Founder of the Rescue Michigan Coalition, beating the drum of grassroots leadership since 2008. Old Ron Pauler turned disaffected Trumpster. Freelance political consultant, grateful to be able to work exclusively for the good guys. Anti-war, anti-state, pro-freedom.
In our latest members' email, we encouraged members to sign and send a letter to a state representative encouraging her committee to take up our election integrity legislation.
I received this response from a member:
I'm told that sending form letters is not as effective as doing your own... In the past, these forms are just tossed out... It seems the Pols prefer your own words.... And, it is a form of spam. So, just copy, paste, reword your own way and send off.
She has a kind heart, and I know where she's coming from.
But this is incorrect.
And it's actually one of the big myths in politics, perpetuated by the politicians themselves.
Notice how it benefits politicians for people to think they don't care about "form letters." Many people don't have the time to write a personal letter. Some people aren't confident in their mastery of an issue, or their writing skills in general.
If every constituent had to write a personal letter, politicians would get fewer letters. They like it that way. They don't want to be troubled to respond. They don't want to be "pressured" by the will of their constituents. They want to be on voters' minds as little as possible.
Writing a letter to a politician isn't about changing their minds or pulling their heartstrings. If a politician isn't already motivated to do the right thing, it isn't because he (or she) doesn't know it's the right thing.
Politicians are, with few exceptions, motivated by their own ambitions. Those in tough districts are desperate for re-election. Those who aren't are desperate to make sure they maintain (or reclaim) the majority, and want to lead their caucus or run for higher office.
When a politician receives a "form letter" from 100 constituents, how does that compare to 100 personal letters on the same issue?
It's exactly the same. It's 100 concerned constituents.
Not only does it not matter whether it was a personal letter or a "form letter" -- the form letter is actually more powerful.
Because the "form letter" sent by lots of people is lots of people, with an organization behind them.
An organization with a list.
An organization that might contact that list again, should the politician do the wrong thing.
When politicians get letters from angry voters on any given issue, the most important question to them is: How many people are mad about this?
The "form letter" makes it easier to give them a truer figure.
Sign those petitions, folks. The politicians in Lansing are counting the signatures.
"With COVID-19 cases surging, there is great urgency to encourage masking and social distancing," Gordon wrote in one email on Oct. 17. "These are the best tools available to slow the rise in cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
"While some people will act because they believe it is important, for others, a credible threat of sanction is likely to be critical."
These emails were sent after the Michigan Supreme Court struck down her orders as unconstitutional.
The CEO of the Michigan Sheriffs Association replied to Gordon's email, in part:
MSA believes the administrative ticketing process would be difficult to enforce both legally and from a manpower perspective, and encourages all parties to refrain from emphasizing that message [of enforcement], as it is both counterproductive and negative.
For more than a year, it has been consecrated media fact that former President Donald Trump and his White House, on June 1 of last year, directed the U.S. Park Police to use tear gas against peaceful Lafayette Park protesters, all to enable a Trump photo-op in front of St. John's Church. That this happened was never presented as a possibility or likelihood but as indisputable truth. And it provoked weeks of unmitigated media outrage, presented as one of the most egregious assaults on the democratic order in decades. [...]
All of this came crashing down on their heads on Wednesday afternoon. The independent Inspector General of the Interior Department, Mark Lee Greenblatt, issued his office's findings after a long investigation into “the actions of the U.S. Park Police (USPP) to disperse protesters in and around Lafayette Park in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2020.” Greenblatt has been around Washington for a long time, occupying numerous key positions in the Obama administration, including investigative counsel at the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at Obama's Commerce Department. [...]
The IG's conclusion could not be clearer: the media narrative was false from start to finish. Namely, he said, “the evidence did not support a finding that the [U.S. Park Police] cleared the park on June 1, 2020, so that then President Trump could enter the park.” Instead — exactly as Hemingway's widely-mocked-by-liberal-outlets article reported — “the evidence we reviewed showed that the USPP cleared the park to allow a contractor to safely install anti-scale fencing in response to destruction of Federal property and injury to officers that occurred on May 30 and May 31.” Crucially, “the evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day."
On May 30, we interviewed Representative Steve Carra, who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, which was settled out of court six days before Election Day 2020 with a signed agreement with the Court of Claims that the Secretary of State would reverse her policy of allowing poll workers to abuse Covid "social distancing" guidelines to impede poll challengers.
Benson broke the agreement, and weeks later, Carra was a witness to that violation as a challenger in a recount.
We discuss his story, his background, being a state lawmaker, and his campaign to unseat Rep. Fred Upton, who voted for the second sham impeachment of President Trump.
Michigan House Republicans have introduced a resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 5, "to reaffirm states' rights under the United States Constitution to establish election laws" according to its title.
If only the text of the resolution even lived up to that.
Resolutions like this are typically non-binding declarations that have no legal meaning. This is why they are "resolutions" rather than bills. (The exceptions are Joint Resolutions, which propose amendments to the Michigan Constitution.)
However, a resolution can at least be an expression of the legislature's finding of fact and law, which is something a court might possibly consider.
It would be worthwhile if the text of HCR 5 read something like this:
The Constitution of the United States grants absolutely no authority to the federal government to decide the election policy of the 50 States, and the Tenth Amendment reserves that authority to the States. We conclude HR 1 is totally unconstitutional in its present form and unenforceable in Michigan should it become law.
Something like that.
But no, instead, we get this, the actual text of HCR 5:
Traditionally, and as empowered through the U.S. Constitution, states set and administer their own election policies. While there is some congressional power regarding election laws, state legislatures are the proper bodies and best suited to set laws on election matters.
Oh, Michigan controls its election by "tradition"? What is this unspecified "some" power, do tell?
The federal government has found excuses to infringe on states' rights to regulate their elections, and these should be vigorously challenged and never accepted.
But no, HCR 5 can only stammer that "any election reform efforts should be left to the states."
On the latest Rescue Michigan weekly livestream, we interviewed John Clore, reporter for UsAgainstMedia, a great new organization covering Michigan politics and occasionally even making their own news, such as when Clore dropped in on a House Oversight Committee meeting as COVID MAN!
We discuss lots of current events in this long-form interview, so check it out:
When Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was outed last month for a secretive trip to Florida in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, her office claimed Michigan taxpayers did not foot the bill.
What they did not tell us, however, is that Whitmer asked a group of wealthy Detroit businessmen to provide a private plane they share.
Those businessmen have major dealings in and with the state of Michigan.
“We wondered why she reached out to us instead of booking a private charter,” said one of the plane's owners, who exchanged his candor for confidentiality. “You can't tell a governor no. Who needs that kind of trouble?”
Had Whitmer booked a round trip flight from Lansing to West Palm Beach through a private charter company, it would likely have cost $10,000 to $20,000, or a whopping $40,000 for the actual jet she took, according to private jet websites. The latter is more than 25 percent of the governor's salary -- before taxes.
It is unclear whether Whitmer reimbursed the company – Air Eagle – which manages the aircraft owned by the businessmen. And, if so, at what price and from which bank account?
The Democrats’ effort to produce evidence that January 6 was a Trump planned assault on democratic government will be as complete a failure as the New York Times’ Tom Friedman’s theory of four years ago that Trump’s collusion with Russia in the 2016 election was as great an assault on American sovereignty as Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
Liz Cheney has unwittingly helped to clarify the issues arising from last year’s election. The country must decide that it was an entirely fair and unquestionable election and that Trump was trying to incite insurrection on January 6 or it must acquiesce in the possibility that he will return as president. The McConnell faction seems determined to close ranks to fight oppression by the radical Left in the Democratic congressional caucuses and work for Republican victories next year.
Peggy Noonan’s theory that the Republicans are tearing themselves apart is also bunk. Republicans can get a candidate other than Trump if they want but not on the false charge that he has no legitimate complaint about the 2020 election, or that he was trying to stir up a revolt on January 6. McConnell and most of the wiser anti-Trump elements in the Republican Party leaped back into their trenches and presumably will return to the comparative discretion most of them observed while Trump was president. Those unable to contain their Trump-hate will bite the dust if they have to deal with a primary opponent—e.g., Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Senators Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), and one or two others can grumble, but presumably even they realize that being useful idiots for the Democrats is not what they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are planning to collaborate with private providers to surveil so-called “domestic violent extremists,” code for Trump supporters. “By partnering with research firms who have more visibility in this space, the DHS could produce information that would likely be beneficial to both it and the FBI, which can’t monitor U.S. citizens in this way without first getting a warrant or having the pretext of an ongoing investigation,” CNN reported on Monday. “The CIA and [National Security Agency] are also limited on collecting intelligence domestically. The [DHS] is coordinating with the National Security Council and FBI as part of the effort.”
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s criminality is rewarded with book deals and university speaking gigs; Antifa rioters in Portland are let off the hook and violent demonstrators who ransacked Washington, D.C. during Trump’s 2017 inauguration are getting hefty cash settlements and clean records.
The Biden Justice Department is “the shield and the sword”—the motto of East Germany’s Stasi—for the Democratic Party, protecting its own corrupt ranks while terrorizing any and all detractors. Unfortunately, there are no liberators in sight.
Attorneys Phil Ellison and Matt Gronda sued the Secretary of State over her policy of impeding poll challengers, which was settled just 6 days before Election Day with the Secretary of State agreeing to reverse her policy and allow poll challengers to do their jobs.
