A record number of Americans are expected to vote by mail in 2020; reaction from Vince Coglianese, radio host and editor at The Daily Caller. #FoxNews Subscribe to Fox News! https://bit.ly/2vBUvAS Watch more Fox News Video: http://video.foxnews.com Watch Fox News Channel Live: http://www.foxnewsgo.com/ FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most-watched television news channel for 18 consecutive years. According to a 2020 Brand Keys Consumer Loyalty Engagement Index report, FOX News is the top brand in the country for morning and evening news coverage. A 2019 Suffolk University poll named FOX News as the most trusted source for television news or commentary, while a 2019 Brand Keys Emotion Engagement Analysis survey found that FOX News was the most trusted cable news brand. A 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey also found that among Americans who could name an objective news source, FOX News was the top-cited outlet. Owned by FOX Corporation, FNC is available in nearly 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.
Tag Archives: Goggle
Belarusian President Claims IMF & World Bank Offered him a Bribe to Impose COVID Restrictions
Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy
Re-Posted Sep 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong
Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko said last month via Belarusian Telegraph Agency, BelTA., that World Bank and IMF offered him a bribe of $940 million USD in the form of “Covid Relief Aid.” In exchange for $940 million USD, the World Bank and IMF demanded that the President of Belarus:
• imposed “extreme lockdown on his people”
• force them to wear face masks
• impose very strict curfews
• impose a police state
• crash the economy
Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko REFUSED the offer and stated that he could not accept such an offer and would put his people above the needs of the IMF and World Bank. This is NOT a conspiracy. You may research this yourself. He actually said this!
Now IMF and World Bank are bailing out failing airlines with billions of dollars, and in exchange, they are FORCING airline CEOs to implement VERY STRICT POLICIES such as FORCED face masks covers on EVERYONE, including SMALL CHILDREN, whose health will suffer as a result of these policies.
And if it is true for Belarus, then it is true for the rest of the world! The IMF and World Bank want to crash every major economy with the intent of buying over every nation’s infrastructure at cents on the dollar!
Interesting claims. They certainly cannot afford countries to buck the trend if they are behind this Great Reset.
There Never Was a “Woods File” Underpinning The Carter Page FISA Application – Here’s How We Know…
September 6, 2020
The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in any FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons, outside fourth amendment protections.
The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. However, in the case of the “missing” or “reconstructed” Woods file used to gain a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page, the overwhelming evidence shows there never was one. The Special Counsel manufactured the appearance of one ex post facto in 2018.
Here’s how we can tell:
♦ FIRST – Common Sense: Recent reports of the DOJ, FBI or NSD “losing” the Woods file are abjectly silly on their face. Given the specific importance of this specific case there’s no reasonable person who would believe such a critical file of underlying evidence would just go missing and have to be recreated by the Weissmann special counsel.
♦ SECOND – Precedent: In the March 30, 2020, memorandum written by the Office of Inspector General after review of 29 DOJ-NSD FISA applications, the IG noted the absence of Woods Files is not an uncommon occurrence. Factually within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA applications. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]
♦ THIRD – How Would They Get Away With That?: To answer that question it is important to remember the DOJ-National Security Division, the entity responsible for the legal assembly of FISA applications, did not have any oversight. In 2015 the OIG requested oversight and it was Deputy AG Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58 page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.
The DOJ-NSD could get away with the lack of legal requirements because there was no entity providing oversight to ensure the completeness of the legal requirements they were supposed to follow. Not coincidentally this is the exact division within the DOJ that weaponized FARA investigations as the justification for political surveillance. [That becomes important later when we get to Carter Page specifics]
♦ FOURTH – Trish Anderson Admission: The Deputy General Counsel for the FBI National Security & Cyber Law Branch (NSCLB), Trisha Beth Anderson, admitted during her testimony to congress that she never verified the existence of the Woods File, nor its content. Anderson stated she never even reviewed the FISA application for appropriate assembly because it came to her from an unusual top-down process.
In front of a joint session of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees on Aug. 31, 2018, former FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson said she was normally responsible for signing off on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications before they reached the desk of her superiors for approval. Anderson said the “linear path” those applications typically take was upended in October 2016, with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates signing off on the application before she did. Because of that unusual high-level involvement, she didn’t see the need to “second guess” the FISA application. (link)
Why did she do this? Trish Anderson disclosed why in her previously hidden testimony to congress (August 2018). [LINK]
Anderson said all FISAs need to be signed off on in the FBI’s National Security Law Branch, where she was assigned at the time. Anderson said she was the Senior Executive Service approver for the “initiation” of the Page FISA, including determining whether there is legal sufficiency.
But Anderson stressed “in this particular case, I’m drawing a distinction because my boss and my boss’ boss had already reviewed and approved this application.” She emphasized “this one was handled a little bit differently in that sense, in that it received very high-level review and approvals — informal, oral approvals — before it ever came to me for signature.”
