Obama’s Latest Autobiography Rewrites Israeli History to Make You Hate the Jewish State

/in , , , /by

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of Barack Obama’s presidency, he certainly leads all other presidents in the number of autobiographies he has written, with three compared to a number of his peers who are tied at one. However, his latest one, A Promised Land, is more than just an update on the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of the Most Undeservedly Celebrated Man on the Planet; it’s a full-on apologia for his policies as president, and a program for his impending third term, aka the Biden administration.

The weighty 768-page tome not only tells you more about His Wonderfulness than you ever thought you wanted to know; it also provides a potted Leftist history of Israel that abundantly illustrates how Leftists see our most reliable ally in the Middle East, and why they hate it with such focused laser-beam intensity.

Obama portrays Britain and then Israel as occupying powers in Palestine, without ever explaining who actually owned the land they were and are supposedly occupying. He makes no mention of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As The Palestinian Delusion explains in detail, the Mandate directed the British to encourage “close settlement by Jews on the land” for “the establishment of the Jewish national home.” What gave the League the right to do such a thing? The dying Ottoman Empire had ceded Palestine to the League in 1918. Jews had lived in that land from time immemorial, and it was otherwise sparsely populated. It was a perfect place for the Jews who faced discrimination, harassment and worse in Europe and elsewhere to settle.

Thus the common assumption, which Obama fosters, that the Israelis are illegitimate occupiers of a land that belongs rightly to the Palestinians, founders on the facts. There never was a Palestinian state. No Palestinian king, or emperor, or president. There never was a Palestinian nationality or ethnicity distinct from the nationality and ethnicity of the Arabs of the region. Palestine, like Staten Island or Georgetown, was always the name of a region, not a nation-state or ethnonational home.

Obama also claims that the Jews “organized highly trained armed forces to defend their settlements,” without mentioning that in 1919, a Muslim leader, Amin al-Husseini, a member of a prominent Arab clan in Jerusalem, orchestrated a series of attacks on Jews all over Palestine. The following year, he instigated riots in Jerusalem during Passover. Amid mass looting and rapes, six Jews were murdered and over two hundred more injured. A court of inquiry found that “the Jews were the victims of a peculiarly brutal and cowardly attack, the majority of the casualties being old men, women and children.”

This violence was ongoing. In August 1929 in Jerusalem, rioting Arabs murdered 133 Jews and injured over two hundred more, many in their homes. In Hebron, they murdered another sixty-seven Jews, and in Safed, twenty more. The British government-appointed Shaw Commission found that the riots “took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property.” Obama mentions none of this.

His description of the birth of the State of Israel is no more fair or accurate: “As Britain withdrew, the two sides quickly fell into war. And with Jewish militias claiming victory in 1948, the state of Israel was officially born.”

The “two sides” were actually tiny Israel against the giant massed forces of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. They didn’t “fall into war”; the Arab League declared war immediately after Israel declared its independence. Obama’s use of the term “militias” to describe the Israel Defense Forces is doubtless chosen for its resonance with the right-wing, racist, white supremacist militias that American Leftists hysterically imagine to be stalking the land.

Even worse, Obama claims that “for the next three decades, Israel would engage in a succession of conflicts with its Arab neighbors.” One would get no hint from his account of the fact that Israel “would engage” in all these conflicts not out of some imperialist or supremacist impulse, but because each and every time, Arab forces carried out an unprovoked attack against the Jewish state. But Obama appears determined to portray Israel as the aggressor, trusting in the general ignorance of his readership.

Obama’s animus toward Israel is so great that he even calls the Temple Mount “one of Islam’s holiest sites,” without ever mentioning its central importance in Judaism.

A Promised Land thus includes a concise primer for Leftists to remind them of why they must hate Israel. As Obama’s dotty old puppet prepares to enter the Oval Office, this is not a good sign for America’s alliance with Israel, or for peace in the Middle East.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: At taxpayer expense, Foreign Office is bringing back Islamic State brides from Syrian prisons

France: Four Muslim migrants arrested in connection with Muslim who injured two with meat cleaver in September

Sweden: At least 45 Muslims were supported by welfare payments after they left the country to join ISIS

Popular Muslim preacher Zakir Naik: If you say ‘Merry Christmas,’ ‘you are building your place in hell’

Germany: City posts flag of Syrian jihad terror group FSA in official messages for Muslim migrants

Muslim cricketer: ‘It is written in our scriptures that Ghazwa e Hind [jihad invasion of India] will take place’

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

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States — Constitutional Lawyer

/in , , , , , /by

Reject the six corrupt states because of fraud.

Unclean hands.

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States – Constitutional Lawyer

Ivan Raiklin says Vice President Pence can request states send Electoral College slates that actually reflect the will of the people

By Tom Pappert, National File, December 20, 2020

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States – Constitutional Lawyer

Citing the United States Constitution and U.S. Code, Constitutional Lawyer Ivan Raiklin says it is Vice President Mike Pence’s duty to instruct states to expeditiously send their Electoral College Certificates immediately if they have not been received.

U.S.C. 12 explains that “When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 of this title from any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate … shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate…”

Beyond the allegations and evidence of widespread fraud presented by both President Donald Trump’s legal team and independent lawyers and witnesses across the United States, several states have now sent competing slates of delegates to Washington, D.C.

Additionally, Republicans in Pennsylvania and Arizona have asked the U.S. Congress not to accept the votes assigned by the state’s Secretary of State, suggesting they represent fraudulent election results.

Should Pence take this action, he is then instructed by the law to request these states immediately send accurate Electoral College Certificates before January 6.

Raiklin told National File that Pence will essentially force states to reclaim their Constitutional power to appoint Electoral College votes.

“That forces State Legislatures’ hand,” said Raiklin. “Pence can force the legislatures to reclaim their Constitutional power, hold a session, and appoint the Electoral College votes themselves as the Supreme Court did not address this issue.”