Now, they're going back to court against Jocelyn Benson. They also discuss their lawsuit against Michigan lockdowns, and their case against the most obscene prosecution in Michigan, against a young man facing charges of terrorism for joking that his legal rifle would "make snowflakes melt."
Georgia’s new election law runs 98 generously spaced pages. A fast reader can get through it in one sitting. If you’re the CEO of a major corporation, you can pay someone to do it for you. But I don’t think CEOs took the time to read Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021, because so much of what they said about it was nonsense.
Had these watch-me-woke-it-up CEOs actually read the bill—instead of parroting the radical left’s talking points—they’d have discovered they had no idea what they were talking about. A clutch of business leaders tried to win woke Twitter points and clowned themselves instead.
This is the point in the drama when Republicans usually shrug their shoulders, call these companies “job creators,” and start to cut their taxes. Not this time.
In my nine years in the Senate, I've received $2.6 million in contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same.
For too long, woke CEOs have been fair-weather friends to the Republican Party: They like us until the left's digital pitchforks come out. Then they run away.... Enough is enough. Corporations that flagrantly misrepresent efforts to protect our elections need to be called out, singled out and cut off.
The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State's intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only met with derision by the populace of a simpler age. A robber who justified his theft by saying that he really helped his victims, by his spending giving a boost to retail trade, would find few converts; but when this theory is clothed in Keynesian equations and impressive references to the "multiplier effect," it unfortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds, each age performing the task in its own ways.
Thus, ideological support being vital to the State, it must unceasingly try to impress the public with its "legitimacy," to distinguish its activities from those of mere brigands…
The gravest crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State's openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d'être.
Translation: The real agenda behind the Deep State persecuting Trump supporters is 1) "shock and awe" against anyone questioning the government's legitimacy, and 2) justifying its own miserable existence.
Dean Baquet, I will depose you under oath... Do you understand what it is like to have tens of millions of people getting notifications, calling you fake, saying that your videos are false and you defend yourself with this garbage? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're lucky there aren't thousands of more people suing you for defamation for what you've done.
And you better prepare for a jury trial, my friend, because there is no amount of money that you can give me to make me settle.
Judicial Watch announced today that it received 540 pages and a supplemental four pages of documents from the office of the Secretary of State of California revealing how state officials pressured social media companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google (YouTube)) to censor posts about the 2020 election. Included in these documents were “misinformation briefings” emails that were compiled by communications firm SKDK, that lists Biden for President as their top client of 2020. The documents show how the state agency successfully pressured YouTube to censor a Judicial Watch video concerning the vote by mail and a Judicial Watch lawsuit settlement about California voter roll clean up...
Hundreds of parents showed up to the Vail School Board meeting to demand the board make masks optional. The board didn't want to hear it so they walked out of the meeting before it even began. So the parents, under Robert's Rules of Order, voted in a new school board. Then, the new members voted to end the mask requirement in Vail Schools. The old school board members revealed exactly who they are and that includes GOP LD 10 Chairman, Chris King.
You can watch the full video of the meeting at the link above.
This is not the end of the story, of course. A legal battle will ensue. The cowardly school board members will not relinquish their titles without a fight. But the parents won't back down, either. They need to turn up in even greater numbers next time.
This is the power of people when they organize locally. Every local school board meeting should be like this.
In Rochester Hills, Michigan, the school board is attacking the parents who are exposing their misconduct. The parents are now working to recall four of its members. I hope they succeed. Recalls are extremely difficult in Michigan, but even if they don't get enough signatures, they can grow an organization around this and run candidates in the next cycle.
This is how a movement grows. Get people engaged, and get them involved in a worthwhile political fight.
Defending the rights of children is a very worthwhile fight.
Ever since Tucker Carlson Tonight first aired, Carlson's commentary has always been among the best in America, with The American Conservative rightly dubbing him "the Populist Paladin of Primetime."
But last night's monologue was something much greater: it was a rallying call to action, remniscient of Peter Finch's epic monologue in the movie Network, in which the newscaster Howard Beale tells his audience to shout from their windows: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Carlson began with a righteous tirade against our evil government officials having issued tyrannical orders that the public wear masks, even when outdoors, when science has known for over a year that the Chinese coronavirus doesn't spread outdoors.
Most importantly, he called out the American people's shameful inaction. Too few of us fought back.
Carlson noted that we have known the government's orders were all based on lies since last June, "when America's so-called public health community united as one to tell us that coronavirus restrictions do not apply to BLM rioters. They're exempt from the virus!
"You're still not allowed to get married, or go to church, or see your elderly parents as they die alone, but if you break things on behalf of the Democratic Party's power structure, you can loot the dollar store, and no one gets sick. That's science!"
Tucker continued: "And the second they told us that, we knew for certain they weren't serious.
"So why did we keep playing along? That is a sincere question. We should ponder that question. We acquiesced to their power grab. We let it happen."
After another round of observing the sheer lunacy of so many government orders, including demanding children wear masks when playing tennis and standing 30 feet away from anyone, Carlson repeated:
"Future generations will mock us for this, but we allowed it."
And then, Tucker Carlson told his audience that it's time to stop being meek and start calling out the Cult of the Mask when we see them in public.
The only people who wear masks voluntarily outside are zealots and neurotics.
How neurotic are they? Well, we know. A Pew survey from last March found that 64 percent of white Americans who classify themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal" have been diagnosed with an actual mental health condition.
And you see them everywhere, when you walk down the street in any major city. If you dare to go on foot from Union Station to the Capitol, for example, in Washington without wearing a mask, angry Biden voters will snort at you and judge you.
"How could you?" They're saying from behind the gauze.
How could you?
That's the question that we should be asking of them in return.
The rest of us should be snorting at them first. They’re the aggressors. It’s our job to brush them back and restore the society we were born in. So the next time you see someone in a mask on the sidewalk or on the bike path, do not hesitate. Ask politely but firmly, "Would you please take off your mask? Science shows there is no reason for you to be wearing it. Your mask is making me uncomfortable."
We should do that and we should keep doing it until wearing a mask outside is roughly as socially accepted as lighting a Marlboro on an elevator. It’s repulsive. Don’t do it around other people.
That’s the message we should send because it's true.
As for forcing children to wear masks outside, that should be illegal. Your response when you see children wearing masks as they play should be no different from your response to seeing someone beat a kid in Walmart. Call the police immediately. Contact Child Protective Services. Keep calling until someone arrives. What you're looking at is abuse, it's child abuse, and you are morally obligated to attempt to prevent it.
If it's your own children being abused, then act accordingly. Let's say your kid's school emailed you and announced that every day after lunch, your sixth-grader was going to get punched in the face by a teacher.
How would you respond to that?
That's precisely how you should respond when they tell you that your kids have to wear masks on the soccer field. That is unacceptable, it is dangerous, and we should act like it, because it is.
Tucker is right, and as the most prominent conservative figure in the American media, if ever there was a call to action that the conservative movement should amplify and breathe life into, this is it.
It's time to stop being meek toward the mask cultists. And it's time to encourage our fellow citizens to stop obeying them.
But one thing Tucker Carlson missed: While direct, personal action is needed to snap our fellow citizens out of the mask mind control, what is also needed is effective political mobilization to remove from power every politician that has supported and condoned this barbarity.
That is why Rescue Michigan is asking every citizen to organize right in your own community. That is why we give you the tools and training to organize and mobilize.
That is the only path to victory.
As Tucker said: "They will not stop until we make them stop."
California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley N. Weber has announced that the threshold of verified signatures reported by counties has been met for the recall of Governor Gavin Newsom. The valid signatures in the 10th report are 1,626,042, which exceeds the total of 1,495,709 signatures required. Counties still have until April 29th to verify the validity of any remaining signatures.
Michigan citizens, however, should note that the requirements for recall in California are much lower than in Michigan. It would take just over 1 million valid signatures to recall Gretchen Whitmer, about 2/3 as many as needed in California, a state with 4 times as many people. The signature drive to recall Gavin Newsom began in June of last year. Michigan law only allows for recall petitions to be signed in a 2-month period. In other words, recalling Gretchen Whitmer would take about 13 times the speed in collecting signatures that California had.
Douglas Frank has an amazing theory. According to him, the voter turnout by voters' age in every county in Michigan is almost the same. He says the turnout curve is a sixth-order polynomial, a "key," and that it "demonstrates the activity of a regulating algorithm."
How would such a regulating algorithm work? Frank never says.
That's because there is no possible way it could work.
Frank seems to suggest it must be the Dominion machines behind the manipulation of turnout. But Dominion doesn't count turnout. No tabulating machine does.
When you show up to vote at the polls, you fill out an application to vote, and the poll book inspector checks you in and issues you a ballot. The ballot number assigned to each voter is recorded in the poll book.
When you vote by absentee ballot, your local clerk issues you a ballot and the ballot number is recorded in the poll book. When you return the ballot, the clerk receives your ballot and marks the ballot as having been received.
The tabulator machine records how you vote, but that you vote is recorded entirely by humans.
The only alternative, because machines do not count turnout, is that somehow, humans forged ballots in every county to make these numbers work.
However, this conspiracy would involve more than just the clerks of all 83 counties in Michigan. It would require poll workers and absent voter counting board officials, dozens of people in every county, to make this possible.