Anderson said that FISA approvals are typically “tracked in a linear fashion” and that someone in the Senior Executive Service “is the final approver on hard copy before a FISA goes to the director or deputy director for signature.” She said the Page FISA was approved outside regular procedures. (more)
Anderson had signed-off on earlier Page FISA applications because they came to her already signed: ex. by James Comey (FBI) and Sally Yates (DOJ).
“Because there were very high-level discussions that occurred about the FISA,” Anderson said she believed that meant “the FISA essentially had already been well-vetted all the way up through at least the Deputy Director [McCabe] level on our side and through the DAG [Yates] on the DOJ side.” Yates had already signed the application by the time it made it to Anderson’s desk.
When Trish Anderson signed-off on the last Carter Page FISA renewal (June 29, 2017) the Special Counsel was now running the DOJ. Andrew Weissmann, formerly of the DOJ-NSD, was running the special counsel operation. Meanwhile FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was in position and running the FBI.
This was the third renewal where Office of General Counsel (OGC) lawyer Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence to hide that Carter Page was working with, and was a source for, the CIA.
Again, Deputy General Counsel Trish Anderson rubber-stamped the application because it came with pre-approval from above. Anderson never saw, nor questioned, any underlying documentation; or the absence thereof. The lack of supportive documentation, a Woods File, passed her review because the application had pre-approval by her supervisors.
♦ FIFTH – IG Horowitz Provides Cover for Institutional Issues: Within his December 2019, IG report on the four FISA applications, Inspector General Horowitz covers for the issue of missing supportive evidence by saying the customary procedure for the Woods File verification is not needed when the evidence involves a confidential human source (CHS):
This description is entirely consistent with the DOJ and FBI using the Chris Steele dossier as a replacement for the Woods File procedures. Under this sketchy justification Steele would be an FBI confidential human source (CHS). Ergo, the dossier served as the underpinning and the only requirement would be for the application to “accurately reflect what [Steele] told the FBI”. That’s how they pulled this off.
♦ SIXTH –Everyone knew it was BS – AGAIN FARA (Remember, FARA via DOJ-NSD had no oversight) this is part of the corrupt process: Senator Johnson’s FISA timeline, citing page 62 of the IG report, states categorically that FBI HQ ordered the New York Field Office to open a Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) investigation of Carter Page on April 1, 2016, and that the NYFO did so on April 6, 2016.
Since Carter Page’s alleged Russian agent status (“an agent of a foreign government”) is the critical predicate for the original and three renewal FISA applications [core of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation], how can Crossfire Hurricane team maintain they did not open investigation until July 31, 2016?
Carter Page joined the Trump campaign March 21, 2016, eleven days before the order, and ten days after the Buryakov press release identified him to the Russians as the (undercover employee) UCE responsible for burning three of their SVR agents.
Not only is is incredibly unlikely that Page — who was still on the witness list for Buryakov’s prosecution until his sentencing on May 25, 2016 — was thought an appropriate subject for recruitment by the Russians, even after associating with the Trump campaign… but even if he was, the opening of the April 6, 2016, FARA investigation by the NYFO almost four months before Crossfire Hurricane “officially” opened meant the FBI’s investigation into a Trump campaign associate began long before they say it did.
Add to that reality the fact the FARA order likely came from FBI HQ via Bill Priestap, and there is no way the FBI could credibly believe a UCE they knew responsible for burning three SVR agents had been recruited by the same SVR due to his recent association with the Trump campaign. It was all smoke and mirrors.
♦ CONCLUSION: Taking all the above into proper context, when the office of inspector general announced on March 28, 2018, that he was going to review all four of the Carter Page FISA applications; no doubt the office of the special counsel, Andrew Weissmann; who was previously the DOJ-NSD FARA targeting coordinator; moved swiftly to create the appearance of a Woods File where none previously existed. That led to the Woods Procedure justification as stated by the IG.
There never was a Woods File. The FBI and DOJ relied upon the Chris Steele Dossier as the evidence to support the FISA application. Chris Steele was identified as a Confidential Human Source, and his dossier was qualified as a replacement for the Woods File.
That’s exactly what happened. I guarantee it.
Sunday Talks – Trey Gowdy Doesn’t Foresee DOJ Probe Delivering any Legal Accountability for FBI Misconduct…
September 6, 2020
Trey Gowdy appears for an interview with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the latest known information from the background of the John Durham probes into DOJ, FBI and CIA corrupt intent and activity in the “spygate”, Trump surveillance, saga.
Within the interview Gowdy notes he does not expect to see any legal consequences as an outcome of the John Durham investigation beyond the current pleading by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. While Gowdy can be an insufferable voice at times, on this issue and given the nature of the current political calendar, he would appear to be correct.
Gowdy asks the question about where everything started. In the earlier interview with Peter Strzok (CBS), the FBI justification (current narrative) was pointed back to George Papadopoulos and his thin gruel conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.
.