According to Raiklin, the Constitution would allow these states to be completely stricken from the Electoral College if Pence should refuse to accept them, and the number of Electoral College votes required to win would shrink dramatically from 270. President Trump would win under a simple majority of Electoral College votes, 232-227, without any risk of triggering a contingent election.

While many legal scholars have indicated there is ambiguity about how Electoral Votes are accepted, the media has maintained that Biden’s electoral win was secured on December 14, and will be confirmed on January 20. However, Raiklin tells National File he is willing to defend his analysis.

“I challenge any attorney anywhere to fact check this. If you have a different legal analysis, prove it.”

Should Republicans push for a contingent election, President Trump’s victory would again rely on Pence to cast the tie breaking vote after the House and Senate are deadlocked on whether battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin should be stricken from the total. Should neither candidate reach 270 votes, a contingent election would almost certainly see President Trump reelected by a vote cast by individual states, not Representatives, in the House, and Vice President Pence reelected in the Senate.

President Trump and his Republican allies in the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate have been preparing for an Electoral College contest on January 6 that may well lead to a contingent election. According to Raiklin, this would spare the country from this almost wholly uncharted territory.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Pennsylvania Republican State Legislators Push Their Congressional Delegation to Contest Biden Win

/in , , , , , /by

“[W]e the undersigned members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly urge you to object, and vote to sustain such objection, to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.”

Pa. Republican state legislators push their congressional delegation to contest Biden win

Actions stand in contrast to those of Arizona state House Republicans, who on Friday refused to support the request from president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that they challenge the state’s certified slate of electors.

By: Sophie Mann, Just The News, December 21, 2020:

Several dozen GOP state legislators from Pennsylvania have called upon their state’s majority-Republican congressional delegation to challenge Joe Biden’s electoral college victory on Jan. 6, when Congress will meet to certify the results of the election.

“[W]e the undersigned members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly urge you to object, and vote to sustain such objection, to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” wrote the Keystone State lawmakers in a letter to their congressional delegation.

The actions of the Pennsylvania legislators stand in contrast to those of state House Republicans in Arizona, who on Friday refused to support the request from president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that they challenge the electoral slate.

“I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona,” wrote Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers. “It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud.”

Giuliani on the same day reprimanded the legislatures of several key swing states for not fighting hard enough in defense of Donald Trump. He chastised politicians in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin for allowing their respective states’ results to be certified in favor of Joe Biden, despite a consistent refrain from the president, his attorneys, and his loyal supporters that the election was stolen.

“Republican Legislature [sic] let down America. I’m ashamed of them. They completely misled the President and me. All of us Republicans let them know what we think of them,” tweeted Giuliani last week.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Foreign Intelligence Agencies Were Monitoring US Election, Willing to Provide Information to Trump”

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

The Many Glaring Problems with the New COVID Stimulus Package

/in , , , , , /by

After months of backroom negotiations and lobbying, leaders in Congress have finally reached an agreement on a second COVID-19 relief bill. The $900 billion package will likely pass this week.

Here’s a brief overview of what’s in the behemoth package—and a breakdown of the many glaring problems with it.

  • $600 “stimulus” checks for American adults who earned less than $75,000 in 2019 with additional $600 per household for each child
  • A federal $300/week add-on to existing state-level unemployment benefits and a renewal of provisions that expanded unemployment to new groups such as gig economy workers
  • $325 billion in grants and loans for businesses, largely funneled through the Paycheck Protection Program established in the first stimulus effort

The package notably does not include a large, general bailout for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or a COVID-19 liability shield for businesses, a GOP priority.

The below graphic by the Wall Street Journal neatly visualizes where most of this nearly $1 trillion in additional taxpayer money is (ostensibly) going to go.

What I’ve outlined above gives you a good idea of what’s in the package. But to be clear, this is nowhere near an exhaustive list of what’s in the bill. The final legislation is likely to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long.

This brings us to the first glaring problem with this new relief effort. As Rep. Justin Amash has publicly lamented, it wasn’t properly debated or amended by Congress—it was negotiated in backroom meetings by the leadership from both party establishments. Why does this matter? Remember that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to slip $350 million for the 50 richest ZIP codes in America into an earlier version of a second stimulus bill, mostly for rich liberal cities. We cannot trust politicians to dole out nearly $1 trillion in the dark.

Unfortunately, many members of Congress will vote on the package without having actually read it in its entirety.

Suffice it to say this is not a responsible or transparent way to spend nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars. Of course, that’s nothing new.

The first COVID-19 stimulus bill, the $2 trillion+ CARES Act, was corrupted by waste, fraud, and abuse. The federal government sent more than a million stimulus checks to dead people and many more to random European citizens. The expanded unemployment system it created lost more to fraud alone than the entire system paid out in 2019. And the Paycheck Protection Program was “swamped with potential fraud” as tens of thousands of ineligible companies received money and thousands more were overpaid.

None of these problems have been meaningfully addressed by Congress. So this latest stimulus effort just pours hundreds of billions of taxpayer money into fraud-rife programs without addressing the problem.

The third but hardly final glaring problem with this additional “stimulus” effort is the highly dubious effectiveness of its key initiatives.

The way the key relief efforts are structured makes it highly unlikely they will be very effective.

Consider the “stimulus” checks, for example. Congress plans to send $600 to each American adult who earns less than $75,000. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, legislators are using 2019 data to determine income eligibility. That means they’re using pre-pandemic income measures to determine who is eligible and who is not.

So, millions of people who lost their jobs or livelihood due to COVID-19 lockdowns will not receive checks because they did well back in 2019. Meanwhile, many millions of people who haven’t had their incomes disrupted and can comfortably work from home will receive taxpayer-funded “relief” checks.

That’s right: The aid is not targeted at all to actually go to those who need it. But the checks will still stimulate the economy by boosting spending, right?