But why? Why would any hacker or conspiracy of election officials see to it that a perfect number of ballots were created according to a voter's age? The age of any given voter is completely irrevelant.
Think about it! If turnout by age naturally varies by some random amount, an algorithm would have to counter that variation in order for there to be near-identical turnout curves from one county to the next.
The theory makes no sense. Compared to the ordinary explanation – that turnout across voters' age wouldn't vary much from one county to the next – the theory requires an unbelievable amount of logistics and personnel, all to achieve something totally irrelevant to the desired result.
And it would absolutely impossible to do, because they would have no way of knowing who would actually turn out to vote on election day, as about 40% of Michigan voters did.
Maybe this is why Doug Frank never actually disclosed the polynomial equation he claims is the "key" to predicting the number of ballots by each age of registered voter. Nobody can double-check his findings.
Why do I bring this up? Because facts matter, and disinformation is damaging.
Theories like this give the left-wing mass media ammunition to use against us. It exposes us to attack and ridicule.
At Rescue Michigan, because we organize for election reform and our statements may be repeated by supporters, we have an ethical obligation to be rigorous in our facts and analysis. That's why we stick to the facts we can prove – that the Secretary of State illegally removed meaningful signature checks, and that poll challengers in Detroit were illegally obstructed, for example – and not repeat claims that fall apart under scrutiny, as much as our supporters might want to believe it.
And this is a standard that all leaders should aspire to.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v. Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state. Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), hand over their donor lists. This demand threatened to reveal the identities of donors, potentially subjecting them to threats and harassment.
Legal representatives for AFP and TMLC said the Supreme Court justices’ questions and remarks suggested they are likely to strike down California’s requirement as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Of the 506 signatures sampled, 434 or 86% were determined to be valid, the bureau said Monday. The result led the staff to estimate about 460,358 signatures of the total 538,345 submitted were valid. Unlock Michigan needed 340,047 signatures to obtain certification.
The Board of State Canvassers will take up the measure on Thursday, April 22.
The opposition group "Keep Michigan Safe" (Keep Whitmer Dictator would be an honest name) whined that the Bureau of Elections report ignored "90% of our many procedural and substantive challenges" and promised to "make our case to the Board of Canvassers and the courts to stop this ill-conceived and irresponsible petition drive."
Which reminds me: What ever happened to the Attorney General investigating the fake signatures that opposition operatives planted?
Next to boxes of valid petitions, a lone box sits off to the side...
It bears to photo of the left-wing operative that attempted to poison the Unlock Michigan campaign...
On September 28, 2020, sociopath Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that, as usual, her office would be opening a criminal investigation into an organization whose cause she disagrees with.
Unlock Michigan identified the operative that organized the hit job and, after delivering their 537,000 petitions to the Secretary of State, delivered the box of his signatures to the Attorney General.
And that was the last we heard of it.
I doubt we will ever hear about it again.
But it was my privilege to serve as Washtenaw County Coordinator for this great undertaking, and if nobody else leads the call for "Unlock Part 2," to end the governor's last remaining lifeline to dictatorship, the Health Code, count me in.
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul,” Nelson Mandela famously said, “than the way in which it treats its children.” By that standard, our society now has the soul of an abusive parent. The pandemic has turned American adults, or at least the ones who make the rules, into selfish neurotics who have been punishing innocent children for over a year—and still can’t restrain themselves...
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize proper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.
“I’d love to see her resign, I’d throw her a goodbye party,” Craig told WJBK on Sunday. “Let her go. Who is she speaking for Charlie? Let me just say this, when you talk about abolishing police, incarceration, you talk about safe cities — what do you think the residents in Detroit want?”
Tlaib received a lot of pushback, even from members within her own party, for her tweet last week that said policing is “inherently and intentionally racist.”
Dershowitz explained why Dominion is guilty of violating the First Amendment Rights of Mike Lindell as well as the rights of the media to report the news: “We’re gonna sue you and put you out of business, and we’re not even going to let you see our source codes so you can see what we’re suing you about.”
Dershowitz blasted Dominion for refusing to share its source code. “It’s as if My Pillow ere accused of having some secret poison in its formula, and you couldn’t tell it by just looking at the pillow, and then somehow My Pillow said, we’re not going to give your our formula, we’re going to hide it from you. That’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to hide what they’re doing—at the same time that they’re trying to prevent you from entering the marketplace of ideas. They’re in the marketplace of ideas. They’re not only in the marketplace of ideas; they’re in the economic marketplace too. They’re to shut you out of being able to sell your products in stores. They’re trying to silence you, and they’re doing it as the government of the United States. That’s why I’m in this case.
“Dominion is the government for purposes of the lawsuit,” Dershowitz said, as he explained that the government was using Dominion machines to tabulate our votes. Mike told his audience, “This could be one of the most important First Amendment cases in the history of the United States.”
Our lockdowns have been horrific. Canada's have been worse.
Viva Frei puts everything in perspective.
It is extraordinarily well-put.
This would be our country if we allowed it:
And we're not far off.
The greatest trick that the governments have played now is convincing people that there's something benevolent, praiseworthy, noble, in blindly following these government edicts, these unscientific government edicts, in the absence of any demonstrable evidence – that you're bad for questioning it and you're morally righteous and virtuous for blindly following it.
And they've got people who are so terrorized by fear that they will blindly follow whatever the government says under the pretext that it must be offering them some form of security, because “Why would the government be saying it otherwise?”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Thursday that he will no longer be wearing a mask at the Capitol since he is fully vaccinated.
"At this point I've been vaccinated. Everybody working in the Senate has been vaccinated," Cruz told CNN. "CDC has said in small groups, particularly with people who were vaccinated, don't need to wear masks."
Cruz's totally logical take on the matter did not comfort The Hill. In the very next paragraph, it reminded readers that the CDC says vaccinated people should still wear masks "in large groups of people." But, as the highlighted language shows, Cruz had been specific that he was talking about go mask-free in "small groups."
It’s unlikely Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer set out to prove that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s fetish for lockdowns and masks does exactly nothing to stop the spread of coronavirus. Those of us who have been pointing out the data demonstrating this for months now will gladly accept her assistance nevertheless. Our mamas taught us never to look a gift horse in the mouth—not even the hypocritical ones, whose top aides vacation in the alleged coronavirus hellhole of Florida over spring break. [...]
In fact, Michigan is currently the coronavirus hellhole. Which also explains why Whitmer’s own staff is trying to escape.
Speaking of Whitmer, there she was, proudly displaying her Fauci totem . . . err . . . pillow for all to see during a recent Zoom interview—letting the world know with this hamfisted virtue signal that she’s one of the smart set. She knows how to dutifully follow orders from Lord Farquaad . . . err . . . Fauci.
Indeed, Whitmer has done everything the fiendish Fauci has commanded her to do, and in the process has proven Fauci’s edicts may be about a lot of things, but effectively stopping the spread of coronavirus would not be one of them. Is that bad?
The administration of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is drafting permanent rules that, once adopted, would impose an indefinite mandate for employees and customers to wear face masks.
The mandate is spelled out in draft rules posted by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or MIOSHA. The rules, once formalized, would replace the state’s current emergency orders.
The rule-making process generally takes a long time, and requires formal public hearings.
Most importantly, any rules the governor creates must be brought before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) in the legislature. If the legislature declares a rule is improper, it would, at a minimum, delay the rule from taking effect for nine months.
Republican members of JCAR are Luke Meerman, Steve Carra, Matt Hall, Jon Bumstead, Lana Theis, and Ed McBroom.
All of them lean conservative within their caucuses and would likely do everything possible to fight the imposition of the rule.
Children age 2 to 4 will be required to wear face masks in gatherings starting April 26 under a new epidemic order issued Friday by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Previous orders had exempted all children under the age of 5.
At an age when children are just learning to socialize, Whitmer orders their noses cut off from the air and their faces hidden: turned into walking billboards for fear. The damage will be life-long.
Whitmer has imposed among the most vicious and draconian policies in the nation, and Michigan has ranked among the worsts state for the Covid outbreak. Every one of her policies has been a failure as well as a crime against the people of Michigan.
Instead of prioritizing resources to confront the menace posed by America’s foreign adversaries, which is her job, [Director of National Intelligence Avril] Haines is devoting most of her time to pursuing Americans on the political Right. Her first official missive as Biden’s DNI didn’t raise alarm over China or North Korea or Iran—it warned that Americans represent a “heightened threat” to the homeland this year. [...]
But there is a slight—major?—problem with Haines’ alert; she clearly exceeded the boundaries of her authority. Haines’ definition of a DVE, per her report, is “an individual based and operating primarily in the United States without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power.” Haines’ purview, however, is solely vested in gathering intelligence related to bad actors allied with hostile regimes beyond our shores, not Trump-supporting veterans from Virginia...
“If the agenda say, is to like get, like Matt Gaetz right now, he’s like this Republican. He’s a problem for the Democratic Party because he’s so conservative and he can cause a lot of hiccups in passing of laws and what not. So it would be great for the Democratic Party to get him out.”
“So we’re going to keep running these stories to keep hurting him and make it so that it can’t be buried and just like settled outside court just and like, you know, if we keep pushing that, it’s helping us (CNN).”