At this point the corrupt DC elements appear to have successfully ran out the clock for 2020; and that is very frustrating from the position of two-tiers of justice.
However, that said there is a possibility more focus on the special counsel operation could lead to some rather eye-opening information. The public needs to know how corrupt the special counsel investigation was; what their exact intents and purposes were; and there is ample evidence mounting.
CBS Interviews Peter Strzok To Set Defensive Narrative…
September 6, 2020
It should be remembered that CBS interfered in the 2012 election by purposefully hiding an interview with President Obama where the former president denied terrorists were involved in the attack in Benghazi, a statement he denied in the 2012 debates. As a result the politics of CBS are very clear in the narratives they choose to advance.
That said, in a heavily edited interview with former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, CBS once again attempts to shape a defensive narrative to cloud the truth of the DOJ and FBI intents within the 2016 election. You’ll note this interview is actually very light on broadcasting the actual interview statements by Peter Strzok because: (a) Strzok has legal risk from any statement; and (b) the intent of this interview is shaping a defensive narrative. WATCH:
.
This interview is frustrating on many levels. First, because it shows how the absence of accountability by current DOJ officials has led to Strzok’s brazen ability to lie publicly. Strzok has no fear in his appearance and is shamefully blame-casting and pushing a justification that is completely devoid from truth.
Secondly, this interview is a direct result of AG Barr failing to aggressively hold these former FBI officials accountable for intentional wrongdoing and purposeful corruption. There is no excuse.
Yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Are Planning to Legalize Abortion Up To Birth
Re-Posted from Just The facts daily By James D. Agresti September 3, 2020
Overview
In the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary, five prominent “fact checkers” are claiming that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris don’t support legalizing abortion up until birth. To reach this false conclusion, these individuals repeatedly use a propaganda technique condemned by George Orwell, the author of 1984.
The resulting misinformation shrouds the policies of Biden and Harris, who are planning to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. This stance is opposed by about 80% of Americans and involves ending the lives of pre-birth humans who have passed the following milestones:
- By 12 weeks, “electrical activity of the nervous system is discernible” and “attempts to suckle” are observed “in utero and in aborted fetuses.”
– Encyclopedia of Human Biology - By 14 weeks, “limb movements … become coordinated.”
– Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects - By 14 weeks, they exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”
– PLoS ONE - By 14 to 22 weeks, “a physiological fetal reaction to painful stimuli” occurs.
– Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy - By 18 weeks, pain sensory receptors spread to “all cutaneous [skin] and mucous surfaces,” and the cerebral cortex has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.
– New England Journal of Medicine - By 20 weeks, he or she “now sleeps and wakes and hears sounds.”
– American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia - By 20 weeks, pre-birth humans look like this:
Conflicting Claims
At the 2020 Republican National Convention, keynote speakers and others stated:
- “Joe Biden supports taxpayer funding of abortion right up to the moment of birth.”
– Vice-President Mike Pence - “Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable—yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth.”
– President Donald Trump - “President Trump will stand up against Biden-Harris, who are the most anti-life presidential ticket ever, even supporting the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.”
– Deirdre Byrne, a Catholic nun, retired surgeon, and retired Army officer - “If you watched the DNC last week,” their “argument for Joe Biden boiled down to the fact that they think he’s a nice guy,” but policies that “allow abortion up until the point of birth are not nice.”
– Ronna McDaniel, Chair of the Republican National Committee
Taking issue with those statements, various fact checkers reported:
- “Biden does not support ‘late-term abortion and infanticide’.”
– Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly of the Washington Post Fact Checker - Trump “mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.”
– Unnamed staff at PolitiFact - “Biden has not explicitly expressed support for late-term abortions.”
– Asma Khalid and Sam Gringlas of NPR - “Democrats generally back abortion rights, but Biden isn’t pushing to allow abortions for any reason up until birth.”
– Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Jessica McDonald, Brooks Jackson and Rem Rieder of FactCheck.org - “Democrats support abortion rights, but that does not mean they call for women to have an unfettered right to terminate pregnancies up until the point of birth.”
– Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times
In support of those claims, these fact checks all use a mix of similar half-truths that lead readers to believe the polar opposite of reality.
The Implications of Roe v. Wade
Biden’s campaign website says that he “will work to codify Roe v. Wade,” the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that struck down the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. This means he will try to pass federal laws that enforce the provisions of Roe instead of relying upon judicial dictates.
Biden’s website also says that he will “appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges” who will uphold Roe. The 2020 Democratic Party Platform embraces the same position.
In and of themselves, these stances constitute support for abortion up till birth because Roe v. Wade:
- mandates that abortion be legal after “viability” when needed to protect “the health of the mother.” Viability, or the stage of development where humans are capable of living outside the womb with medical care, begins around 22 weeks gestation and extends to birth.
- defines the word “health” so broadly that it includes practically anything. Some illuminating examples of what Roe considers harmful to health include the work of “child care,” the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” and “the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child.”
