Sayers caught up with Scott Atlas, a healthcare policy academic from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, who has become the latest lightning rod for the controversy around Covid-19 policy and his support for a more targeted response. Speaking from inside the White House, where he is now Senior advisor to the President and a member of the Coronavirus task force, he does not hold back. He tells us that he is disgusted and dismayed at the media and public policy establishment, sad that it has come to this, cynical about their intentions, and angry that lockdown policies have been allowed to go on so long. He won’t be rushing back to Stanford, where his colleagues have rounded on him, if the President loses in November. KEY QUOTES Why him? I’m a healthcare policy person — I have a background in medical science, but my role really is to translate medial science into public policy. That’s very different from being an epidemiologist or a virologist with a single, limited view on things. Dr Fauci He’s just one person on the task force — there are several people on the task force. His background is virology, immunology and infectious disease. It’s a very different background, it’s a more limited approach, and I don’t speak for him. Herd immunity policy? No. It’s a repeated distortion, lie, or whatever you want to call it… What they mean by ‘herd immunity strategy’ is survival of the fittest, let the infection spread through the community and develop a population immunity. That’s never been the policy that I have advised. It’s never even been discussed inside the White House, not even for a single minute. And that’s never been the policy of the President of the United States or anybody else here. I’ve said that many many times… and yet it persists like so many other things, hence the term that the President is fond of using called fake news. On herd immunity Population immunity is a biological phenomenon that occurs. It’s sort of like if you’re building something in your basement: it’s down on the ground because gravity puts it there. It’s not a ‘strategy’ to say that herd immunity exists — it is obtained when a certain percentage of the population becomes resistant or immune to an infection, whether that is by getting infected or getting a vaccine or by a combination of both. In fact, if you don’t that believe herd immunity exists as a way to block the pathways to the vulnerable in an infection, then you would never advocate or believe in giving widespread vaccination — that’s the whole point of it… I’ve explained it to people who seemingly didn’t understand it; I’ve mentioned this radioactive word called herd immunity. But that’s not a strategy that anyone is pursuing. What is his policy? My advice is exactly this. It’s a three-pronged strategy. Number one: aggressive protection of high risk individuals and the vulnerable (typically the elderly and those with co-morbidities). Number two: allocate resources so that we prevent hospital overcrowding, so that people can be treated for this virus and get the other serious medical care that is needed. Number three: open schools, society and businesses because keeping them closed is enormously harmful — in fact it kills people. Effect of lockdowns We must open up because we’re killing people. In the US, 46% of the six most common cancers were not diagnosed during the shutdown… These are people who will present to the hospital or their doctor with later stage disease — many of these people will die. 650,000 Americans are on chemotherapy — half of them didn’t come in for their chemo because they were afraid. Two-thirds of screenings for cancer were not done; half of childhood immunisations did not get done; 85% of living organ transplants did not get done. And then we see the other harms: 200,000 cases plus of child abuse in the US during the two months of spring school closures were not reported because schools are the number one agency where abuse is noticed; we have one out of four American young adults, college age, who thought of killing themselves in the month of June… All of these harms are massive for the working class and the lower socioeconomic groups. The people who are upper class, who can work from home, the people who can sip their latte and complain that their children are underfoot or that they have to come up with extra money to hire a tutor privately — these are people who are not impacted by the lockdowns.SHOW LESS
Re-Posted from Just Facts Daily By James D. Agresti November 24, 2020
A “fact check” by USA Today is defaming a Ph.D.-vetted study by Just Facts that found non-citizens may have cast enough illegal votes for Joe Biden to overturn the lawful election results in some key battleground states. The article, written by USA Today’s Chelsey Cox, contains 10 misrepresentations, unsupported claims, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.
Furthermore, Facebook is using this misinformation to suppress the genuine facts of this issue instead of honoring its policy to “Stop Misinformation and False News.” Compounding this malfeasance, a note at the bottom of Cox’s article states that USA Today’s “fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.”
#1 Dr. Glen’s Credentials
Starting with the most simplistic falsehood in Cox’s piece, she impugned the character of Dr. Andrew Glen, a Ph.D. scholar who specializes in data analytics and who examined Just Facts’ study and found that it “provides a credible data analysis that supports a strong hypothesis of non-citizens having a significant effect on this election.”
