in enormous quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. We’re talking about sophisticated operations that have been smuggling huge amounts of illicit drugs into the U.S. for some time.

It doesn’t end there. The DEA has confirmed that major Mexican cartels are actually operating in the United States. They include the Beltran-Leyva Organization (BLO), New Generation Jalisco Cartel (Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación or CJNG) the Los Cuinis, Gulf Cartel (Cartel del Golfo or CDG), Juarez Cartel, Michoacán Family (La Familia Michoacána or LFM), Knights Templar (Los Caballeros Templarios or LCT), Los Zetas, and the renowned Sinaloa Cartel.

Mexican drug cartels have long benefitted from our susceptible southern border and the situation is more serious than ever because traffickers have joined forces with Middle Eastern terrorists to enter the U.S. Years ago Judicial Watch broke a story detailing how smugglers (“coyotes”) working for the Juárez Cartel help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” also smuggle ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. Judicial Watch’s high-level government sources say these specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

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

Voters Recoil at House Gun Agenda

California’s Nancy Pelosi (D) has been waiting to get her hands back on the House speaker’s gavel for nearly a decade. Now that she might, it’s obvious how she plans to use it: as a hammer on the values of everyday Americans.

Democrats have to know how voters feel about their radical social agenda. (If they didn’t, this week’s polling ought to make it quite clear.) Everyone from party bosses to the mainstream media blamed it for Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016. But with the keys of half of Congress within reach, liberal leaders just can’t seem to help themselves.

Pelosi was already quite clear about one of her first priorities: ending religious freedom and privacy as we know it. “It isn’t in our ‘For the People’ agenda,” she explained, “because it doesn’t get that specific, but there’s one more because it’s personal for me that I really want to do, and it’s called the Equality Act.” Considered the most radical piece of pro-LGBT legislation ever introduced in Congress, this bill would force Americans’ conformity on everything from sexuality to transgenderism. It would make what’s been unfolding in Target bathrooms look like a Sunday school picnic. Under this bill, anyone who objects to same-sex marriage or gender-specific policies would be severely punished by the government. That includes schools, businesses, food banks, adoption agencies, homeless shelters, faith-based ministries, and government offices.

As if that weren’t offensive enough, the prospective speaker wants to give voters a hefty dose of gun control. On CNN Thursday, Pelosi confirmed what most Americans fear. “I do believe, because in this Congress…there is bipartisan legislation to have common sense background checks to prevent guns going into the wrong hands. It doesn’t cover everything, but it will save many lives.” This, she said clearly, “will be a priority for us going into the next Congress.”

In a party that doesn’t know the meaning of the word “moderation,” this kind of ideological whiplash might backfire. It certainly did in 2010 and 2016. When voters entrusted the House to Democrats, it wasn’t an endorsement of their radical social agenda. If you don’t believe me, read the exit polling. Tuesday’s election was as much about the GOP’s inability to get values bills passed as anything else. This is where you will play a critical role in educating your senators, especially Republican senators, that they’re now the firewall between Nancy Pelosi and common sense American values.

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


Florida Dems: Steal Going Strong?

A Washington Post Mortem on SPLC

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

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.


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.

When Corporations Ask You to Vote, Whose Values Are They Promoting?

Last month, Levi’s urged Americans to vote. 2ndVote noticed that their ostensibly neutral ad came just weeks after they put one million dollars into a gun control campaign.

They are one of four companies we want you to know are trying to influence your votes today. Levi’sLyftPatagonia, and Walmart are using their corporate power to put politicians who oppose your values into office.


Patagonia’s endorsement of two liberal Democrats is important for two reasons. First, the company clearly is serious about its environmental values — even though cap-and-trade would devastate the U.S. economy and the Paris climate deal was a bad joke. Second, Patagonia is a direct funder of Planned Parenthood. As we noted late last year:

On his way out the door in early 2017, then President Obama issued an executive order designating the Bears Ears National Monument over objections by the Utah government and congressional delegation. Obama’s order also designated the Gold Butte National Monument in Nevada. The designation, which was essentially a land-grab by the federal government, severely restricts recreational and economic use of the land, such as livestock grazing and timber harvesting.

After President Donald Trump partially reversed course, Patagonia’s founder said he would not “let evil win.” This despite sending tens of thousands of dollars to Planned Parenthood!