- gives the power to determine what comprises a health risk to anyone who is licensed to perform abortions. It does this by mandating that Roe “be read together” with Doe v. Bolton, a companion case that the Supreme Court issued on the same day. In Doe, the Court ruled that all abortion providers have full authority to decide if an abortion is necessary to protect “health” based solely upon their “best clinical judgment.”
The implications of Roe were made clear by late-term abortionist Warren Hern, author of “the nation’s most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures.” He stated, “I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman’s life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health.”
In direct contradiction to the actual words of Roe, all of these fact checkers allege that supporting Roe does not mean supporting late-term abortions. PolitiFact, for example, writes that the Democratic Party platform “does not address late-term abortion” and that Biden’s goal to codify Roe “would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.”
PolitiFact then casually adds that Roe and “related precedents” require states to allow abortions after viability “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” This is a quintessential half-truth because it fails to reveal that “health,” as defined by Roe, means virtually anything that any abortionist says it means.
The Women’s Health Protection Act
Further proof that Democrats plan to legalize abortions up till birth is found in the text of the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is actively cosponsored by 44 of 47 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and 217 of 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Both the House bill and the Senate bill, which is cosponsored by Kamala Harris:
- would eliminate all “limitations or requirements” on “abortion after fetal viability” if the “treating health care provider” decides that “continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
- defines a “health care provider” to include “any entity or individual” who is “licensed or certified” to perform “abortion services.”
- would overturn more than 400 restrictions on abortion that have been passed by state and local governments since 2010.
The Washington Post Fact Checker is aware of the Women’s Health Protection Act but claims that it would merely prohibit states “from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.” This description is at flagrant odds with the text of the bill, which again, bans states from prohibiting “abortion after fetal viability” when any licensed abortionist says there is “a risk” to the “health” of the mother.
A third line of evidence that Biden, Harris, and other Democrats are intent on legalizing abortion after viability is the enactment of state laws that do just that, along with promises to nullify state laws that limit late-term abortions.
For example, New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law in 2019 that repealed a section of the state’s criminal code which had banned third-trimester abortions except when necessary to protect a woman’s life. In its place, the new law allows such abortions “at any time when necessary to protect a patient’s life or health.”
As a NY State agency explains, the purpose of the bill was to bring the state’s law “in line with” with Roe v. Wade. States such as Rhode Island and Illinois have recently enacted similar laws.
Biden is also on board with this agenda, as his campaign website says that his “Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate Roe v. Wade.”
While she was running for president, Kamala Harris’ campaign website vowed that she “will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from her Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.”
Given that Roe has not been overturned, and the Supreme Court “reaffirmed” its “essential holding” in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, how can states defy Roe? A 2011 New York Times commentary by Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon explains that this is the norm because abortion advocates have decided not to challenge such laws in court.
She writes that “abortion rights groups” have “been wise to avoid” suing states that prohibit “abortion after 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy” because:
- 72% of the public favors “making late-term abortion illegal,” and it is “best” not to tread on this “dangerous political ground.”
- the current members of the Supreme Court might overturn Roe if such a case came before them.
- “recent polls” show “that more Americans now identify as ‘pro-life’.”
Likewise, a 2018 Gallup survey found that 65% of U.S. adults favor making abortion illegal in the “second three months of pregnancy,” and 81% favor making it illegal in the “last three months of pregnancy.”
Yet, NPR misleads their audience to believe the converse by reporting that “a majority of Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.” NPR provides no evidence or link to support his claim.
Downplaying the Number of Late-Term Abortions
Bazelon’s commentary, which provides strategic advice for abortion advocates, stresses that “abortion foes … reduced popular support” for abortion by “making late-term abortion seem as if it were the norm rather than the exception. Yet only 1.5 percent of abortions occur late in the second trimester.”
Four of the five fact checks present that same narrative. PolitiFact, for instance, writes that “late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.” In the context of whether such abortions should be legal, this is a brazen half-truth because it fails to mention that the total number of abortions is so enormous that this small percentage amounts to thousands of late-term abortions per year.
A 2013 paper in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health estimates that “more than 15,000” abortions are performed each year in the U.S. “at 21 weeks or later.” The authors note that this amounts to about 1% of all abortions, “but given an estimated 1.21 million abortions in the United States annually,” “later abortions” add up to “a substantial number of abortions.”
Hence, these supposedly “very rare” late-term abortions are more numerous than incidents that the media portrays as common occurrences in the United States. Examples include:
- the 12,000 murders per year committed with guns.
- the 5,000 Covid-19-related deaths of people under the age of 45.
- the 50 people per year who are executed under the death penalty.
- the 7 police officers per year who are arrested for murder or manslaughter in an on-duty shooting, and the 1–2 officers who are ultimately convicted of such crimes.
Beyond the common arguments of the other fact checkers, the Washington Post adds a unique one to the mix. “Experts told us,” say the Post’s fact checkers, that just because “some Democrats support abortion rights,” this “doesn’t mean they support ‘extreme late-term abortions’.” As proof of this, they name one “expert,” who they describe as “Katie L. Watson, a professor at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.”