Former president Donald Trump has announced an independent social media platform that will allow direct interaction with his supporters, but the venture may already be doomed because of the influence from the usual suspects.
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and disgraced former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale are running the project...
Big League Politics has reported on how Parscale and Kushner have destroyed everything they have touched, perhaps being the two weakest links inside the president’s circle during his term in office:
"The most influential adviser within the Trump administration has arguably been Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law. He has pushed the administration to the Left, using his power to shift the White House on issues like immigration, criminal justice, and foreign policy."
Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon said at a press conference on Monday that the officer who shot Daunte Wright during a traffic stop had meant to grab their Taser but grabbed their gun instead and fatally shot Wright.
Later in the same article:
Wright's mother, Katie Wright, told reporters on Sunday that her son had called her and said the police were pulling him over for having an air freshener dangling from his rearview mirror.
The leaders of over 100 major corporations spoke via Zoom on Saturday about how they could combat election integrity laws similar to the one passed in Georgia, according to multiple reports.
The executives on the call reportedly expressed concern about legislation that they view as restricting voting rights. They included the owner of the Atlanta Falcons, who also co-founded Home Depot, the chairwoman of the Starbucks board, and the CEO of AMC Entertainment, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who helped organize the meeting, told The Washington Post that the corporate leaders on the call “felt very strongly that these voting restrictions are based on a flawed premise and are dangerous.”
“There was a defiance of the threats that businesses should stay out of politics,” he continued...
State Representative John Reilly discusses how an ordinary Joe became a state representative. Before becoming State Rep, his local group took over their township board and put a stop to lots of bad policy.
And then they helped him become their representative for 90 thousand people in the state legislature.
It involved getting like-minded people together and knocking on some doors.
Rep. Reilly is the proof of the power that citizens can have when they organize locally.
The Deep State just sent a declaration of war to American Patriots. This time, at least, they at least had the courtesy to all sign it.
On Wednesday afternoon, a collection of more than one hundred former government officials published an open letter to Congress demanding an “independent and bipartisan national commission” to “investigate” the January 6 disturbance at the U.S. Capitol.
January 6 was not a case of “domestic terrorism.” There were no “armed extremists” executing a “lethal breach” of the Capitol Complex. Only one individual has been charged with illegally bringing a gun into the Capitol. The only shots fired at the Capitol on January 6th were fired by a Capitol policeman who shot unarmed civilian Ashli Babbitt through the neck. There was no planned assault. January 6 absolutely was an isolated event. The Capitol riot was the product of bad police crowd control rather than a concerted plan to attack anyone or anything.
"It is indicative of just what we are about to face for four years, and that's four years of idiocy, constitutional illiteracy, and fake history to justify totalitarian, dictatorial, tyrannical control from a walking Q-Tip," Nick Rekieta says.
"Just like his predecessor and boss Obama, this is a small man standing up, trying to act tough and talk tough, but he's going to do it with a smile and he's going to do it with a complicit Congress and a complicit media."
It’s impossible to count how many impressions of “five people killed” pollute government documents, news websites, social media, and the brains of tens of millions of Americans. The line is a permanent chapter in the folklore of January 6—and it’s untrue. Just like the notion the protest was an “armed insurrection” and the people involved are guilty of “sedition,” the January 6 body count is one more myth.
There will be no retractions, however, and no apologies. Last weekend, following the killing of a Capitol police officer by a Nation of Islam follower, news and opinion sites reupped the lie about Sicknick, some even laughably sticking to the completely debunked fire extinguisher attack.
The public can expect the same here. Everyone invested in the original version will ignore the evidence and keep repeating the lie that five people died at the hands of bloodthirsty Trump loyalists. Facts simply do not matter.
For all the talk about all the myriad ways the Democrats conspired to rig the election, it's easy to focus on the election itself and forget that the biggest source of votes stolen from Donald Trump was the mass media's endless campaign to destroy him with fabricated scandals while doing everything in their power, vastly beyond journalistic ethics, to protect Joe Biden from his real scandals. That, and the social media companies' shocking manipulation of what news the American people were permitted to read on their platforms.
Trying to track of every incident of mass media manipulation would be about as sensible as trying to track particles of sand in a tornado, but one incident rose above all the others: the revelation that Joe Biden's son Hunter's laptop, abandoned at a computer repair shop (doubtless during a drug binge), contained numerous emails detailing Joe and Hunter Biden's corrupt dealings in China and Ukraine.
The story broke in mid-October, shortly before the election and when many Americans were already voting by mail. The details of the extent of Joe Biden's corruption might have changed the outcome of the election -- and indeed, a study showed that it would.
Other than Fox News and outlets to their right, every major network, including the supposedly "neutral" ones like ABC, Associate Press, etc., refused to cover the story. Worse still, social media banned the news coverage, to the point of shutting down the New York Post's coverage of the explosive information.
Even as individuals named in the emails came forward to confirm their contents were authentic, the mass media endlessly repeated the lie that it was some sort of "Russian disinformation" campaign.
It was most egregious case of political censorship in American history.
Now that Joe Biden is safely installed as President, the networks are starting to admit that yes, the laptop was authentic, as they knew all along.
Even when Fox News reported the story about the laptop, they reported on the Biden family's corruption but left out the sordid details of Hunter's personal life.
It's a painful reminder that the biggest enemy of free and fair election in America is the mass media, and what this means for all conservatives is that we must reach voters across America with the information that Big Tech and the establishment media will hide from them.
The best way to do that, the most methodical way to do that, is grassroots leadership: building local organizations that reach every voter in your community.
Add up all major news networks and combined they don't reach 10% of the public on any given day. Your posts on social media are shadowbanned. Your emails are likely only reaching your like-minded friends.
The only effective way to counter the mass media's lies is to organize locally and build relationships with voters in your community.
Senate Bill 250, which we've discussed previously on our blog and in depth on our Rumble channel, would subject every county in Michigan, plus the state as a whole, to lockdowns subject to the fluctuating "test positivity rate" for the Chinese coronavirus.
Not the actual number of people diagnosed, let alone actually sick or dying, but the test rate.
Under the bill, on any particular day, the state health department, or your county health department, could issue an "emergency" lockdown order (for a period of unspecified duration) any day the "test positivity rate" met a given threshold.
Which made us wonder: What would this bill do to Michigan if it was the law of the land today?
Well, wonder no more. We crunched the numbers.
We computed the 7-day rolling average for each county in Michigan since the new year, plus the state average, to which the worse of the two would be applied to every county.
Livingston County District Court said earlier Wednesday the Inkster Democrat would be arraigned Wednesday afternoon, but the prosecutor's office said the matter is still under investigation.
A search of Michigan State Police criminal history files shows Brighton Post troopers on Tuesday requested warrants in relation to Jones for obstructing police, a misdemeanor weapons offense and a misdemeanor traffic offense.
Michigan State Police have so far declined comment on Jones' case, but Michigan State Police Metro Detroit posted on Twitter shortly before 1 p.m. that Brighton Post troopers responded to a crash in Livingston County on Tuesday along Interstate 96 and arrested a 25-year-old Inkster man.
The woke revolution is not a grassroots movement. It is powered by a well-connected and guilt-ridden elite. Yet the religion of Wokeness assumes these high priests deserve exemptions. Their wealth, credentials, contacts, and power ensure none are ever subject to the consequences of their own sermons.
As conservatives celebrate the news of a massive fundraising haul by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), the RINOs at the Washington Examiner are calling for her immediate destruction by the GOP establishment.
“She hurts the conservative movement because she gives liberals an easy target. She allows them to paint the GOP as a party of crazed conspiracy theorists. In large part, because she appears to be one herself. For that, she deserves to lose her primary,” Joyce wrote, showing how he kowtows to left-wing media narratives like a coward.
To save the republic, its citizens are going to have to do the work. We will not win back our freedom by passively awaiting the arrival of a white knight. [...]
These are not social events where we don our red hats, hang out and party with friends, and take selfies to post on social media. Political actions should be serious, planned, and controlled events. Think of Poland’s Solidarity movement or Martin Luther King Jr.’s marches during the civil rights era, not Trump rallies or spring break, D.C.-style. When the people engage in political actions in the streets, it is an instrument of their struggle for freedom and the future of the republic. When a movement is operating in a non-permissive environment with an active threat from the nation’s security services, it needs to employ reasonable digital countermeasures, tactical maturity, and discipline.
Successful political action starts at the grassroots. Local grassroots organizing lays the foundation for the necessary recruiting, training, education, and fundraising that allows for effective and disciplined actions.
Read the full article, folks, and get your voter files and walking lists.
Trump couldn't save America all by himself, and if he couldn't, nobody can.
We need to build the local leadership structures.
In your hometown and in your precinct, you need to be the leader America needs.
As was intended. This was no ordinary "litigation hold" letter. This was a public political statement, delivered to an all-to-eager mass media, to achieve a political purpose.
For those who may not know, a litigation hold letter usually consists of a demand that the recipient maintain all records relating to a lawsuit that the letter implies is coming. Every lawyer reading the Dominion letter will interpret it to mean: "He's getting sued."
But this letter said a lot more. And much of what it said was highly suspicious.
To put this in context, let's start with Sidney Powell's answer to Dominion's lawsuit against her, and the media's false and misleading reporting about it.