Cox did this by claiming that “though he is attributed as a professor emeritus at the United States Military Academy, an ‘Andrew Glen’ did not appear in a search result on the website for the United States Military Academy, West Point. Glen attended the school as a student, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”
That statement reveals that Cox and her editor were ignorant of the fact that a professor emeritus is one who has “retired from an office or position.” Thus, Dr. Glen would not appear on the webpage of current faculty to which she linked.
Had Cox conducted a proper search, she would have found that West Point’s website lists Glen among a group of professors who wrote a reference work for its Department of Mathematical Sciences.
Cox could have also found proof of Glen’s professorship at West Point via a peer-reviewed journal, an academic book that he coauthored on the topic of computational probability, or the website of Colorado College, where Glen currently teaches.
After reading what USA Today published about Dr. Glen, current West Point adjunct professor Dr. Joseph P. Damore wrote:
I can personally attest to the fact that Andrew Glen, COL USA, ret. was an Academy Professor at West Point. I know, because I was there with him.
And Ms. Cox, to imply that an Iraq war vet, a graduate of West Point, and a retired Colonel from the U.S. Army is somehow lying about his credentials is so egregiously offensive, that it demands your apology.
Instead of an apology, USA Today altered the article 18 hours after publication to remove this attack on Glen without issuing a correction. This is a breach of journalistic ethics that require reporters and media outlets to “acknowledge mistakes” and explain them “carefully and clearly.”
#2 Dr. Cook’s Credentials
Cox also assails the credibility of Dr. Michael Cook, another scholar who specializes in data analytics and reviewed Just Facts’ study. Cook found that the study is “methodologically sound, and fair in its conclusions,” but Cox dismisses him as a “financial analyst, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”
However, Cook’s LinkedIn profile states that he is an “applied mathematician and strategic thinker with experience on Wall Street, scientific research, statistical modeling.” This experience, coupled with Cook’s Ph.D. in mathematics, make him eminently qualified to assess Just Facts’ data-heavy study.
#3 Cook’s and Glen’s Qualifications
Cox also attempts to discredit both Ph.D. scholars by reporting that they “are not election experts.” Given that Cox gives no credence to their reviews of Just Facts’ study, she is overtly implying that they are unqualified to assess it. After reading this, Dr. Cook wrote:
Though I am not an “election expert,” I have training and experience in statistical modeling, statistical inference, and sampling theory, which is the basis of my comments on Agresti’s methodology and approach.
Agresti, the president of Just Facts, is the author of the study.
Dr. Glen replied similarly while explaining the folly of Cox’s argument:
Once elections happen, they leave the academic realm of sociologists and political scientists, and enter the realm of statisticians, data scientists, and operations research. Analogously, biostatisticians are often not medical doctors and yet are of great necessity in studying the effects of public health, disease spread, and drug efficacy.
That a “fact checker” would be unaware of these types of interdisciplinary interactions that are common in scientific and academic fields displays a significant lack of qualification for the job and reflects poorly on the trustworthiness of USA Today.
#4 Voter Registration by Non-Citizens
Cox also mangles the facts about every major aspect of Just Facts’ study. She mainly does this by treating unsupported claims from progressives as if they were facts, while ignoring or dismissing actual facts.
Cox asserts that “only a handful” of non-citizens ever register to vote, and “that’s not going to change an election.” Those words came from a lawyer named Robert Brandon, founder of the left-leaning Fair Elections Center. In the article from which Cox quotes him, Brandon provides no evidence to support this statement. He simply makes it. Yet, Cox accepts this unsubstantiated claim as a fact.
Meanwhile, Cox disregards these rigorously documented facts that appear in Just Facts’ study:
In scientific surveys conducted in 2008, 2012, and 2013, 13% to 15% of self-declared non-citizens admitted that they were registered to vote.
Database matches with voter registration records in 2008 suggest that the true rate of non-citizen voter registration is almost twice what they reveal in surveys.
Without a hint of skepticism, Cox also relies on “a 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a center-left institute” that allegedly shows “few people purposefully register to vote if they are knowingly ineligible.” Written by Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, the report provides narrow, weakly sourced evidence that does not come close to supporting Cox’s broad claim.
For example, Levitt’s first piece of evidence that non-citizens rarely register to vote is a Seattle Times editorial chastising a lone person who challenged the citizenship and voting credentials of 1,000+ people “based on the sound of their name.” Levitt gives the false impression that an investigation was conducted, but the editorial says nothing of the sort. Instead it says that “state election officials are not aware” of such illegal voting, but “that is not to say non-citizens did not vote or that non-citizens should vote.”