That is yet another half-truth because Watson’s official bio reveals that she is not a doctor but “a lawyer” and “bioethicist” who “is currently serving terms on the Board of the National Abortion Federation (NAF, the professional organization of independent abortion clinics) and on the National Medical Council of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”
After whitewashing Watson’s bio, the Post quotes her stating, “That’s like saying everyone who ‘supports’ the Second Amendment ‘supports’ school shootings.” This analogy is inapt because Second Amendment advocates don’t support legalizing school shootings, but abortion advocates do support legalizing abortions.
This follows another attempt by the Post’s Fact Checker to place a veneer of factuality on a pro-abortion talking point. In a fact check published earlier this year, the Post argued that “supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions.” This is akin to saying that “supporting the legalization of rape is not the same as supporting rape.” Or “supporting the legalization of murder is not the same as supporting murder.” Or “supporting the legalization of slavery is not the same as supporting slavery.”
All of the examples above materially differ from saying something like “supporting drug legalization is not the same as supporting drugs.” This is because abortion, rape, slavery, and murder all involve actions that people take against other humans. In contrast, taking drugs is something that people do to themselves.
Summary
George Orwell is the author of 1984, a famed novel that depicts tactics of mass propaganda. In his renowned essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell identified one of these strategies as using words “in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.” Thus, in the writings of fact checkers at NPR, FactCheck.org, the New York Times, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post:
- “not supporting abortions after viability” actually means supporting such abortions if any abortion provider claims it is for health.
- a “health risk” actually means child care, the stigma of unwed motherhood, being the mother of a unwanted child, or nearly anything that any abortionist says it means.
- “very rare” actually means more than 15,000 times per year.
- “favored by a majority of Americans” actually means opposed by 81% of Americans.
- “a professor at a medical school” actually means an abortion industry lawyer.
- “not supporting late-term abortions” actually means legalizing them.
Based on those semantic distortions and half-truths, these so-called fact checkers are claiming that Biden and Harris don’t want to legalize abortions of humans who are capable of living outside the womb. However, an abundance of verifiable facts prove that they clearly do and are planning to pursue this agenda.
Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party
Ends-justify-the-means-mentality is why Democrats are furiously demanding mail-in voting for the November elections
Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By John Eidson —— Bio and Archives—September 4, 2020
As reported in the WSJ article “Heed Jimmy Carter on the Danger of Mail-In Voting,” a bi-2005 partisan commission co-chaired by former president Jimmy Carter determined that mail-in ballots are the greatest source of potential voter fraud.
Opposition to voter ID laws facilitates voter fraud. Despite feigned protests to the contrary, voter ID laws are not racist, nor do they suppress minority voting. How does requiring voters to present a photo ID suppress the ability of any adult citizen to vote? Government-issued photo IDs are easily obtainable by every legitimate voter in America, including those who don’t drive. Virtually every voting-age citizen already has photo identification, yet Democrats aggressively oppose laws that require presenting photo IDs to vote.
Partial list of things that require photo identification
● Driving a vehicle
● Airport check-in
● Hotel check-in
● Hospitals & outpatient testing
● Doctors’ offices
● Social Security office
● Medicare/Medicaid
● Pawn shop transactions
● Federal, state & local courts
● Military bases
● Donating blood
● Volunteering at charities
● Professional applications
● College applications
● Job applications
● Buying a house
● Boarding a cruise ship
● Boarding a train
● Getting a license to hunt or fish
● Buying cigarettes & alcohol
● Opening a bank account
● Applying for credit
● Cashing a check
● Getting a tattoo or body piercing
● Getting a library card
● Visiting Congress
And here’s a list of things that don’t require photo ID (in many Democrat-run jurisdictions):
● Voting
Democrat election official admits rampant absentee ballot fraud
As reported by The New York Post, Manhattan Board of Elections commissioner Alan Shulkin was caught on a Project Veritas undercover video slamming Mayor Bill de Blasio’s municipal ID program as contributing to “all kinds of fraud,” including voter fraud. Here’s more of what Commissioner Shulkin had to say:
● “I think there’s a lot of voter fraud.”
● “There’s thousands of absentee ballots and I don’t know where they came from.”
● “In some neighborhoods they bus people around to vote, they take them from poll to poll.”
● “De Blasio’s municipal IDs can be used for anything, including voting.”
● “The city doesn’t vet people who get ID cards to see who they really are.”
● “Anybody can go in there and say I am John Smith and I want an ID card.”
When Shulkin’s comments were made public, he was told by Democratic Party officials to hit the road.
NYC Democratic Election Commissioner, “They Bus People Around to Vote”
EXPOSED: Nationwide voter fraud operation funded by the DNC
As Bernie Sanders can attest, his 2016 run for the presidency was rigged out of existence by collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, both of which were implicated in a nationwide voter fraud operation. Three weeks prior to the election, investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released two videos of an undercover sting in which high-level Democrat operatives bragged about running a nationwide voter fraud operation financed by the DNC and the Clinton campaign:
● “We’ve been busing in people [illegal voters] for 50 years and we’re not going to stop now.”