Walmart, Lyft, & Levi’s

As mentioned above, Levi’s has urged people to vote with its ad — which, we admit, is pretty slick. However, slickness doesn’t dodge the fact that Levi’s is clearly pushing liberal values. The same is true for Walmart and Lyft, which The New York Times highlighted last month for working with Patagonia and Levi’s (among many other less-political companies) on getting out the vote:

Patagonia, for example, is currently suing Mr. Trump for his decision to shrink the size of several national monuments. Walmart’s chief executive, Doug McMillon, chastised Mr. Trump after Charlottesville. And Lyft made a symbolic $1 million donation to the American Civil Liberties Union after Mr. Trump announced his initial travel ban targeting Muslim-majority countries last year.

Patagonia is shutting its corporate campus and its retail stores in the United States for the entire day. Levi’s is giving corporate employees five hours to vote on Election Day, and retail employees will get three hours. Walmart created a website with resources to help people get informed and to the polls.

And Lyft is providing discounted rides to polling places, and will provide free rides to people in underserved communities, which it is identifying with help from nonprofit organizations including Voto Latino and affiliates of the Urban League.

Here’s the thing: go and vote. Please. All Americans who can legally vote ought to do so, especially if they are educated on what direction in which they want America to go. It is good that employers are letting their employees off of work to vote.

But let’s be real about what these companies want. Lyft is working with the Urban League, organization that support same-sex marriage and sanctuary city policies and opposes the right to self-defense. And Lyft’s donation to the ACLU is hardly “symbolic,” given that the ACLU has declared virtual war on the Trump administration.

So there we are. Please stop reading and go vote. The nation needs your 2ndVote values to influence your first vote.

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is from Shutterstock.

The Women’s March: Racist AND Tactically Stupid

Remember The Women’s March? This was the group that claimed it would unite women against the agenda of President Donald Trump.

So far, they haven’t stopped much. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh won Senate support despite The Women’s March mob. Some of Planned Parenthood’s funding is at risk. And the Affordable Care Act’s abortion laws are finally being followed (the law shouldn’t include any abortions, but at least the Trump administration isn’t forcing pro-lifers to be involved with ACA-related abortion coverage).

In addition to losing, The Women’s March has managed to alienate itself from a goodly portion of…well, women. They haven’t allowed pro-life and conservative women to be in their ranks. By associating themselves with the anti-Semite racist Louis Farrakhan, they’ve lost the support of liberal activist and actress Alyssa Milano. And they’ve bashed white women for their votes.

With all of this “winning” by these radical leftists, we can’t wait to see what comes next. In the meantime, here’s a list of groups which back the Women’s March…and the corporations which send your dollars to them:

Center for Reproductive Rights
Bank of America
General Electric


Greenpeace USA

General Electric

Human Rights Campaign

Bank of America

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense



Bank of America
General Electric

Planned Parenthood

Bank of America

Sierra Club

Bank of America

RELATED ARTICLE: The Myth of Trump and the Women’s Vote

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is from Shutterstock.

ICYMI: Israeli Franchisee Refuses Ben & Jerry’s “Resistance” Flavor

As we noted last week, Ben & Jerry’s is going all-in with the Trump “Resistance.” They’ve named an ice cream “Pecan Resist” and pledged to donate $25,000 each to four liberal activist groups.

But it appears that not everyone tied to Ben & Jerry’s agrees with this decision:

“Ben & Jerry’s Israel is an independent and Israeli company,” it wrote on Facebook. “All of the products sold in Israel are made in a factory located in Beer Tuviya… we buy our milk and cream only from Israeli producers. We have no connection to the decisions made by the global brand, and we don’t get involved in local or world politics.”

Ben & Jerry’s Israel is right to take this tact. One of the groups Ben & Jerry’s is sending money to is The Women’s March. The Women’s March has leaders who support anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and who this week attacked white women who voted for Republicans. One of The Women’s March leaders, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, was jailed in Israel for her role in a bombing in Israel which killed civilians.

2ndVote shoppers can help Ben & Jerry’s Israel take a stand against the corporation’s harmful left-wing hackery. We urge you to give your money to ice cream companies which respect your values. Three companies which 2ndVote ranks as “neutral” on all of our issues are Blue BellBlue Bunny, and Cold Stone Creamery. These companies focus on your customer needs, not impressing leftists who think racism, anti-Semitism, and terrorism are a-okay.