Levitt provides another fives examples that suffer from similar flaws, including arguments from silence, references to secondary sources, and the use of narrow probes with no capacity to root out voting by illegal immigrants who use false IDs.
All-in all, Cox does not provide a single fact to support her statement that “few noncitizens register to vote in federal elections.” She merely declares this to be a fact based on the allegations of two progressives—who she selects. Then based on this, she claims that Just Facts’ study “is unfounded.”
#5 Results of the Electoral Studies Paper
Furthermore, Cox misrepresents the results of a seminal 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies. She does this by quoting it out of context to convey the false impression that only “some noncitizens” vote. She never mentions the study’s striking results, which are as follows:
“Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.”
The “best estimate” for the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election is 1.2 million, with a range “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.”
“Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare.
#6 First Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
Cox also tarnishes the Electoral Studies paper, and with this, the reputations of the scholars who wrote it. Once again, she does this by treating unsupported and demonstrably false claims as if they were facts.
Citing an article in Wired magazine, Cox writes: “Michael Jones-Correa, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the study’s critics, told Wired that any responses from noncitizens” in the survey used for the study “were included due to error.”
Neither Cox, nor Wired, nor Jones-Correa present any evidence to support that accusation. Moreover, it is disproven by the fact that the survey posed this question to its respondents: “Which of these statements best describes you? … I am an immigrant to the USA but not a citizen.”
#7 Second Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
Based on the same Wired article, Cox declares that “Jones-Correa also said the sample size is too small for a representative sample of the noncitizen population.” In reality, Jones-Correa makes a different claim (debunked below), but neither Cox nor the Wired reporter seem to understand the difference between them.
Cox’s argument about sample size is based on a puerile notion debunked by a teaching guide for K–8th grade students, as well as other academic sources. Snopes and PolitiFact previously made the same false argument, and for this reason, Just Facts’ study provides a warning about this “mathematically illiterate” claim and a link to the facts that disprove it. However, Cox completely ignores these facts and reports this untruth instead.
#8 Third Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper
The argument that Jones-Correa actually made in Wired is that the survey sample for the study was unlikely to “accurately represent” non-citizens. This has nothing to do with the sample size and everything to do with the fact that surveys can be highly inaccurate if they don’t use random samples of respondents. As stated in the textbook Mind on Statistics, “Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands.”
However, the Electoral Studiespaper directly confronts this issue by “weighting the data” to produce “a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population.” As explained in the academic book Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide, weighting “is one of the most common approaches” that researchers use to “present results that are representative of the target population….”
The book goes on to explain that weighting is far from foolproof, and both Just Facts and the Electoral Studiespaper directly state that. This is one of the reasons why Just Facts refers to its study results as “estimates” five separate times and directs readers to these “possible sources of error, some of which may produce overcounts and some undercounts.”
Nonetheless, weighting is a generally accepted means of making survey data representative, and Cox’s omission of this fact is grossly misleading.
Cox, Wired, and Jones-Correa are not the only ones to spread this half-truth. PolitiFact and Brian Schaffner of UMass Amherst have done the same—despite the fact that the Electoral Studiespaper addressed this issue right from the start. This shows that each of these people and organizations either did not read the full paper, did not understand it, or are deliberately trying to slander it.
#9 Pathways to Illegal Voting
Cox writes that “registrants voting in a federal election supply evidence of their residence,” but “Agresti argues some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” This mischaracterizes the facts on two levels.
First, proof of residency is not proof of citizenship. And as Agresti pointed out in his study and in an email to Cox, “all 50 states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections.”
Second, Agresti does not merely argue that “some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” He provides reams of facts from primary sources showing that:
no state requires anyone to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote because federal courts have stopped them from enacting this requirement.
the vast bulk of illegal immigrants use false identifications that would allow them to vote.
three scientific surveys and database matches with voter registration records show that millions of non-citizens are registered to vote.
Barack Obama stated that there is no effective way to enforce the law that prohibits non-citizens from voting.
The sources cited by Agresti to prove these facts include:
a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation.
a study by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.
a video of California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon stating that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
a video of Obama stating that non-citizens would not be deported if they voted because “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera.”
Yet, Cox describes this stunning array of documented facts with the phrase “Agresti argues” and then rejects all of them in favor of an unsubstantiated claim from a progressive lawyer. That’s not fact checking but propagandizing.