Well… not really.

The Keynesian notion that consumer spending drives the economy is false.

To use a famous example, this thinking suggests that if a child breaks a store window, this “stimulates” the economy because money must be spent to hire a repairman, who then in turn will go spend that money elsewhere. This is a fallacy, because the money to pay the repairman would instead have been used to purchase something else that actually added value for the shop owner.

In reality, it is investment, not spending, that plays the most central role in economic growth. And investment comes out of savings, because banks loan out deposited money to investors. By definition, arbitrarily increasing spending reduces savings and reduces the pool of money available for investment.

Regardless, it is COVID-19, government lockdowns, and other restrictions that have put a stranglehold on the economy. Putting another $600 in some peoples’ pockets doesn’t change this underlying reality.

“Government checks are only valuable to the extent that there is enough actual ‘stuff’ (goods and services) available for those dollars to buy,” FEE’s Dan Sanchez and Jon Miltimore previously explained. “The more you lock down production, the more our stock of ‘stuff’ will shrink, and the more our living standards will worsen. No amount of zeros added to those government checks can change that.”

So it’s really unclear what good the checks will accomplish, either as a matter of “stimulus” or relief. Other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars and worsening the skyrocketing national debt, that is.

Now onto the federally augmented unemployment benefits. This does actually target money to those in need, at least in large part. However, it does so by explicitly tying that money to unemployment, disincentivizing employment. The original $600 federal supplement meant that 70% of the unemployed could earn more by staying on welfare than by returning to work.

The reduction of the federal benefit to a $300 additional supplement (on top of existing state-level payouts) mitigates, but does not eliminate, this harm. A sizable, if yet undetermined, number of people will still be able to receive benefits that fully or almost fully equal their previous earnings. (Federal minimum wage earners, for example).

Even many Republicans and conservatives have at least touted the bill’s replenishment of the Paycheck Protection Program with several hundred billion more dollars (ostensibly) in relief earmarked for small businesses. However, beyond PPP’s serious fraud problems, its efficacy is seriously in doubt.

The top 1 percent of benefiting businesses received nearly one quarter of the program’s total money, according to the New York Times. The program’s payouts included many suspicious allocations of funds to giant corporations and even politicians’ own business interests. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s business received a PPP grant 7 times greater than the grant received by other similar-sized companies.

The end result was a dysfunction program.

MIT economist David Autor studied the Paycheck Protection Program and concluded that “a lot of [the] cash went to businesses that would have otherwise maintained relatively similar employment levels.” He found that it cost $224,000 in taxpayer expenditure per job preserved, only preserving roughly 2.3 million jobs.

The supposed saving grace of this new stimulus bill is refreshing the PPP initiative with hundreds of billions of dollars in new funding. But the evidence suggests that doing so is more of a political win for politicians than a meaningful victory for taxpayers and struggling small businesses.

The government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

“The truth is that the government cannot give if it does not take from somebody,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once explained. “It is not in the power of the government to make everybody more prosperous.”

So we must keep in mind that whatever benefits do come from this stimulus effort will mean either higher taxes or skyrocketing debt that future generations will have to pay off.

Many voters might understandably be glad that a gridlocked Congress finally “got something done.” Yet the countless glaring problems plaguing this massively expensive effort should temper that optimism. It all offers yet another reminder that when we rely on Big Government solutions, incompetence, inefficiency, and waste are all baked into the cake.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLES:

$900 Billion Stimulus Bill Packed Full of Pork

Giant New Spending and COVID-19 Relief Bill Also Creates 2 New Museums and a Library, References Dalai Lama Controversy

Echoes of the Great Recession in Commercial Real Estate

Part I: Poverty Is a Problem, not Inequality

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

VIDEO: The First U.S. President in my Lifetime to Openly Declare Jesus as ‘The Redeemer’

/in , , , /by

“God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”  – John 3:16

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” – 2 Chronicles 7:14

For the first time in my lifetime I have witnesses a sitting President declare Jesus Christ as our Redeemer.

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus let us not forget that He was the very first Christmas present to the world. Jesus is truly the gift that keeps on giving. For whoever believes in Him shall have life everlasting. What more can one ask for?

WATCH: TRUMP HAILS CHRIST THE REDEEMER: Puts Mary Back in Christmas by TheRemnantVideo.

©Dr. Rich Swier and TheRemnantVideo. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Let us join together in the song ‘Hotel California’

/in , , , , /by

Released in 1976 by The Eagles, “Hotel California” sold 42 million copies worldwide. Downtown Los Angeles typifies what cities in California look like today. After decades of Democrat rule, a third of the state’s residents live in poverty.

When I was a student at Georgia Tech in the mid-1960s, Atlanta was a safe and vibrant city.

Now, after six decades of welfare programs that kill the human spirit and a half-century of the anything-goes ‘sex, drugs and rock & roll’ progressive culture that took America by storm in 1968, Atlanta has changed in dramatically troubling ways.

Like California’s cities, Atlanta has homeless people defecating on public streets and is marked by large pockets of urban decay, where our society’s most vulnerable people endure squalid living conditions in neighborhoods overrun with drugs, crime, poverty and despair. Like other big cities in America, Atlanta has been run exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s.

Finally, in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, let us join together in song once more, this time a rendition about what the party of government dependency has done to one of the most beautiful states in America.

Please join me now in singing California Here I Come.

3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand

/in , , , /by

Dear avocado-toast-eating brethren,

We need to drop Karl Marx like we dropped cable TV.

We’re a generation that’s sick of wars (and threats of wars), mass shootings, and media sensationalism. As the ambassadors of the sharing economy and investors in cryptocurrency, we hold innovation and entrepreneurship in high esteem.

Karl Marx is not who we think he is. His philosophy doesn’t align with our values at all. We need to look to somebody more in touch with what’s important to us — someone like Ayn Rand.