Her lawyers [were] simply making a highly technical legal argument that at the time Powell made the statements in question they could only be matters of opinion, and the statement of an opinion is not a statement of fact and therefore could not be grounds for a defamation action.
USA Today's neocon columnist Mona Charen titled her take: "Sidney Powell admits it was all a lie."
Her writing was the lie, not Powell's.
Yet it was the typical take of the major media on the story: An either intentionally dishonest, or irresponsibly ignorant misinterpretion of Sidney Powell's entirely sensible response to Dominion's $1.3 billion lawsuit against her.
There are two things to notice here:
First: That the major media intentionally or irresponsibly spreads gigantic lies across the American public.
Second: That what Sidney Powell asserts in her defense is "litigation privilege" – and yet, with astounding hypocrisy, "litigation privilege" is exactly what Dominion employs in their "litigation hold" letter to Senator Colbeck.
"Litigation privilege" is a protection for lawyers that allows them to say almost anything they want in legal proceedings, even what could be considered libel if made in other settings, because without that protection, lawyers could not effectively represent their clients. There is a widely recognized right to "zealous" advocacy for clients, and that extends to court proceedings. Courts don't want lawyers to be afraid to advance their clients' evidence and arguments. For better or worse, that is the idea.
And that is what Dominion exploited in their litigation hold letter to Senator Colbeck.
Dominion didn't just demand Colbeck retain records. Knowing the letter would be circulated nationwide by a supportive left-wing media establishment, Dominion publicly hurled every allegation at Colbeck they could conceive, using the letter to create a media spin-cycle where their bald accusations could be reported as fact, which could then cited in future statements as what "was reported."
Notably, Dominion claimed five times, without evidence, that Colbeck had raised more than a million dollars for his company by "sowing discord in our democracy."
And how they constructed this allegation, made five times, is remarkable.
In the first three out of five times Dominion claimed Senator Colbeck had raised more than a million dollars, they said he "solicited" the money:
"You are knowingly sowing discord in our democracy, all the while soliciting exorbitant amounts of money — totaling over $1 million so far — from your audiences paid directly to your personal business."
"[You are engaging in] spreading false and baseless claims about voter and ballot fraud in order to sow discord in the 2020 election and, in your case, to solicit over $1 million in "donations" from your audiences."
"You have been lying to your audiences throughout your disinformation campaign across Michigan in order to solicit over $1 million in "donations" to your personal business."
Read these carefully. In none of them do they allege that Colbeck actually raised $1 million – only that he "solicited" it.
But then, the fourth time they bring it up (a standard lawyer's play to repeat what they want to imprint), Dominion says: "what we do know is that you are raising exorbitant amounts of money — reportedly more than $1 million to date."
Here, for the first time, it is claimed the $1 million was "reportedly" raised.
In a letter with 37 footnotes, not one identifies where this figure was reported, and this author was unable to find any corroboration for the alleged sum's reportedness.
On the final page of the letter, it makes the claim a fifth time, and in doing so, leaves no doubt that the authors allege Senator Colbeck received $1 million in donations:
"We have reason to believe you are not disclosing to those you have duped into giving you money that once received, you can do anything you want with their over $1 million in "donations."
Dominion's unsupported allegation serves two purposes: First, to alienate Senator Colbeck from donors, with the unsupported (but protected by litigation privilege) claim that he raised $1 million in donations, which they suggest was for his personal enrichment, and second, to defame him to the general public.
It is the rankest of hypocrisies.
But it is important to keep in mind: Because the letter was also a political statement as well as a litigation hold letter, making the political statement may have been the primary purpose.
Beyond the obvious political statement was a subtext. Dominion has sued national figures like mayor Rudolph Giuliani and FOX News, but this would be the first lawsuit against a state-level figure.
The subtext is: "We're coming after as many as we can."
The letter was a political play, through and through.
It even has the audacity to speculate that Colbeck may run for governor of Michigan in 2022, projecting Dominion's own intention to interfere in politics.
But that also means we must re-examine the assumption that it foretells a lawsuit against Senator Colbeck.
To begin with, Dominion's case would have obvious problems.
The first is that as a public figure, Dominion would have to show what is called "actual malice" on Colbeck's part: That Colbeck made statements "with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not."
This is not an easy standard to prove. The obvious problem is that Colbeck would have no reason to have malice for Dominion unless he genuinely believed his statements. There is no evidence that he does not.
The second issue is Dominion will not be able to link any actual damages to Colbeck's statements. Not only because thousands of other people have made similar statements, including Dominion's other lawsuit targets -- and not only because everything Dominion attributes to Colbeck has been made elsewhere by others -- but because Dominion, by intentionally placing their letter in national media, did more to spread Colbeck's statements than Colbeck himself.
Dominion could claim defamation per se, but that doesn't explain what they expect to gain from filing suit. This type of litigation tends to be very expensive for both sides, and the only side that benefits are lawyers.
Thus, it is possible, if not likely, that the letter was solely intended as a media hit, and not a signal that actual litigation is pending.
If a suit is filed, however, it's unlikely that it will lead to some great reckoning about the truth of the matter regarding Dominion's voting machines.
Colbeck's legal strategy would be the same as Powell's, which is the same as any smart defendant's in a defamation claim: seek a pre-trial dismissal on matters of law, e.g. the question of actual malice.
It's the only way to end a lawsuit without paying exorbitant legal fees fighting at trial -- that or settling out of court.
Perhaps Mike Lindell has the financial resources to argue the facts in court, but it's unlikely others do.
All of this legal analysis about Dominion's political chess game is silent on the issue of whether the allegations about Dominion are true or false, so let's address that briefly.
Dominion wouldn't be in this mess if the election law in Michigan and elsewhere gave the public strong, clear reasons to trust the tabulating machines were accurately reporting the results on the paper ballots.
This is a policy failure. It is a failure that:
-Machines are at any point permitted to connect to the Internet.
-The recount process is highly limited.
-The recount mechanism can be thwarted by election worker "error."
-The document preservation laws fail to give the process enough time to determine facts.
-Other problems with election law contribute to the public's lack of confidence in the process as a whole.
The policy failures are the root of this issue, and correcting the policy is the only effective long-term solution for problems like these.
At Rescue Michigan, we are committed to and focused on correcting the underlying policy failures.
That is the most important thing we can do to restore integrity in our elections.
The Regents of the University of Michigan have censured Ron Weiser, the sole Republican on their board, and stripped him of his committee assignments, for telling an appropriate joke in a private setting.
Senate Bill 250 would put into law some of the most egregious and irresponsible lockdown orders issued by Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Under SB250, "emergency" health orders (for an "emergency" that began over a year ago) would require restaurants, event venues, churches, and schools to be restricted or closed based solely upon the test positivity rate for the Chinese coronavirus -- regardless of how many people are actually ill.
The bill would allow for closures across the entire state, regardless of the test positivity rates in any given county, even though those figures are tracked and available.
This grossly irresponsible legislation already passed the Senate with unanimous Republican support -- and Democrats reportedly voted no because the lockdown orders weren't radical enough!
The bill is being fast-tracked. Members of the House need to hear from us right now. Sign the petition to tell your lawmakers to vote NO on Senate Bill 250.
In the wake of Major League Baseball, Coca Cola, Delta, and other major companies calling for a boycott of Georgia – in response to the state enacting a law to protect election integrity – President Donald Trump and many others are calling for the companies themselves to be boycotted.
"Boycott Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, JPMorgan Chase, ViacomCBS, Citigroup, Cisco, UPS, and Merck. Don't go back to their products until they relent. We can play the game better than them. [...] The Radical Left will destroy our Country if we let them. We will not become a Socialist Nation. Happy Easter!" Trump said in an April 3 statement.
Agreed. Of the companies he named, Coca Cola is the one more people can choose whether or not to buy on a daily basis.
If corporations want to invade and attack the very essence of our constitutional republic by seeking to punish entire states for protecting their election laws, we should never give them our money again.
Karry Mullis, a Nobel Prize in Chemistry winner for his invention of the PCR testing technique used worldwide for COVID-19, has not been a fan of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci for a long time.
In an interview that has resurfaced from the 1990s, Mullis railed against Fauci repeatedly, expressing numerous criticisms towards Anthony Fauci and his career. Mullis began by saying “he doesn’t know anything... about anything” and “doesn’t understand medicine [and] should not be in a position like he's in.” Mullis died in 2019, months before the coronavirus pandemic began.
Last summer, in one of his most important monologues, Tucker Carlson raised the question: "Can the left lead a country they hate?"
Can you really lead a country that you hate?
Ask yourself: What kind of parent would you be if you hated your children? What kind of officer would you make if you didn't care about your troops?
It would be awful. The results would be ugly. It would not work.
Loving the people you lead – caring deeply about them – is the most basic prerequisite of leadership. The leaders of today's Democrat Party do not. They despise this country. They have said so. They continue to.
That is shocking. But it is also disqualifying. We cannot let them run this nation because they hate it. Imagine what they would do to it.
Tragically, the left was able to seize power, and now we know exactly how they would govern this nation they despise.
Georgia's supposed crime was passing a law to improve the security of its own elections.
Never passing an opportunity to stoke the flames of racial hatred, Biden, without evidence, called the law "Jim Crow on steroids."