#10 Confirming Fraud
Finally, Cox contests the reality that states have withheld public voter roll data from the Trump administration that could be used to prove how many illegal votes are cast by non-citizens. She does this by linking to a summary of state policies on public access to voter lists. She then points out that “voter information is publicly available” in the battleground states.
This is one of the rare cases where Cox actually presents facts to support her case, but she misinterprets them. She does this by failing to account for the differences between:
a policy summary versus its practical application.
limited public data versus detailed public data provided in a format that can be analyzed to root out illegal votes.
Once again, all of the facts needed to understand these points are documented in Just Facts’ study with links to credible primary sources, including the Federal Judicial Center and a statement from California’s Secretary of State.
Though California is not a battleground state, it provides a crystal clear example of the distinctions that Cox fails to recognize. According to the link she provided, California’s voter rolls are available to “candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State.” Yet, when Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity requested the data, California’s Secretary of State vowed that he would not provide it and promised lawsuits and “opposition at every step of the way” to keep the data from the Commission.
Summary
A “fact check” by USA Today contains 10 demonstrably false claims that smear a range of scholars and denigrate a rigorously documented study as “unfounded.”
Facebook partly funded this defamatory work and then notified Just Facts that Facebook is:
placing a label on Just Facts Facebook post for the study that states: “Independent fact-checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people.”
reducing the reach of the post.
counting this post as a “Page Quality Violation” against Just Facts.
Just Facts posed these three questions to Facebook about its so-called “independent third-party fact-checking organizations” and is awaiting a reply:
Given that Facebook has hand-selected these organizations to be the judges of truth on your platform, do you hold them to actionable standards and count quality violations against them?
If so, what exactly are these standards and the repercussions for violating them?
If not, why are you vesting certain people with unchecked authority to use Facebook to censor others, sow misinformation, and slander the reputations of scholars?
Is Fox News now trying to put their words into Rush Limbaugh’s mouth?
Is Fox News taking Limbaugh’s take on President Donald Trump’s legal team press conference out if context?
Is the same network whose super star Tucker Carlson only last week attacked Attorney Sidney Powell who wanted to take evidence of Election Fraud to court rather than give an exclusive to him, now using Rush Limbaugh for backup?
‘Live Updates: Trump’s legal team criticized by Rush Limbaugh’
Take a look at Fox News’ front page report on the matter today:
‘Live Updates: Trump’s legal team criticized by Rush Limbaugh-Fox News, Nov. 23, 2020.
“Rush Limbaugh knocked President Trump’s legal team for underdelivering at last week’s widely-hyped press conference alleging widespread voter fraud that stole a “landslide” victory from their client.
“During his radio show on Monday, Limbaugh began by knocking the legal team’s efforts to distance itself from Attorney Sidney Powell, telling his listeners “It’s a tough thing to deny that she was ever a part of it because they introduced her as part of it. I mean, she was at that press conference last week.”
“The problem with that press conference last week, folks, it goes way beyond Sidney Powell,” Limbaugh said. “You call a gigantic press conference like that, one that lasts an hour, and you announce massive bombshells, then you better have some bombshells,” said the syndicated host who is heard on nearly 600 stations.”
Nowhere in the transcript from yesterday’s Limbaugh show does the talk show radio giant knock President Trump’s legal team “for underdelivering at last week’s widely-hyped press conference alleging widespread voter fraud that stole a “landslide” victory from their client.”
“Underdelivering” is Fox’s word and not Limbaugh’s.
In fact the word originates in Fox News’ “Live Updates”. There’s no byline on the Fox story because this time it came directly from Mother Ship Fox News.
Is Fox News so desperate to save face from a mega ratings fall that they would try to put their own words into Rush Limbaugh’s mouth?
Did the PR company that Fox hired to pick the network up from its freefall that saw them plunge from No 1 Cable News network to No. 3, while still spiralling downward?
One thing for sure, el Rushbo, who has no problem speaking for himself and who is a passionate supporter of President Trump, is bound to respond to the Fox story on today’s radio show; bound to set the record straight.
Tune in today to hear what Rush really said yesterday.
The old saying, I love NY, has turned into – Get Out of NY While You Can! The Number of people leaving NYC is alarming. Anyone who has pretty much seen their jobs vanish or no longer have to go to the office is leaving. I got a call from an Investment Banker I know who works at one of the top banks in NYC asking me if I wanted to have dinner. I said sure. I thought they were in town just to get away from NYC. To my shock, they moved to Florida because they no longer make the commute to the office.