●”[We know] this is illegal.”
● “I think backward from how they would prosecute us, and then try to build out a method to avoid [getting caught].”
● “We implement the plan across every Republican-held state.”
● “[Our operation] causes massive changes in state legislatures and Congress.”
● “Hillary knows what’s going on.”
One of the covert operatives caught in the Project Veritas sting is a longtime Democrat named Bob Creamer. Found guilty in 2005 of tax violations and bank fraud, Creamer has been a highly respected player in Democratic Party politics for more than 30 years. Official visitor logs show the convicted felon visited the Obama White House 342 times, including 47 personal meetings with President Obama, a fact that was buried by the mainstream media when O’Keefe’s explosive exposé was released less than a month before the election Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to win.
Voter fraud has become a staple of the modern Democratic Party
Democrats say voter fraud is a myth, and that voter ID laws are nothing more than a racist effort by Republicans to suppress minority voting. In fact, voter fraud is a pervasive, nationwide problem that’s given a wink and a nod at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
In 2013, a Cincinnati Democrat activist named Melowese Richardson was convicted of multiple counts of voter fraud. When released early from a 5-year prison sentence, Richardson was hailed by Al Sharpton as a conquering hero at a “Welcome Home” party held in her honor by Ohio Democrats. That Sharpton publicly hailed Richardson as a hero shows that acceptance of voter fraud extends to the highest level of the Democratic Party. Invited to the Obama White House 61 times, Sharpton was (and still is) one of Barack Obama’s most trusted confidants on race, and his public honoring of a convicted voter fraud felon would not have occurred without the knowledge of President Obama.
In the early 1970s, the post-JFK Democratic Party adopted Saul Alinsky as its most revered political strategist. A Marxist community organizer in Chicago, Alinsky believed that socialists are so morally and intellectually superior that their ideas must prevail at all costs. That ends-justify-the-means-mentality is why Democrats are furiously demanding mail-in voting for the November elections.
Democrats rushing to defeat in the House of Representatives
Trump will certainly relish the challenge to ensure the Democrats lose their majority in the House.
Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By David Singer —— Bio and Archives—September 4, 2020
The Democrats seem destined to squander their overwhelming control of the House of Representatives as they stumble from disaster to disaster—alienating those who had voted for them in record numbers just two years ago.
In the 2018 midterm elections, the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, won control of the House—winning 235 seats to the Republicans 199. The Democrats gained a net total of 41 seats from the total number of seats they had won in the 2016 elections. The 41-seat gain was the Democrats’ largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats. The Democrats won the popular vote by a margin of 8.6% over the Republicans—60,572,245 to 50,861,970—the largest margin on record for a party that previously held a minority in the House. Turnout was the highest for a midterm election in more than a century, with 50.3% of the electorate casting ballots.
Democrats abused their newly gained power to impeach President Trump
The Democrats abused their newly gained power to impeach President Trump in proceedings run in the House by Democrats Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff—when it was abundantly clear from the beginning that there was no possible chance of Trump ever being found guilty by the Senate in any subsequent trial.
The cost to the country in political and financial terms was disastrous.
Both Pelosi and Nadler had previously opposed against taking any such action.
Pelosi had warned against conducting highly partisan impeachment proceedings in March 2019:
“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,”
Nadler had expressed the identical position on December 10, 1998:
“The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in congress of the absolute necessity.
Voters will wreak revenge on those of the 25 Democrat Governors who have allowed their states to descend into battlegrounds of violent demonstrations, arson and looting
There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.”
Voters do not take kindly to politicians acting in this reprehensible manner. There is a political price to pay for such duplicitousness and it will be exacted by the voters at the upcoming House elections.
Voters will wreak revenge on those of the 25 Democrat Governors who have allowed their states to descend into battlegrounds of violent demonstrations, arson and looting—as their citizens see their personal safety and that of their families increasingly put at risk and their businesses destroyed. Their failure to call for Federal help offered by President Trump is a vote loser.
Voters will be equally seeking to get rid of those 35 Democrat administrations running America’s top 50 cities who have failed to instruct their police forces to stop the rioting and mayhem on their streets.
The November elections seem set to see President Trump re-elected for another four years—but he needs to ensure there is a Republican majority in the House and Senate to enable him to keep his promises to the American people.
Trump will certainly relish the challenge to ensure the Democrats lose their majority in the House.
Ignore Mainstream Media, Walk Away From Democrat Hate-VOTE IN PERSON
The president is spot-on about the potential of Democrat fraud in the November election
Folk can get an early perceptive whiff of what is coming down the pike when Fox News sends out its most anti-Trump host, Chris Wallace as a ‘moderator’ in the first presidential debate on September 28, by reading their headlines today and other days ’til then.