Here are 3 reasons we should kick ol’ Karl to the curb and pick up Ayn Rand instead.

We hate the constant stream of wars the US gets involved in. Whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan, or the threat of the Islamic State or North Korea, we’re just tired of it all. Why can’t everyone get along? Why do we have to topple regime after regime and flex our muscles on Twitter? Don’t even get us started on the mass shootings. It’s 2017, for crying out loud! This violence needs to stop.

If only Karl Marx felt the same way. But unfortunately, he says that the only way to bring about the ideal political state is through violent revolution:

“In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

Oh, brother… Please: No. More. Wars.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, is not a proponent of violence. She says violence should only be a means of self-defense. If someone invades your country, you can retaliate. If someone punches you in the face, you can retaliate. If someone tries to steal your stuff, you can retaliate. But there’s no reason you should employ violence other than if you or your stuff are attacked.

“A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx appeals to your emotional indignation.

I groan every time a Boomer rants about “entitled Millennials these days.” We are not entitled. We are not lazy. And when they try to guilt us into going to church more or playing video games less or buying a house or getting married “while we’re still young?” Puh-lease. Emotional appeals are the worst.

And don’t even get us started on media sensationalism. We’ve had enough of the red, shouting faces, the blatant lying and fear-mongering, the “Wars on Christmas.” The media is constantly trying to pit us against each other.

It turns out that Karl Marx uses the same “Us vs. Them” hysteria as CNN and Fox News. He appeals to pathos and emotional outrage to – like we discussed above – try to get us to start a war.

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

We’re not having any of that though, are we? We’re done being manipulated by outrage and hysteria. It’s time to change the channel to something a little calmer, more grounded, and personally empowering.

Ayn Rand, fortunately, has the peaceful empowerment we’re so desperately missing. While Karl Marx wants you to blame others (the bourgeoisie) for your plights, Ayn Rand wants you to introspect and perhaps reassess your values. Rather than encouraging you to camouflage yourself into a “union of workers,” she wants to empower you as an individual to create a meaningful life for yourself. Mass hysteria, be gone!

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Karl Marx wants mankind to rest on its laurels.

Welp, we’ve got pretty good iPhones, Space X can salvage and relaunch rockets, and thanks to services like HelloFresh and Blue Apron, we no longer have to go to the grocery store. Time to pack up! Call it a day! Everyone, go home! There’s no more need for innovation.

At least, according to Karl Marx.

If Marx had his way, all incentives to improve and create cooler things would be stripped out of our lives along with our private property. Following the logical progression of his communal philosophy, when we’re all slaving away for “the greater good,” and the highest achieving members of society are having the fruits of their labors redistributed to the lowest achievers (insert flashback to the freeloaders of group projects at school), that’s what will happen. Innovation would cease to occur under Marxism.

“The claim that men should be retained in jobs that have become unnecessary, doing work that is wasteful or superfluous, to spare them the difficulties of retraining for new jobs—thus contributing, as in the case of railroads, to the virtual destruction of an entire industry—this is the doctrine of the divine right of stagnation.”

The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand

But with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, our stuff will always remain ours. We don’t have to share our Nintendo Switch with our little sister (who drops her phone 10 times a day) unless we want to. We can rest easy knowing that if we take a big risk (and invest in cryptocurrencies while our parents mutter “Ponzi scheme” under their breath), we have the opportunity for a big reward. And best of all, with Ayn Rand’s philosophy reaffirming our desire to be great and create great things, maybe someday we will have JARVIS, jetpacks, and flying hammocks.

The fact of the matter is that Karl Marx doesn’t align with what’s important to us Millennials. If it were up to him, we’d be starting more violent wars, we’d be widening the gap of distrust between one another, and we’d strip ourselves of all incentives to make the world cooler than it already is. So it’s time we adopt a new philosopher. Let’s look up to people like Ayn Rand.

COLUMN BY

Leisa Miller

Leisa Miller was a marketing coordinator at FEE. Driven by a desire for adventure, she moved to Warsaw, Poland in 2015 to work for a serial entrepreneur she met on the internet. 15 months and several hundred pierogi later, she came back to the States to hone her marketing skills at a tech startup in Charleston, South Carolina, before eventually making her way to Atlanta and joining the FEE team. In her free time, Leisa enjoys listening to 20th century classical music, learning languages, preparing Gongfu style tea, and swing dancing. You can follow her writing and personal projects on her website.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Markets Aren’t about “Using” People. Markets Help People Attain Their Goals

The Pro-Growth Impact of Deregulation

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

School Choice Reduces Teen Suicide, New Study Finds

/in , , , /by

When students who face bullying at their public school can go elsewhere, it literally saves lives.

Elijah Robinson attempted suicide as a teenager. Why? Well, as a queer and mixed-race student, he faced vicious bullying in his public school.

Thanks to a Florida program, he was able to switch schools and attend a private Christian school where he did not face bullying or discrimination. Students at private schools are statistically less likely to have bullying problems. Robinson later concluded, “If I had stayed at my previous school … I honestly think I would have lost my life.”

A new study confirms that Robinson’s experience is not an outlier. It shows that alongside reopening schools, which science shows are not sources of significant coronavirus transmission, school choice policies can help heal the mental health crisis plaguing youth.

This is of crucial importance because adolescent suicide and mental health problems were already major issues before the coronavirus pandemic. Suicides among those aged 10 to 24 spiked 56% from 2007 to 2017, becoming the second-highest cause of death among teenagers and young adults.

Now, with lockdowns and school closures sapping away their social bonds and quality of life, we have witnessed a disturbing rise in suicide and mental health issues among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 1 in 4 young people contemplated suicide during a one-month period over the summer amid the first pandemic peak and harsh lockdowns.

School choice programs can help alleviate this pain and suffering by allowing more young people the educational opportunities that best fit their needs. These policies include the expansion of charter schools and tuition voucher programs that provide low-income families with money to attend private schools.