For enacting public policy he disagrees with, the President of the United States openly endorsed calls for Major League Baseball to move its all-star game out of Atlanta: collective punishment against the people of an American state.
Collective punishment is one of the most repulsive and dangerous ideas in world history. It is a plague on human civilization.
It shocks the conscience twofold: first, that a President could make such a hideous and treacherous pronouncement at all, and second, that our major media is so totally controlled by the radical left that their response ranged from ignoring it to downright praising it.
Throughout President Trump's term of office, he endured the false accusation that he was dividing America, when in fact, his accusers on the left were projecting the result of their own divisive words and actions onto him.
The left's tried-and-true tactic of accusing their opponent of what they are actually themselves doing succeeded.
Now that America-hating sociopaths are in control, it was only a matter of time before they began making war on the American public.
The people of Georgia will be their first victims, but not the last.
The question is whether the American people will tolerate it.
And, if their un-American gambit succeeds in moving the all-star game out of Georgia, will any of the players have the courage speak out against being used as pawns in the radical left's political games?
Tragically, the answer to the latter is probably no.
Which is why it is so vital that all patriotic Americans speak out.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the governor’s statewide mask mandate in a 4-3 ruling on Wednesday, liberating citizens of the state from mandatory mask-wearing.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court took objection to Democrat Governor Tony Evers' legal standing to demand that every man and woman in the state wear a mask.
“The question in this case is not whether the governor acted wisely; it is whether he acted lawfully. We conclude he did not,” wrote Justice Brian Hagedorn in his ruling. Evers had issued an entirely new statewide mask mandate after Republican state legislators repealed it in February, claiming he has the authority to issue as many mandatory mask mandates as he wants.”
Michigan courts reached a similar conclusion when they ruled the 1976 "Emergency Management Act," which gives the governor 28 days to act under "emergency" conditions before requiring legislative approval for the actions, could not be applied to the ongoing "emergency" of the Chinese coronavirus in Michigan.
It was a unanimous decision that "emergency" powers couldn't just be renewed again and again to thwart the expiration or revocation of emergency authority.
This is now a second state Supreme Court decision against abuse of emergency powers.
The story in The Hill is worth dissecting line by line:
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that employees on former President Trump's 2016 campaign had to sign is unenforceable.
U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe, a George W. Bush appointee, found that the language of the far-reaching contract was so vague that it was invalid under New York contract law, Politico reports.
"The vagueness and breadth of the provision is such that a Campaign employee would have no way of what may be disclosed, and, accordingly, Campaign employees are not free to speak about anything concerning the Campaign," Gardephe wrote in his decision. "The non-disclosure provision is thus much broader than what the Campaign asserts is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and, therefore, is not reasonable."
Right off the bat, the decision is patently absurd.
It's obvious what the contract meant. It was meant to be all-encompassing: "You may not disclose anything about the campaign at all, period." That's not vague, and there is no prohibition against contracts of such breadth. They are written that way intentionally: to be catch-alls.
Gardephe also found fault in the non-disparagement clause of the agreement, Politico reports, writing that the contract showed the Trump campaign did not operate "in good faith."
"The evidence before the Court instead demonstrates that the Campaign has repeatedly sought to enforce the non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions to suppress speech that it finds detrimental to its interests," Gardephe added.
The whole point of non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions is to suppress speech a party finds detrimental to its interests.
It would be bad enough for a court to nullify a contract on the sole basis that a party intended to enforce the opposing party's breach, but George W. Bush appointee Paul Gardephe goes even further by labeling the Trump campaign's legitimate efforts to enforce the contract "not in good faith." I.e. "in bad faith." That is a serious, heinous allegation made by the judge, with no support.
The outlet notes that the Trump campaign had asked Gardephe to edit the provisions in the contract if he found them unenforceable, but the judge declined to do so.
Demonstrating the real bad faith was the judge's. Trump's campaign said "OK, you edit the contract to say what is right" and the judge responded by declaring the entire contract (and therefore all other contracts with Trump campaign employees) illegal.
It was an intentional move to legalize all breaches of contract for any Trump campaign staff to badmouth the campaign.
The Hill has reached out to Trump's office for comment on the ruling.
The ruling by Gardephe was issued in a case brought by Jessica Denson, a Hispanic outreach director on Trump's 2016 campaign. Denson is accusing the campaign of sex discrimination, Politico reports.
"I'm overjoyed," Denson told Politico, regarding Gardephe's ruling. "This president ... former president spent all four years aspiring to autocracy while claiming that he was champion of freedom and free speech. ... There's many people out there who have seen cases like mine and were terrified to speak out."
This is not the statement of a wronged employee.
This is the statement of a committed Trump-hater.
Jessica Denson was a Hispanic outreach director for Trump's 2016 campaign, and her bombshell allegation was that the 2016 campaign engaged in "sex discrimination"?
This is a transparent smear attempt that is exactly the kind of thing campaigns try to prevent through non-disclosure agreements, because insiders badmouthing a campaign--especially Trump's campaign--have a huge financial incentive to do so.
The article closes with a whimper:
However, a representative for Trump disagreed with the ruling.
"We believe the court reached the wrong decision and President Trump's lawyers are examining all potential appeals," an unnamed aide to Trump told Politico.
This is certainly a bad result for the Trump campaign, but more importantly, this is a bad result for contract law and non-disclosure agreements.
A court threw out an entire contract, ostensibly because it was "too broad" but obviously because it was a contract with the Trump campaign. The pretext will become precedent.
This is an example of the damage to the legal system being done by the anti-Trump malice of judges.
Exactly one year ago, [...] Donald Trump officially handed over the reins of his once-booming economy and his political future to two heartless, clueless incompetents who unfortunately remain in the spotlight to this day. The economic, educational, physical, and mental damage Fauci and Birx inflicted on the country will never be fully calculated, yet neither shows a hint of remorse for what they’ve done. And yet the virus is still here—in fact, in some areas, such as New York and New Jersey, cases are again starting to rise despite more than a year of shutdowns, masking, and social distancing.
So it’s fitting that Fauci’s year-long reign of terror culminated in his suggesting a form of child abuse disguised as more “mitigation strategies” to fight the virus...
Journalists with [major] outlets wield immense power and influence. These are not the voiceless, marginalized, powerless people in society. They’re the ones who attack, expose and ruin marginalized people if they dare express political views of which these journalists disapprove.
It is not just morally repugnant but quite dangerous for them to try to place themselves off limits from criticism this way. The whole point of journalism – the reason why a free press is vital – is because it is the only way to hold accountable powerful institutions and powerful actors. Corporate media outlets and those they employ as reporters are among the most powerful and influential actors in society and, as such, are completely fair game for criticisms, protests, and denunciations. [...]
When journalism turns its guns not on the powerful but on the powerless — descending as low as trying to prevent them from raising needed money for a legal defense — the contempt is well deserved. The demographic characteristics of the journalists doing this disgraceful, cowardly journalism is irrelevant. The only reason they even mention it is because they think they can weaponize it against their critics.
Naturally, the apology only provoked Democrats to attack again, which is why it should never have been issued in the first place.
Gretchen Whitmer, Dana Nessel, and Jocelyn Benson's tenure in the state's executive branch have been an unbroken series of bad-faith efforts to destroy our economy, destroy personal freedom, carry out personal destruction of individual citizens, and manipulate our elections for partisan benefit.
There was nothing to apologize for in calling them "three witches."
After months of speculation, today The Washington Post confirmed that the Biden regime is developing a “vaccine passport” that Americans may need to present to prove they have received their COVID-19 vaccine before they will be allowed to engage in commerce in a “return to normalcy” that looks nothing like the past.
According to The Washington Post, the Biden regime “and private companies are working to develop a standard way of handling credentials — often referred to as ‘vaccine passports’ (or ‘mark of the beast’ &nmdash;RM)— that would allow Americans to prove they have been vaccinated against the novel coronavirus as businesses try to reopen.” [...]
The left wing newspaper also believes that the vaccines can be used to bully skeptical Americans into taking the controversial vaccines.
“There is evidence vaccine passports could motivate skeptical Americans to get shots. Several vaccine-hesitant participants at a recent focus group of Trump voters led by pollster Frank Luntz suggested their desire to see family, go on vacation and resume other aspects of daily life outpaced fear of the shots, particularly if travel companies and others moved to require proof of vaccination,” they assert.
However, the Biden regime apparently wants this pressure to come entirely in the form of corporate interests requiring vaccines, and does not want to use the weight of the federal government to require the vaccine passports.
Trump supporters were encouraged to sign up for recurring donations to "protect the results and keep fighting even after Election Day."
Trump's leadership PAC received 60 percent of each donation, while the RNC took the other 40 percent. Until Trump’s PAC share reached the legal contribution limit of $5,000, nothing would go to Trump’s official ‘recount’ fund, according to a Reuters review of the legal language in the solicitations. [...]
"In the weeks following the November 3 election, President Trump asked donors to give to his ‘election defense fund,’ but in reality, the money raised flowed to Trump’s leadership PAC, which never paid for any post-election litigation and legally could not even do so," Fischer told American Greatness.
"One of the only restrictions on Trump’s leadership PAC is that it cannot be used to support Trump’s own campaign, including the costs of litigation arising out of his campaign," he added. "In short, Trump raised tens of millions of dollars on a claim that his PAC would do something that it was legally prohibited from doing all along."