No doubt Legend in His Own Mind Wallace will lob softballs at Barack Obama’s former vice president Joe Biden, while trying to blame President Trump for everything going wrong in America—just as Fox did in each and every one of its presidential popularity polls.
Let’s take a gander at today’s headlines, flat-out accusing Trump of election illegalities:
Trump urges voters to check mail-in ballots counted at polls
‘Trump tries to clarify suggestion that voters cast ballots twice, which if done intentionally is illegal’ is the headline on today’s Washington Post.
“Tries to” is the headline’s operative term.
“President Trump on Thursday sought to clarify remarks in which he suggested voting twice, saying in tweets that he was instead urging those who vote by mail to follow up at their polling place to make sure their mail-in ballots have been counted.” (WaPo, Sept. 3, 2020)
But over at left-leaning Fox News, the president is guilty as charged: (Fox New, Sept. 3, 2020)
‘Trump urges voters to check mail-in ballots counted at polls after saying they should try to vote twice’.
Operative term in the Fox News headline “after saying they should try to vote twice”.
“President Trump encouraged voters to make sure “your precious vote has been counted,” a day after he was accused of urging his supporters in North Carolina to commit election fraud by trying to vote twice — once by mail and then again in-person at the polls on Election Day just in case.”
Fox News, Paragraph One.
“He clarified on Twitter that he wanted voters to double-check that their mail-in votes were counted.”
Fox News, Paragraph Two.
“He wants verification”
“Based on the massive number of Unsolicited & Solicited Ballots that will be sent to potential Voters for the upcoming 2020 Election, & in order for you to MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS & IS COUNTED, SIGN & MAIL IN your Ballot as EARLY as possible,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “On Election Day, or Early Voting, go to your Polling Place to see whether or not your Mail In Vote has been Tabulated (Counted). If it has you will not be able to Vote & the Mail In System worked properly. If it has not been Counted, VOTE (which is a citizen’s right to do).” (Fox News)
Following his advice, he said, would ensure “THAT YOUR PRECIOUS VOTE HAS BEEN COUNTED, it hasn’t been ‘lost, thrown out, or in any way destroyed.’”
“His tweets came shortly after a television appearance in which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany insisted that Trump was not calling on voters to break the law. (WaPo)
“The president is not suggesting anyone do anything unlawful,” McEnany said during an appearance on Fox News. “What he said very clearly there is make sure your [mail-in] vote is tabulated, and if it is not, then vote.”
“He wants verification,” McEnany continued. “Democrats want a whole new fraudulent system of mail-in voting never tried before in American history, and what “Democrats are saying to you is, ‘Trust us, but don’t verify.’ What this president is saying is verify your vote.”
“Trump’s comments Wednesday generated enough confusion that the N.C. Board of Elections issued a statement saying that it is a Class 1 felony to intentionally vote twice. The board also noted that it is illegal to solicit someone to vote twice.
Facebook Chimes In
“In a statement, Karen Brinson Bell, executive director of the board, also discouraged voters from coming to the polls on Election Day to verify that their mail-in ballots had been counted. (WaPo)
“The State Board office strongly discourages people from showing up at the polls on Election Day to check whether their absentee ballot was counted,” Bell said. “This is not necessary, and it would lead to longer lines and the possibility of spreading COVID-19.”
“Separately, Facebook announced that it would delete a video of Trump’s original comments.
“This video violates our policies prohibiting voter fraud and we will remove it unless it is shared to correct the record,” the company said in a statement.
“The president, who has claimed that the 2020 election will be rife with fraud and rigged against him because of greater mail-in voting during the pandemic, was asked Wednesday by a television reporter in North Carolina whether he had confidence in the system.
“Let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote. If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote,” Trump said.
Potential of Democrat fraud in the November election
“The president also greeted supporters on the tarmac upon landing in Wilmington, N.C., and made nearly identical comments, encouraging them to send in their ballot “and then go in and vote.” (WaPo)
“So send it in early and then go and vote,” Trump said. “You can’t let them take your vote away; these people are playing dirty politics. So if you have an absentee ballot . . . you send it in, but I’d check it, follow it and go vote.”
“Trump has insisted, without evidence, that widespread mail-in voting, expanded in many states to accommodate fears around the coronavirus pandemic, will result in corruption, miscounting and delays, making it impossible to know who won the November election.”
Remember, this is the media accusing the president of making accusations of vote fraud—in their own words: “without evidence”!
But the president is spot-on about the potential of Democrat fraud in the November election.
Time for the hashtag: ‘Walk away from Democrat & Media Hate—VOTE IN PERSON
Radical Leftist Democrat Coup Attempt #5: Election Fraud
Vote for freedom in November. Do not allow the fifth coup attempt against our duly elected president to succeed
The radical leftist 2020 Democrat tactical political operating principle is, “If at first you don’t succeed, try try again.” The problem, of course, is that for deranged Democrats, that means lying, cheating, and stealing. Let me explain.