With those options, families don’t have to remain trapped into sending their child to the local public school by default. So, for students who face bullying or are not at schools that suit their needs, they can go elsewhere. Families who like their public schools and students who are succeeding there are, of course, free to choose to stay put.

The new study shows the benefit that choice brings to those who need it. Authored by the Reason Foundation’s Corey DeAngelis and economist Angela Dills, it provides empirical backing to the intuitive conclusion that school choice can reduce suicide among teenagers.

It concludes that “the estimated effect of a charter school law translates to about a 10% decrease in the suicide rate among 15 to 19-year-olds.” It also finds that 30-year-old adults who had attended private school were 2% less likely to report having a mental health condition.

Why?

“It’s likely that private schools face stronger competitive pressures to provide a safer school environment and improve mental health if they want to remain open,” Dills explained. “Public schools, on the other hand, are more likely to be burdened with government regulations that make it difficult for them to control discipline policy and create strong school cultures.”

These results only supplement the evidence showing that school choice improves test scores and family satisfaction.

The lesson here goes beyond how school choice improves youth mental health, as important as that may be. This study offers yet another demonstration that public policies that embrace competition and choice will always outperform those that force one-size-fits-all solutions.

This article has been republished with permission from the Washington Examiner.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Voltaire Was Right (About Elementary School Pickup Procedures)

Public Schools Are Losing Their Captive Audience of Children

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

Delingpole: ‘I still believe Trump will – and must – win’

/in , , , , , /by

This attempted election theft poses an existential threat to the Republic and, by extension, to the Free World.

I still believe Trump will – and must – win

By James Delingpole, December 21, 2020:

IF A man shoots someone in cold blood having carefully planned the killing for months, and the camera footage, fingerprints, DNA evidence and multiple witness statements all confirm this to be so, is he guilty of premeditated murder?

A lawyer might answer ‘no’, averring that a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But most of the rest of us would answer ‘yes’. Our sense of natural justice tells us that that murderer is a murderer whether or not a judge and jury have formally convicted him. And if that murderer goes unpunished, we don’t shrug our shoulders and go: ‘Ah well. Maybe we’ll have better luck nabbing him the next person he tries to kill.’ Rather we go: ‘This is wrong. This is seriously wrong! This cannot be allowed to stand – and if it does we can never trust the System again.’

This is where we are right now with the US presidential election. Trump clearly won. (Read the Navarro Report.) Yet the System is pretending otherwise. Trump’s lawyers have provided copious irrefutable evidence of concerted and extensively pre-planned electoral fraud which tipped the balance in lyin’, cheatin’, stealin’ Joe Biden’s favour. But rather than acknowledge this shameless crime and redress the injustice, the System has decided it just doesn’t want to know.

The Democrats, the GOP mainstream, Congress, Big Tech, the mainstream media, the state judiciaries, the Supreme Court, even the conservative commentariat: they’ve collectively decided to hand the presidential election to Joe Biden. Not because he actually won (many, if not most, of them know perfectly well by now that he didn’t) but because for various reasons they consider it inconvenient to allow justice to be done.

But if justice isn’t done, what you end up with is injustice. The System may be comfortable with this state of affairs. But I’m not sure we the people will be. At least we shouldn’t be. When 74million Americans vote for a presidential candidate only to be cheated out of their preference by blatant skullduggery, that is not a wrong that can be allowed to go unrighted. It must be contested to the bitter end, even if it means bloodshed, even if it means civil war. Whatever lengths we go to in ensuring that Trump gains his rightful victory will be as nothing to what we’ll have to go through to undo the damage if we’re stupid enough to allow him to lose.

‘Appeasement now, war later’ is how Steve Bannon’s War Room pithily puts it. Bannon – as he has been for years – is dead right. Of course the measures required at this stage to get President Trump his rightful second term will require blood, toil, tears and sweat. But the alternative is – or ought to be – unthinkable.

Let’s allow ourselves briefly to think that unthinkable thing: America’s president will be a corrupt, senile, malleable buffoon in hock to the Chinese Communist Party; his administration will be the most rabidly Left-wing in US history; the Swamp will have been confirmed in its belief that it can do whatever the hell it likes, and the little people be damned; the Republican party will resume its natural state of comprising spineless RINOs scarcely differentiable from their Democrat opponents; the voting system will go unreformed; Big Tech will go unchecked; the economy-destroying, freedom-sapping fake ‘pandemic’ will flourish at the behest of Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the CCP-controlled WHO. And that will just be the beginning. There will be no functioning US democracy left to retrieve by the time Biden and his inevitable near-immediate successor Kamala Harris have spread their rot through the Oval Office. The land of the free and the home of the brave will have become just another satrapy of the globalist elite.

All this is sorely missing from the analyses of those ‘conservative’ commentators who glibly reassure us that it’s all OK, in four years  there’ll be a chance to vote in another Republican, perhaps even the Donald himself. And that in two years, the Congressional elections should provide sufficient checks and balances to curtail the Biden/Harris presidency’s wilder excesses.

Yeah, right. If there’s one thing we’ve learned in 2020, it’s that the integrity of the system – all those checks and balances so thoughtfully and presciently devised by the Founding Fathers – can  be guaranteed only if its constituent parts act in good faith. If the Republican leader of the Senate owes greater fealty to his Chinese business interests than to his president, say, or if seven out of nine Supreme Court justices decide that much as they love the power of their jobs they’re uncomfortable with their concomitant responsibilities, then suddenly all bets are off. The System is broken, perhaps irretrievably so. Time for a new Age of Heroes to ride to the rescue of Western Civilisation at another of its darkest hours.