In a way, it feels pointless to explain for the millionth time why gun control doesn't work. The facts never change.
The Boulder shooter wasn't stopped by Colorado gun laws, which include a "red flag" law, universal background checks, a ban on full-capacity magazines, nor the city of Boulder's ban on so-called "assault weapons."
We made all these same points the last time there was a gun control push, and the time before that. If you need intellectual ammunition for a gun rights debate, there's more than enough on the Internet elsewhere. You can check out Alan Korwin, Crime Prevention Research Center, GOA, or a thousand other places.
Activism, not academic debates, will ultimately determine the future of gun rights, but on one academic issue I want to make a point concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment, because it is powerful and almost never made.
I recently heard Alan Dershowitz making the usual anti-gun arguments on his show, and he made the familiar claim that the Second Amendment was really only written to apply to militias. Dershowitz made the usual straw-man argument that gun advocates "ignore" what he called the "preamble" of the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," which precedes the operative language: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Dershowitz argued, of course, that the "preamble" was meant to clarify that the right to keep and bear arms was only meant to apply for a militia purpose.
Second Amendment supporters usually respond with this counterpoint: The "preamble" is a subordinate clause. The amendment doesn't say "the right of a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; it says "the people" have a right to keep and bear arms.
This is a correct response, but unsatisfying and lacking, because it begs the question: Why, then, did the Framers include the business about the militia in the first place?
They debated every word of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If the subordinate clause is meaningless, why is it there in the first place?
To understand the true purpose of saying "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it's important to understand the meaning of the militia and the state as they were understood the time.
At our nation's founding, and really until the Civil War, Americans considered themselves citizens of their states more than the country. The Constitution itself was the unifying document that superseded the Articles of Confederation, under which states were largely independent.
The soon-to-be United States fought a difficult war for its independence, and the Founders anticipated future conflict with European colonial powers, particularly Britain, which indeed returned for Round 2 in the War of 1812.
A "militia" was understood to include all able-bodied men to be called into service in case of national emergency.
What makes a militia "well-regulated"? Being capable of defending the country. Being properly armed to defend the country.
Thus, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," meant that all able-bodied men needed access to weapons of war: military rifles.
The subordinate clause was not intended to limit the people's access of firearms; it was to enhance it!
It clarified that the Second Amendment was not intended to restrict gun rights, but to enshrine the inclusion of battle rifles.
And going even further: Long before the Fourteenth Amendment would essentially apply the Bill of Rights to the States, the Second Amendment, by referencing the necessity of the militia for the security of a free State, applied to the right to all States.
Think about it: If a State imposed restrictions on gun rights, it could not raise a "well-regulated militia" when the time arose, if its citizens were not effectively armed.
By saying that a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free State, the Second Amendment required all States allow their citizens the right to keep and bear arms, without infringement.
Conclusion: contrary to the claims of anti-gun activists, the subordinate clause of the Second Amendment was intended to support, not restrict, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
We no longer have a state militia in modern America, but that doesn't give anti-gunners license to re-interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment's subordinate clause.
The right to bear arms, including weapons of war, is the right of the people of every State, according to the full text of the Second Amendment.
Next time you find someone following Alan Dershowitz in misreading the Second Amendment, you know the answer.
Noem seemed like she was one of the few who could buck the trend when she rejected COVID-19 lockdown mandates in South Dakota. After her capitulation on transgender insanity, it is apparent Noem is another corporate servant of Big Capital. She fights COVID-19 mandates not due to principle but rather because it negatively impacts the bottom-line of big business entities affiliated with the Republican establishment.
In the days after the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Big Tech moved against a conservative alternative social media platform, Parler, based on the premise that the rioters has used Parler to plan the attack on the Capitol and that Parler had failed in its responsibility to prevent such coordination. Based on this narrative, Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores and Amazon removed Parler’s internet hosting. Yet on Thursday, Parler flipped the narrative on its head.
On Thursday, Parler sent a response to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s request for documents regarding the riot, the company explained in a press release. In that response, Parler revealed that it had “proactively developed an open line of communication with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the fall of 2020 and referred violent content and incitement from Parler’s platform over 50 times before January 6th. Parler also warned the FBI about specific threats of violence being planned for the events at the Capitol on January 6th.”
No counts for sedition have been filed against any of those charged thus far. Assault, conspiracy and obstruction charges are the best the feds can come up with, and many of the peaceful protesters inside of the U.S. Capitol may ultimately have their charges dropped – leaving the deep state with egg on their faces yet again.
On March 24, Michigan Senate Republicans introduced a package of 39 bills aimed at reforming Michigan's election law. It is their opening bid.
The Rescue Michigan Coalition announced our Public Draft plan two days earlier. That was our opening bid.
At this stage in the legislative process, all bills are essentially public drafts.
But these may move quickly. The Michigan Republican Party issued a news release on the plan the day it came out.
This suggests a distinct likelihood that this plan is "good to go."
Let us begin by saying, first and foremost, there's a lot of good in this plan. And the good certainly outweighs the bad.
But there is room for improvement, and the best thing that informed advocates for clean elections can do, right now, is to help make a good proposal better.
The most encouraging aspect of these bills is that they seem to be written with intent to become a citizen-initiated law. This is a serious set of major changes, including some that the governor is certain to oppose. Almost all of the bills amend the election law and could be rolled into one.
The best bills in the package include:
•ID requirement for absentee ballots;
•Uniform signature verification policy;
•Prohibiting private funding of public elections;
•Allowing video recording of proceedings.
However, other bills in the proposal are problematic.
Most notably, Senate Bill 300 would create and mandate an "early election day" where polls would be open from 8am to 5pm on the Saturday ten days before election day.
Under the bill, every city or township in Michigan would be required to have at least one polling place where voters could cast their ballots in person, with all of the requirements for poll workers, poll challengers, poll lists, notices, and security as a regular election day.
This would effectively create an "early election day." The cost would be substantial to taxpayers as well as to campaigns.
The bill also appears to anticipate that leaking of early results would be a problem, as the bill creates a felony for disclosing or in any way characterizing "how any ballot was voted on the second Saturday before election day."
Here is a description and our comment on each of the bills, with our comment in italic:
SB 273 Adds additional regulations for absentee ballot drop boxes, including that the secretary of state and county board of canvassers approve them. However, all ballot drop boxes used in the November 2020 election are required to be approved by them. Drop boxes would be required to be kept under video surveillance at all times. Only clerks and staff would be permitted to collect the ballots and would be required to immediately return the ballots to the clerk. A chain of custody log would be required.
It would be simpler to just do away with drop boxes, which are an additional point of failure in the chain of custody. Michigan's absentee period is extremely long, six weeks, and it makes no sense to create a major hazard for a minor convenience for some voters.
SB 274 provides that an individual would be permitted to pre-register to vote at age 16. The pre-registered voter would not appear on the voter file until age 17 1/2 (as they are currently).
It is not clear why there is any need for voters to pre-register more than six months before being eligible to vote.
SB 275 provides that members of the political parties may observe and video-record election audit proceedings. Individuals who disrupt the audit would be subject to removal, but video-recording alone would not constitute a disruption. Additionally, clerks would be permitted to broadcast video coverage "of the custody of all ballots while the ballots are present in the tabulation room of a precinct, absent voter counting board, or combined absent voter counting board."
SB 276 authorizes poll workers, poll challengers, and poll watchers to video-record locations where ballots are tabulated, except to record a voter.
Rescue Michigan included similar video-recording provisions in our proposal and we support them as an important means of documenting the record of events.
SB 277 increases the frequency that clerks forward death records and remove deceased voter from the rolls, from once a month to once every two weeks, and once a week in the 6 weeks before an election.
This is a minor improvement.
SB 278 makes minor updates to conform to SB 273 on chain-of-custody reports for absentee ballot drop boxes.
As mentioned above, it would be simpler to do away with ballot drop boxes entirely.
SB 279 increases the number of poll challengers that may be assigned to an absentee voter counting board, if the number of absentee ballots to be processed by the board is 3,000 ballots or more. Under current law, parties may have 2 challengers. Under the bill, they would get an additional challenger for each additional 3,000 ballots (i.e. 3 challengers for 3,000 ballots or more, 4 challengers for 6,000 ballots or more, etc.)
Additionally, if counting boards continue to work after the polls close on election day, challengers may be replaced with other challengers.
This would close a loophole on limiting poll challengers by combining many precincts under one counting board. Rescue Michigan supports this policy.
SB 280 would require ballot initiatives be filed with the secretary of state 200 days before the election, not 160 under current law, and require the board of state canvassers to certify the petition within 100 days of the filing date.
This is a needed policy to ensure the secretary of state processes petitions in a timely manner, which Jocelyn Benson failed to do with respect to the Unlock Michigan signatures.
SB 281 would require the secretary of state, before March 1 of each year, request information from each multistate program or service that the secretary of state is participating to verify the current residence and registration status of voters, require the secretary of state follow statutory procedures for at least 95% of the voters affected by the information, and require the secretary of state provide a report of compliance to the house and senate election committees, and post on the department's website the number of voters who received a notice, who have moved, who have died, and how many were duplicate registrations.
This is a sensible proposal to require the secretary of state use information available to remove expired voters and provide transparency.