The first Democrat coup attempt against duly elected President Donald J. Trump was Spygate – the Obama administration’s false Russia collusion narrative. Coup attempt #1 did not succeed.
The next try was the equally fraudulent narrative that accused President Trump of Ukrainian quid pro quo. Coup attempt #2 did not succeed.
What were the increasingly desperate, deranged Democrats and their globalist handlers supposed to do?
The Ukraine deceit was followed by the third coup attempt – the spectacle of an illegitimate impeachment used as a political weapon to remove President Trump from office. Coup attempt #3 did not work.
Then the communist Chinese got into the act and unleashed the fourth coup attempt against President Trump – the economic bioweapon named COVID19. Even that loathsome coup attempt was not successful.
What were the increasingly desperate, deranged Democrats and their globalist handlers supposed to do?
Voter fraud – of course!!
The fifth and arguably most egregious coup attempt against President Donald Trump is the current campaign to steal the election from him by declaring Trump’s predicted landslide victory in November illegitimate. ILLEGITIMATE???
Yes. Democrats are deliberately prolonging COVID lockdowns to provide the excuse that voters cannot get to the polls and, therefore, require mail-in ballots. The desperate Democrats plan to mail ballots to anyone living in the United States including registered and non-registered voters, dead or alive, citizens and illegal aliens, and people who have moved away and are voting in other states. This will overwhelm the post office with ballots and delay the official ballot count. You get the picture. The Democrat strategy is to delegitimize Trump’s anticipated massive electoral and popular victory in November.
If Joe Biden steals this election the United States of America will cease to exist as we know it
Can’t they just field an electable candidate? No, they can’t because the radical leftist 2020 Democrat party platform is so unacceptably anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-semitic, and anti-family, that the only way they can possibly win is to cheat. The singular benefit of the prolonged Covid lockdowns is that they have provided the American public the opportunity to experience life under radical leftist Democrat rule – and they don’t like it.
Of course the Democrats are aware that demented Beijing Joe Biden is not an electable candidate – he can barely string two sentences together. He cannot hide in his basement forever. Beijing Joe’s running mate, radical leftist Kamala Harris is not electable either. So, what is their alternative? Cheat, of course.
Instead of fielding an electable candidate, the deranged Democrats plan to delegitimize President Trump’s win and install House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as acting president until everything is sorted out. Has the United States descended into a third world nation? The Democrats think so. They believe they can steal power by stealing the election. Their “ends justifies the means” mentality is the foundation of every tyrannical regime on the face of the planet. Voter beware!
If Joe Biden steals this election the United States of America will cease to exist as we know it. The radical leftist Democrats currently dominating the party will collapse the economy and turn our constitutional republic into socialism. But wait – there’s more!
The noisy radical leftist Democrats are the useful idiots of the globalist handlers who finance their campaigns. Once the Democrats have stolen power, the radicals are dispensable and a liability that will be eliminated. Then the globalists will have to duke it out with communist China to see who will dominate the United States of America. Will it be door number 1: the Western globalists and technocrats? Or will it be door number 2: the Communist Chinese?
The fourth coup attempt was an attack on the middle class
In either case, our national sovereignty will be surrendered to planetary governance under the auspices of the entirely corrupt United Nations and its Agenda 2030.
The inscrutable Chinese are not so inscrutable. They fully expect to dominate and rule the world by the 100th anniversary of the communist revolution in 2045. Are you surprised? Don’t be. The will to power has always been part of the human experience. The difference now is that cyberspace has made the world a much smaller place.
The fourth coup attempt was an attack on the middle class. The prolonged lockdowns were designed to create chaos, collapse the middle class, and drive the entire population into permanent cradle-to-grave dependence upon the government – socialism. Here is the problem. Socialism is the stepping stone to communism. Total centralized government is communism, and there is no individual freedom in centralized governance whether it is communist Chinese or the planetary governance of globalism’s UN Agenda 2030.
Americans have been lulled to sleep by a false sense of security. It is time for the sleeping giant to awaken. Those on the left need to understand that there is no place for agitators in the New World Order of planetary government. You think you are resisting?? Think again. You are creating the social chaos required for the globalists to enslave you.
This election is about the sovereignty and future of the United States of America
A one-world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations is a binary socio-political structure. There is the extremely wealthy political elite at the top, and the enslaved population who serve them at the bottom. Nothing exists in between. There is no middle class and no upward mobility in the feudal structure radical leftists are unwittingly helping to create.
Against all odds, President Donald Trump survived the first four deceitful coup attempts against him. Do not let the enemies of America steal this election because it is not about one man. This election is about the sovereignty and future of the United States of America. The enemies of America will do anything and everything to defeat the existential enemy of globalism. President Trump is the unflinching obstacle to their megalomania and unquenchable will to power.
Vote for freedom in November. Do not allow the fifth coup attempt against our duly elected president to succeed.
Centinel2012 