This is why I still have faith that Donald Trump is going to win his rightful second term as president (and I mean now, not 2024). It’s not that I underestimate the vastness of the forces arrayed against him. Rather it’s that I believe there are enough people out there – from those 74million Trump voters to the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe to the tenacious, fearless, 5-D-chess-playing President himself – who understand that this attempted election theft poses an existential threat to the Republic and, by extension, to the Free World. They will not let this crime happen because they are fully aware that the costs of nipping this globalist coup in the bud now will be as nothing to the costs of dealing with it should these evil-doers be allowed to prevail.

My suspicion is that Trump has known this for years, that he has been preparing for it all along, and that he and his most trusted advisers are simply biding their time before they strike.

If I’m wrong, well, my having been wrong will be the least of my worries and of your worries too. It will be game over for Western Civilisation. And I won’t draw any satisfaction from being able to say ‘I told you so.’

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES: Is the GOP against Donald Trump? Sebastian Gorka speaking at #SAS2020

Redacted Information in Dominion Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped

Trump: ‘We’re Getting Closer and Closer’ to Successful Challenge to Election Results

Wisconsin Judge: ‘Our Court System Has Been Deeply Intimidated by the Left

Dominion Whistleblower Accuses CEO of Lying During Michigan Hearing

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

379,000 Illegal Ballots Were Cast in Michigan; Now Have “Receipts” to Prove it

/in , , , , /by

Peter Navarro Says 379,000 Illegal Ballots Were Cast in Michigan

‘Within Five Seconds,’ Biden Got 141,000 Votes, While Trump Only Got 5,900

By The Election Wiz on December 21, 2020

Last Thursday, Dr. Peter Navarro released an explosive report outlining the fraud in the 2020 election. The report explained how Democrats cheated in the 2020 election in various contested states. Notably however, the report did not include a detailed breakdown of Michigan. At the time of the report, Dr. Narravo explained there was insufficient data to draw estimates of how the various types of irregularities in Michigan translate into possible illegal votes.

This morning, Dr. Navarro joined Steve Bannon’s War Room: Pandemic. During the interview (~48:00 mark), Navarro told Bannon he now has the “receipts” for Michigan. Dr. Navarro explained that Biden’s lead in Michigan is currently alleged to be 154,000 votes.

“My top line number at this point for illegal, possibly illegal ballots, is 379,000,” Navarro said. “That’s more than twice the victory margin,” he continued.

Dr. told Bannon that figure includes about 174,384 ballots that were cast without proper voter ID verification, another 195,000 of “inexplicable vote surges,” and about 9,5000 confirmed dead voters who cast ballots.
The Narravo Report video

Navarro pointed to the timestamped data from the New York Times. He said on November 4, Trump had taken a substantial lead over Biden during a nine hour period. Navarro said that within “five seconds” at around 6:30 am ET, Biden’s vote total “skyrocketed by 141,258 votes.” Dr. Navarro said that vote surge is over 30 times the expected vote count. “Within that same time frame, do ya know how many Trump got? 5,968 [votes],” Navarro remarked.

Dr. Navarro said there was another suspicious dump at around 3:50 am ET where Biden got over 54,000 votes while Trump only garnered about 4,700 votes.

Dr. Navarro told Bannon these new receipts for Michigan show there was a “coordinated” scheme to stretch or break the law by “stuffing the ballot box.”

RELATED ARTICLE: AG Barr: Barr Won’t Appoint Special Counsel to Probe Vote-Fraud Claims or Hunter Biden

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

PODCAST: 2020 Year-End Wrap-Up

/in , , /by

This is my last column for the year as I prepare to enjoy the holidays and rest up for 2021. As has become customary, I’m using this opportunity to review my top essays from the past year.

As you know, I write on a variety of subjects, such as management, systems, technology, social issues, politics, and observations of our changing world. Sometimes my work is instructional and informative, other times it is controversial or humorous. I certainly hope it isn’t boring. By the number of subscribers I have, their comments, and the hits I have on my web sites, I do not believe this is the case.

This has been a fiery political year and, as such, my political columns did very well. Nonetheless, what follows is based on my “hits” on my web pages.

My top columns for the year were:

  1. IN PRAISE OF THE BBQ PIT BOYS – By far, this was the favorite of my readers and I was pleased to see it win, even though I was bit surprised by its popularity. I think it was the subject matter that made it a success, slow cooking, or perhaps the “The BBQ Pit Boys” show itself is so popular, I rode on their coattails. Either way, I was glad to see people enjoy this essay on the enjoyment of BBQ.
  2. WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP LOSES? – This was my most popular political piece, which people are still reading five months after I released it.
  3. AS FLORIDA GOES, SO GOES THE COUNTRY – This was my last column before the 2020 election. In it, I accurately predicted Florida would go to President Trump. I had thought Florida would set the tone for the swing states, and I may still be right, providing we ever find out about the fraudulent voting.
  4. WHO IS REALLY DIVIDING THE COUNTRY? – This was also published shortly before the election. In this one, I contended America hate was not generated from President Trump, as the news media claims, but by the far left instead.
  5. BEWARE OF THE LINCOLN PROJECT – Another political essay which described a group of former “Republicans” bent on seeing President Trump removed from office. These were actually Democrats in disguise.
  6. THE AFTEREFFECTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION – Some predictions of what to expect following the 2020 elections.
  7. THE LOSS OF A SPOUSE – reflections on the pain of losing a spouse, something I experienced not long ago.
  8. I WILL NOT FORGET – written in July, this represented a listing of the accomplishments of the president, as well as the roadblocks thrown up by the Democrats. Something I realized afterwards is that Americans have a short attention span.
  9. ARE WE BETTER OFF UNDER TRUMPONOMICS? – As evidenced by a Gallup Poll in February, the answer is “Yes.”
  10. THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF GEORGE FLOYD – This represented the kickoff to the “Summer of Hate.”