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is from Shutterstock.

The Lessons of the Failed Armistice of 1918

The First World War ended 100 years ago this month on Nov. 11, 1918, at 11 a.m. Nearly 20 million people had perished since the war began on July 28, 1914.

In early 1918, it looked as if the Central Powers—Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire—would win.

Czarist Russia gave up in December 1917. Tens of thousands of German and Austrian soldiers were freed to redeploy to the Western Front and finish off the exhausted French and British armies.

The late-entering United States did not declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungary until April 1917. Six months later, America had still not begun to deploy troops in any great number.

Then, suddenly, everything changed. By summer 1918, hordes of American soldiers began arriving in France in unimaginable numbers of up to 10,000 doughboys a day. Anglo-American convoys began devastating German submarines. The German high command’s tactical blunders stalled the German offensives of spring 1918—the last chance before growing Allied numbers overran German lines.

Watch Victor Davis Hanson’s talk at The Heritage Foundation on the lessons of World War I.

Nonetheless, World War I strangely ended with an armistice—with German troops still well inside France and Belgium. Revolution was brewing in German cities back home.

The three major Allied victors squabbled over peace terms. America’s idealist president, Woodrow Wilson, opposed an Allied invasion of German and Austria to occupy both countries and enforce their surrenders.

By the time the formal Versailles Peace Conference began in January 1919, millions of soldiers had gone home. German politicians and veterans were already blaming their capitulation on “stab-in-the-back” traitors and spreading the lie that their armies lost only because they ran out of supplies while on the verge of victory in enemy territory.

The Allied victors were in disarray. Wilson was idolized when he arrived in France for peace talks in December 1918—and was hated for being self-righteous when he left six months later.

The Treaty of Versailles proved a disaster, at once too harsh and too soft. Its terms were far less punitive than those the victorious Allies would later dictate to Germany after World War II. Earlier, Germany itself had demanded tougher concessions from a defeated France in 1871 and Russia in 1918.

In the end, the Allies proved unforgiving to a defeated Germany in the abstract, but not tough enough in the concrete.

One ironic result was that the victorious but exhausted Allies announced to the world that they never wished to go to war again. Meanwhile, the defeated and humiliated Germans seemed all too eager to fight again soon to overturn the verdict of 1918.

The consequence was a far bloodier war that followed just two decades later. Eventually, “the war to end all wars” was re-branded “World War I” after World War II engulfed the planet and wiped out some 60 million lives.

What can we learn from the failed armistice of 1918?

Keeping the peace is sometimes even more difficult than winning a war.

For an enemy to accept defeat, it must be forced to understand why it lost, suffer the consequences of its aggressions—and only then be shown magnanimity and given help to rebuild.

Losers of a war cannot pick and choose when to quit fighting in enemy territory.

Had the Allies continued their offensives in the fall of 1918 and invaded Germany, the peace that followed might have more closely resembled the unconditional surrender and agreements that ended World War II, leading to far more than just 20 years of subsequent European calm.

Deterrence prevents war.

Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 because it was convinced that Britain would not send enough troops to aid its overwhelmed ally, France. Germany also assumed that isolationist America would not intervene.

Unfortunately, the Allies of 1939 later repeated the errors of 1914, and the result was World War II.

Germany currently dominates Europe, just as it did in 1871, 1914, and 1939. European peace is maintained only when Germany channels its enormous energy and talents into economic, not military, dominance. Yet even today, on matters such as illegal immigration, overdue loans, Brexit, and trade surpluses, Germany tends to agitate its allies.

It is also always unwise to underestimate a peaceful America. The U.S. possesses an uncanny ability to mobilize, arm, and deploy. By the time America’s brief 19-month foray into war ended in November 1918, it had sent 2 million soldiers to Europe.

Had the armistice of November 1918 and the ensuing peace worked, perhaps we would still refer to a single “Great War” that put an end to world wars.

But because the peace failed, we now use Roman numerals to count world wars. And few believe that when the shooting stops, the war is necessarily over.


Portrait of Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Twitter: .

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission. Photo: Stocktrek Images/Cover Images/Newscom.