The side-effect of this lockdown in New York City will devastate their tax revenue. If only 8% of the people have returned to their offices and the “new norm” is to be working remotely, then they no longer need to work in New York City.
COMMENT: You only support Trump. Get back to reality.
GA
REPLY: Your hatred for Trump will be your undoing. I do NOT believe Trump will reverse the election. This election has been so corrupt it will go down in history. But Trump will never be able to prove that in time. Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of BigTech you either support or are ignorant of, will show you how little the Constitution will protect you. Zuckerberg had funded $400 million to the Democrats to overthrow Trump. If you think the New World Order was just a joke, wait until you see the Great Reset. There is a risk that the election for the Senate in Georgia will be rigged and if they succeed in that, you will have nothing left. This is a global agenda. Shame you are so ignorant of what is unfolding internationally. But they counted on people like you who will never look.
This is such a global coup, that we will be plunged in USA into a civil war. Perhaps you cannot read or think it is just a coincidence that all world leaders are preaching “build back better” which is a slogan you find at the World Economic Forum.
Enjoy your holiday sitting home during lockdown because Biden will use the executive powers to overrule all states and force them to lockdown destroying businesses. One of the Supreme Court judges in Britain called the actions illegal and the government has become a “control freak” and I am sure you will cheer when the Democrats strip the Supreme Court of any power to rule on specific issues. A bunch of rich people puts up the money to keep a barbershop open despite it has lost its customers after 75 years simply because it was a legend. You have never bothered to look at the protests in Europe or the new laws where the police no longer need warrants to burst into your home under the pretense of COVID.
I hope you have no family so your grandchildren will not have to know that your personal hatred of one man led you to surrender the rights of all your family. You are one of the sheep who probably believed in all those predictions.
This election will be stolen. Our computer has NEVER been wrong. The only time it was right but wrong, was 2000 when it projected Gore would win. The Supreme Court stopped the recount and handed it to Bush. Later, it was shown that Gore had 500,000 more votes. This one will go down in history. They will all kiss the ring of Klaus Schwab for creating the Great Reset circumventing the people because we are just the great unwashed not worthy to have any vote on such a scheme for our own future. Don’t worry, only politicians can kiss his ring. You might be allowed to kiss his feet.
I could care less what Trump tweets. This is the very integrity of the United States to stand up against a deliberate foreign invasion. You are obviously the “working class” that Khrushchev said would rise up and bury the United States from within. Schwab knows what he is doing and you cannot see past the end of your nose. This is not Trump v Biden – this is America against a foreign Tyrannical invasion.
Megyn Kelly said she pulled her two young sons out of their Upper West Side private school when a letter circulated accusing white people of “reveling in state-sanctioned depravity” and said “There is a killer cop sitting in every school where white children learn.” the June 29 post says. She said the schools are always far-left, but they have gone off the deep end. This is not about BLM, this is dividing the country into black and white and justifying racism.
New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced new COVID compliance restrictions upon citizens of the Garden State last week. A limit of 10 people are allowed to gather indoors and a limit of 150 allowed to gather outdoors. Masks are mandated by decree.
However, some citizens of New Jersey are ready to fight back against the arbitrary totalitarian dictates, and they are well prepared to make Murphy uncomfortable. We can all expect to see much more of this…. We are not a nation to be ruled as sheep. WATCH:
**Salty Language Alert***
The cloistered professional political class have no idea what is about to erupt upon them. These are very tenuous times and we are not a nation that aligns with dictates by political elites. Pushed far enough, decisions are reached. There are more of us than them.
In an effort to improve personal time management, and devote necessary time to advancing CTH 2.0 goals (I’m up against an eviction deadline) , please consider this a standard form letter response to any further inquiry:
Dear Mr./Mrs. XXXXXXXX, prudence and necessarily instilled manners dictate that all correspondence deserves the full weight of polite response.
Allow me to thank you, with the most humble and earnest of appreciation, for all you do on behalf of a simple citizenry of which I am a proud and insignificant member.
Indeed if our paths were ever to cross in person, I hold no preconception that you, as a person of consequence, would ever afford these calloused and well worn hands the time of day. I am, like many, comfortably invisible.
That said, and with the utmost respect for your professional endeavors, I hope you will consider this correspondence carefully.