HONORABLE MENTION

  1. AN OPEN LETTER TO GOP CANDIDATES
  2. CAPITALISM VERSUS SOCIALISM: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?
  3. JOE BIDEN’S DILEMMA
  4. 10 TIPS FOR CONFRONTING THE NEWS MEDIA
  5. WHERE DOES THE GOP GO FROM HERE?

I also provide an audio version of most of my columns for those people on the go, courtesy of YouTube. I would like to believe people listen to me at the gym or beach, but more realistically, people tend to tune in while they are traveling or at work. Interestingly, the popularity of my audio segments is not the same as my written columns.

AUDIO SEGMENTS ON YOUTUBE

  1. WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUMP LOSES? – Like the printed version, this was my top political piece.
  2. BEWARE OF THE LINCOLN PROJECT – Also a favorite, just like the printed version.
  3. THE AFTEREFFECTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION – This is still taking hits.
  4. AS FLORIDA GOES, SO GOES THE COUNTRY – a lot of people tuned in to hear my prediction.
  5. UNITY? DON’T MAKE ME LAUGH – Something former VP Joe Biden claims he wants, but people know better.
  6. IN PRAISE OF THE BBQ PIT BOYS – This segment did well, but nothing like the printed version.
  7. WHO IS REALLY DIVIDING THE COUNTRY? – An important piece which did well.
  8. I WILL NOT FORGET! – both the printed and audio versions took the #8 spot.
  9. THE AFTEREFFECTS OF THE 2020 ELECTION – listing predictions pursuant to the election.
  10. THE SUMMER OF HATE – Interestingly, the audio version did better than the printed counterpart.

HONORABLE MENTION

  1. DEMOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLIC: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?
  2. HOW IS THE FIGHT FOR FLORIDA SHAPING UP?
  3. THE SHOW MUST GO ON
  4. WHERE DOES THE HATE COME FROM?
  5. THE IMPEACHMENT CHARADE IS FINALLY OVER

I will be on sabbatical for awhile until I am ready to get back in the saddle. Merry Christmas.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE. These make great holiday gifts!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Open Letter to Florida Senators Rubio and Scott to Contest the Electoral College Vote and the 2020 Election Fraud

/in , , , , /by

Dear Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott,

We haven’t heard from either of you doing anything about the leftist criminal election fraud which has taken place.  Will you do the right thing and join others, like Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz,  in refusing to confirm the Electoral College vote in Congress?

We are urging President Trump to not concede; to stay in the fight against the massive, criminal election fraud which has occurred and to form a 3rd Party if the Obama/Biden Coup is confirmed.

President Donald J. Trump did not lose this election, therefore he must not concede!

We, the 74+ Million Trump supporters know about the massive election and voter fraud that the Obama/Biden Cabal has forced upon the election process and we will continue to fight against it.  We know President Trump won if a fair and legal election process had taken place.

He lived up to every promise made and would not let us become a Socialist State!  We want to Keep America Great and to continue on the  path of always putting America First.

If the Obama/Biden Coup succeeds in stealing this election, then we will urge President Trump to form a Trump Constitutional Party (or some such name) and we will join him right away.  We are very angry at the COWARDLY establishment, elitist, ruling class Republican Party which, with only a few exceptions, has failed to stand with President Trump and support him during this massive, criminal, election and voter fraud that the leftist socialist Democrats and their Chinese Communist Party supporters have foisted upon us.

We are also very disappointed in the 3 of the 5 supposedly conservative SCOTUS Justices who failed to act on the Texas Law Suit joined by 18 other states.  It is very clear that this election fraud situation has negated the votes of the many millions of voters in those states who voted for President Trump and they have Standing to file suit against the criminal fraud that has occurred.

We the people love and stand by our President and are urging him to  stay in the fight. We know the left has been driven by EVIL, HATE and LIES whereas our side is driven by GODLY, Biblical VALUES and TRUTH. Therefore, we know we will triumph in the end. We are proud “Deplorables” and Patriots unafraid to call ourselves nationalists not because we are racist as falsely accused by leftist lies, but because we love our country and want to continue as a nation of laws under a Constitutional Republic as intended by our Founding Fathers and our Constitution.

We are not racists because we put our God and Country first. We will not support Socialism because we believe in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

How about you Senator Scott and you Senator Rubio – what are your positions? 

What are you doing/will you do about this criminal election fraud?

For the 400+ Members of the Conservative WH 912 Group,

Royal A. Brown III, LTC, U.S. Army (Ret.)
President, Winter Haven 912

Should Extremist Content Be Taken Down or Should We Talk About It?

/in , , , , , /by

The hypocrisy of the EU’s new terror content law & free speech stateside.

A recent agreement drafted for the European Union (EU) mandates that social media companies must take down terrorist content within an hour of it being flagged or risk paying enormous fines.

On the face of it, we may automatically agree that this is a good idea considering the fact that propaganda is actually dangerous due to its proven ability to influence people and sway their opinions.

Most of us would also naturally assume that the new rule will apply to ISIS videos, neo-Nazi content and the like.

But will it apply to the Palestinian Authority (PA), which churns out terrorist content on its state-run media channels non-stop for young and old? Or will the PA be given an exemption considering the fact that between 2017 and 2020, the EU’s baseline amount of funding for the PA was $1.57 billion?

Will the law apply to Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and the genocidal content that regularly comes out of its leaders’ mouths? Or will the EU merely condemn such sentiments but look the other way on its social media platforms due to its financial investment of billions of euros in the Islamic Republic in the years since the nuclear deal was signed?

Will it apply to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that most countries in the EU can’t even bring themselves to ban completely, possibly due to the fact that it is an Iranian proxy?

Will it apply to Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who gives cover and funds to Hamas, slaughters Kurds in Syria and incites religious radicalism to the point of worldwide terror? Or does that also fall under “complicated” territory considering Erdogan’s stranglehold on the EU vis-à-vis the immigration/refugee crisis?

Judging from the EU’s tepid response to the assassination of Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani followed by its full-out condemnation of the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, head of Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program, as a “criminal act – not to mention its failure to condemn Erdogan – we already know the answers to these questions.

So a very real question to ask when the dust settles is: Who defines “terrorist content”?

The relative standards of what constitutes terrorist content in our increasingly transactional world not only serves to call out the hypocrisy of this new EU mandate but represents a slippery slope to the rights of free speech everywhere, including stateside.

While Europeans have never enjoyed the freedoms of speech, expression or religion that form the bedrock of the U.S. constitution, a debate over these freedoms are raging in the public sphere in America as well.

Only in our increasingly woke America, where words are now perceived as “violence” (to the degree that students in colleges around the country need “safe spaces” from them), the term “terrorist content” has been largely replaced by “hateful content.”

This, in turn, has prompted ersatz purveyors of American culture to demand that tech companies take down “hateful content” from their platforms.

Take former basketball legend turned cultural commentator Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Speaking without the least hint of irony (he says he’s been commenting about culture and politics for the last 30 years), Abdul-Jabbar wants tech companies to take down content he finds objectionable from celebrities. That content includes everything from conservative ideas to commentary about election fraud to information questioning the safety of the rapidly rolled out and experimental coronavirus vaccine.

“It would be tempting to dismiss this self-mutilation as merely the triggering of overly sensitive ‘cancel culture,’” he says about celebrities like J.K. Rowling who go against the current Leftist groupthink. “But some of this public braying does immediate harm to the foundation of society.”

(Rowling had the temerity to tweet about biological sex being important.)

Ultimately, Abdul-Jabar and many others like him would like to see celebrities like Rowling canceled altogether, so that “their professional legacies could become brief footnotes to the memory of their collection of mason jars filled with their excreted opinions.”

There was a time when cultural purveyors such as Abdul-Jabbar would have been ostracized themselves as extremists due to the centrality of free speech in the American system of liberty, but now they are positioned sturdily in the mainstream.

Take Richard Stengel, President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for U.S.-owned media outlets. Writing in The Washington Post just last year, Stengel argued for making hate speech a crime.

Stengel gets around the sticky issue of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution by presuming to get into the heads of the country’s framers.

“… the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era,” he contends. “The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called ‘the marketplace of ideas’ … [yet] no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood … [how] truth would prevail in a ‘free and open encounter.’”

Ignoring the obvious answer that the country is made up of citizens who are able to think for themselves, Stengel goes on to denigrate the framers’ belief that the free exchange of ideas is “necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy.”

Somehow, he says, even if that “magically” happened in the past, Stengel says it isn’t possible today: “On the Web, it’s not enough to battle falsehood with truth; the truth doesn’t always win. In the age of social media, the marketplace model doesn’t work.”

Stengel then opines that banning hate speech was really the intent of the framers:

“Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination … Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law?

“Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?” he asks.

The ideas of Stengel, Abdul-Jabar and other would-be censors and purveyors of “truth” represent a serious slide into a rabbit hole that historically has been tried and never ended well.

Whether it begins with the hypocrisy of the EU banning “terror content” on social media platforms, the condescending attitude of Stengel toward everyday Americans or the nanny state being proposed by Abdul-Jabar, the endpoint of that route is always totalitarianism.

It’s a sticky issue. Yes, ISIS videos and neo-Nazi propaganda can and should be taken down, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that criminalizing hate speech is a good idea instead of what it really is: a euphemism for silencing our political opponents. Better we should talk “hate” and let truth prevail.

COLUMN BY

Meira Svirsky

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Marginalization to Blame for Islamist Extremism?

From Hater to Hated: The Incredible Story of ex-Neo-Nazi John Daly

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

INFOGRAPHIC: Biden’s 80+ Million Votes Are Impossible

/in , , , , , /by

Yup Eric! This handy graphic going viral on Twitter says it all…

Another bit of evidence to consider….

Any chance that more than 70 million Americans are going to let this go?  Nope!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump To Campaign Again In Georgia

/in , , , , /by

President Donald Trump announced plans for a return to Georgia to campaign for GOP Senate candidates one day before the January 5 runoff election.

“As badly as we were treated in Georgia by the ‘Republican’ Governor and ‘Republican’ Secretary of State, we must have a massive victory for two great people, @KLoeffler & @sendavidperdue, on January 5th,” Trump wrote in a tweet late Saturday night. “I will be having a big Rally for them on Monday night, January 4th. WIN!”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1340520653653458949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1340520653653458949%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2020%2F12%2F20%2Fdonald-trump-campaign-georgia-loeffler-perdue%2F

Despite a series of legal defeats and no significant legal wins in challenges across several swing states, Trump has so far refused to concede the November election to President-elect Joe Biden, instead continuing to insist the election was “rigged” and rife with widespread fraud.

Meanwhile, as Republican Georgia Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue campaign against Democratic challengers Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, Republicans in Georgia have had to walk a fine line between not wanting to cross Trump publicly and also encouraging Georgia voters that their vote matters.

Trump last campaigned in the state on December 5, and pulled back on tentative plans to campaign this weekend at least in part because of continued anger at Georgia’s Republican governor and secretary of state, the New York Times reported.

With 50 seats to Democrats’ 48, Republicans must win one of two Senate seats in Georgia to maintain their slim majority. Loeffler and Perdue both have slim leads over their Democratic opponents, according to the Real Clear Politics average.

COLUMN BY

SCOTT MOREFIELD

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘If You Don’t Vote, They Win’: Mike Pence Addresses Georgians With ‘Doubts About The Last Election’

Nunes Plans Criminal Referrals To DOJ Following Release Of Strzok’s Internal FBI Messages

McCarthy Calls For Entire Intel Committee To Receive Briefing On Alleged Swalwell Spy

WaPo Publishes Cartoon Depicting Republican Lawmakers As Rats Who Tried To ‘Subvert The Constitution’