It is not our “goal” to raise our profile through the dangers and injustice that Big Tech censorship now represents. It is, perhaps, our goal to shine light upon that danger…
When you see that speech is controlled, not by open-debate, but by fear and censorship – when you see that in order to invoke your first amendment right to have your voice heard, you need to obtain permission from the men who rebuke the constitution – when you see that validity of speech is determined by arbiters who leverage, not in law, but in politics – when you see that men get power over individual liberty by graft and by scheme, and your representatives don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption holding influence and individual liberty so easily dispatched and nullified – you may well know that your freedom too is soon to perish.
You present opportunity for interview as if it is reflective of some courageous or magnanimous endeavor on your behalf. Alas, the disconnect, and innocent naivete’ of those only partially immersed in the battle to save the republic shines through.
I’m almost certain that you hold the best of all intentions. However, in viewing a goal to be getting this type of story advanced you miss the entire point.
My honest and respectfully intended question to you would be: What is it that makes media folks always want to “get an interview” when the information is there for the taking?
Perhaps, by training, by habit, or by unintended consequence you have developed yourself to live for the process itself as an end result. Is it logical to believe that journalism is the interview; the conversation is the point; the smoke is the fire?
Please forgive my uneducated and poorly worded suppositions, but apparently journalism has evolved into reveling in the process and, as a consequence, it completely ignores the end point, misses the bottom line, doesn’t actually SEE the subject matter and never actually applies what might be discovered.
In fact, I’m led to believe that sometimes those within the industrial media complex avoid the subject matter deliberately, because if they get their heads around it and nail it home, they won’t have anything to talk about any more–because they will have exhausted their stash… perhaps because the conclusions are transparently obvious, or uncomfortable.
Not attempting whatsoever to lump your intention into such a fray; however, many have gotten into the habit of milking each situation for “so many leads,” “so many interviews,” “so many column inches,” and “so many angles” that problem-solving does not appeal to them at all. They oddly appear to favor the endless process.
So when there’s an approach like what you have encountered with our decade of significant site research, and my reluctance for self involvement, I don’t fit –because I don’t give a flip about “the process.” And therefore, I do not fit into the rationale of the box or the PERT chart.
There is a body of work, ten years of research, citation and analysis, right here for you to review at your leisure. If you want to find a reason the arbiters who control the architecture of speech worry about voices that deconstruct the hidden agenda; and if you want to make these truths known, they are free for the taking; they are by no matter or consequence dependent on my advancement.
Look around, find validation or confirmation for violations of service… or accept the absence directly implies our republic is entering a very dark place… and some of us, will never relent… We The People will shine light upon that darkness because our nation deserves better, and, quite frankly, “there’s no-where else to go.”
Borrowing from Mike Vanderboegh – This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.
But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.
And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.
With profound appreciation for your time and attention, and the most warm of regards.
When it was clear that candidate Donald Trump would win the republican presidential nomination in March/April 2016 the RNC, specifically Reince Priebus, salivated at getting their hands on the Trump campaign donor files. Politics is a big business.
Historically the GOP was dependent on big major donors and Wall Street for support, but the Trump small donor army shattered all republican records for contributions and showed a completely new grassroots donor base. Tens of millions of middle-class Americans fueled the MAGA movement and stunned the republican establishment.
As an outcome of that massive data-file, and the contractual agreements to share with the Republican National Committee, the RNC became flush with money and transmitted the file to other GOP members in down ballot races. Essentially Trump represented access to millions of previously hidden Americans, that’s why your emails and phones blew up in 2020 with pleas for contributions from every outlier GOP entity; the vultures in the business…
Within the business part of the GOP there are massive territorial fights amid those who live on the donations from within political campaigns. The Trump MAGA file is being exploited like a bloody carcass dropped into a pool of piranha. Once you know how the business end works, then a lot of other stuff makes sense. Including this:
This is all about who is getting paid by the campaign and RNC. The Trump campaign isn’t going to reimburse Sidney Powell for any expenses, nor is she allowed to make offers of financial payment from the GOP or Trump campaign. The vultures assembling and protecting their paychecks do not want Powell getting paid, nor do they want any financial liability. That’s all this statement is.
This statement by the Trump Campaign has nothing to do with Donald Trump, it is directly related to those interests who derive financial benefit from the Trump campaign. The same network of vultures exists on the DNC side of the equation and they exploit Bernie Sanders donor files.
RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has enjoyed a high life of cocktail parties and lavish expenditures as a result of her position and control over the Trump data files; so too have a host of other entities and organizations that have been sending you text messages for money. That’s just how they roll….
That announcement is all about money; nothing more.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 