SB 282 would prohibit anyone except the secretary of state, a designated voter registration agency (not a private entity), and local clerks from accessing the qualified voter file (QVF)
This intends to prevent private organizations from accessing the QVF for real-time voter registration. However, clarification may be needed to ensure this does not prohibit voter registration information and vote history from being available under the Freedom of Information Act.
SB 283 makes indefinite a temporary law for the November 2020 election regarding absentee ballot envelope containers (ie for absentee ballots received that haven't yet had signatures compared and been removed from their envelopes). Under current law, only before the November 2020 election may clerks acquire absentee ballot containers and county canvassers shall examine the absentee ballot envelope containers for the November 3, 2020 election and local clerks could purchase. This bill makes the provisions of MCL 168.24k ongoing. It also moves the deadline fore canvassers to examine absentee ballot envelope containers up from October 15 to mid-July.
This would be helpful in ensuring absentee ballot envelope containers are examined.
SB 284 requires the secretary of state to make an reports to the legislature detailing each contract the office has entered with an entity for an election-related activity or service, and prohibits all government entities from receiving contributions from private entities for election-related activity and equipment.
This is similar to Rescue Michigan's language to prohibit private entities from funding public elections and we support it.
SB 285 requires voters submit identification to obtain absentee ballots. They may sign an affidavit instead if they don't have ID, but in those cases voters would be given a provisional ballot, not a regular ballot. (Provisional ballots are not counted on election day and are only counted after review if there are enough of them to affect the result of any given race.)
This is an excellent proposal that was included in Rescue Michigan's plan as well.
SB 286 would prohibit absentee ballot drop boxes from being used after 5pm on election day. The drop boxes would have to all be locked at 5pm on election day to prevent voters from using them.
Again, it would would be simpler to just do away with drop boxes.
SB 287 would prohibit cities and townships from providing prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, and the secretary of state from funding or reimbursing them for prepaid postage.
This is a reasonable protection of taxpayer money.
SB 288 would require that cities and township appoint election 2 election inspectors, one Democrat and one Republican, for each random audit conducted under current law, allow the 2 parties to designate 2 observers, and require the secretary of state provide live video streaming of the audit.
This is a sensible transparency measure and we support it.
SB 289 would require that all election-related funding from the federal government be approved by a budget act of the legislature.
This is a smart proposal to prevent the federal government being a "work-around" to enable private entities to fund public elections.
SB 290 would prohibit private political organizations from appointing poll challengers, and require poll challengers wear visible identification badges identifying themselves, the party or candidate that appointed them, and the precinct(s) where the challenger is designated to serve.
It may be problematic to prohibit private organizations from designating poll challengers. We understand the intention is to prevent private entities from essentially going around the limitation on the number of poll challengers representing either party, but there may be unintended consequences in limiting the ability of the public to become poll challengers.
SB 291 would remove language in the Code of Criminal Procedure making it a two-year felony for a person to file a poll challenger statement on behalf of an organization that is not authorized to appoint challengers, and for a clerk to knowingly fail to perform the duties required in designating poll challengers.
This is presumably a companion to SB 290.
SB 292 would require the secretary of state to establish a comprehensive training curriculum for the 2 major parties seeking to designate challengers at an election, regarding the powers, rights, and duties of challengers, prohibits private entities from designating election challengers, and require poll challengers to complete the training.
The intention of this bill is consistent with Rescue Michigan's proposal to prohibit financial compensation of poll challengers: it intends to prevent poll challengers from being "hired heavies." However, there may be unintended consequences to this bill as written. It effectively creates licensure of poll challengers, subject to a curriculum created by the secretary of state. This may create an undue burden on poll challengers.
SB 293 appears to be an exact duplicate of SB 291.
SB 294 requires local election boards not appoint more than 2 poll workers from 1 major party for every one from the other. Current law (which this would add to, not replace) requires they "shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible" of poll workers from each party. Also, the bill requires that if a local election board is unable to appoint an equal number of poll workers from either party, the clerk must submit a report to the secretary of state detailing all of the efforts made to try.
This is a common-sense enhancement to existing law to protect the adversarial process by ensuring both parties are represented in hiring. However, because Michigan does not have voters register by party, there is an issue of how an individual is determined to be a member of a party that is not addressed in the bill.
SB 295 requires poll worker training include training on "conducting regular balancing checks at least once every hour in each precinct on election day to confirm that the total number of ballots issued at a precinct matches the total number of ballots tabulated by the precinct tabulator at that precinct.
This is not harmful but unlikely to make any difference. Poll workers typically do this anyway, and there is no punishment if they don't.
SB 296 enlarges county boards of canvassers for large counties. Under current law, all Michigan county boards of canvassers consist of 4 members: two chosen by the Republicans, two chosen by the Democrats. SB 296 would require counties with a population of 750,000 or more (Wayne, Oakland Macomb) have 8-member boards and those with a population of 200,000-750,000 (Kent, Genesee, Washtenaw, Ottawa, Ingham, Kalamazoo) have 6-member boards.
This may be helpful to prevent what happened in Wayne County in November 2020, in which county canvassers were bullied into voting to certify the election under duress. However, we prefer our own proposal, which would allow canvassers to rescind certification if made under duress.
SB 297 would require at least 1 Democrat and Republican county canvasser be present during the entire canvassing of returns. The bill requires the board of county canvassers approve the clerk hiring assistants to perform the duties of the board.
This is a common-sense reform we support.
SB 298 extends the county canvassing period from two weeks to three.
This would ease the time pressure of certification and is a welcome improvement.
SB 299 requires boards of election inspectors deliver the sealed envelope of election returns to the clerk "not later than 12 noon on the day following the election."
This is unobjectionable, but whether it would be meaningfully enforced is an open question.
SB 300 creates an "early voting" election day on the second Saturday before election day, from 8am to 5pm. It also strikes language saying the polls shall be open at 7am and open until 8pm on election day "and no longer" -- removing "and no longer."
This is highly problematic. It essentially creates an "early election day," with all of the attendant costs, complexities, and risks. We fail to see any reason this bill is part of an election reform plan.
SB 301 adds sentencing in the Code of Criminal Procedure for tampering with an early voting ballot container and disclosing an election result or characterizing how a ballot was voted before the close of polls on election day. Both would be 5-year felonies.
This appears to be a companion to SB 300, and illustrates that lawmakers are already anticipating the hazards of an "early election day." So why create one in the first place?
SB 302 would require a voter registration application include a statement that the voter does not claim voting residence or the right to vote in another state or territory.
This is a very minor change that is unlikely to have any impact.
SB 303 modifies the voter ID requirement that voters without ID sign an affidavit and instead are simply issued a provisional ballot.
This is a smart improvement to the voter ID requirement. Instead of ballots issued to voters without ID be irrevocably cast, provisional ballots require the voter to subsequently verify his or her registration with the clerk before it is counted.
SB 304 requires the notice provided to voters that do not show ID explain that their provisional ballot will only be tabulated if within 6 days of the election the voter verifies his or her registration record with the clerk.
This is important notice to provide as a companion to SB 303.
SB 305 prohibits public election communications from featuring public officials' names and likenesses. So, for example, lawmakers couldn't include voter registration information on their mailings.
This is a funny one. The intention is obviously to prevent politicians from using public funds to essentially promote themselves in election-related "informational" communications. However, the bill is written so broadly that it would likely prohibit lawmakers from even replying to a constituent who requests instructions on how to register to vote.
SB 306 would require the secretary of state make a report to the legislature and a public web page to shame all local clerks that are not current on their training requirements.
This is an unusual way to enforce a policy, but it is enforcement.
SB 307 would require that the full text of a ballot proposal is provided to every voter.
This would improve voter understanding of ballot proposals, which are often more complex than the 100-word summaries that usually appear.
SB 308 would require the secretary of state establish a uniform signature verification policy and that it cannot include a presumption regarding the validity of any signature that is to be verified, and to require signature verification training for all clerks and poll workers.
This is an important provision similar to that in the Rescue Michigan plan and we fully support it.
SB 309 would codify various rights of poll challengers, including the right to stand or sit behind the processing table at a polling place, the right to perform their duties (overruling "social distancing" requirements), the right to view results tapes, the right to demand and be provided a written explanation from the board of election inspectors if expelled from a polling place or counting board, and the right to use a cell phone or computer as long as it does not hinder or impede a voter's right to vote.
This bill spells out what is already law to prevent abuses and we support this clarification.
SB 310 would prohibit the secretary of state from sending absentee voter applications unless requested by the voter, and this would include providing a link to an absentee voter application on the department of state website.
This would prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on bulk mailing of unrequested absentee ballot applications and we support it.
SB 311 would allow for electronic submission of ballots from members of the uniformed services that are outside of the U.S.
We fully support the right of members of the uniformed services to vote, but creating a process for electronic submission of ballots for any individual may open the door for electronic submission of all ballots in the future.
Voters expect paper ballots because they are a common-sense way to protect against electronic ballot fraud. Overseas members of the military and other uniformed services are entitled to that same protection. We do not support this bill.
As an opening proposal, the Senate has clearly put some time and consideration into improving Michigan's election law. While some of these bills are problematic, we expect we will be able to resolve these issues, and many of the bills implement important protections that are worth supporting.
There are some measures that Rescue Michigan has proposed which are not included in these bills, such as security features for ballots, meaningful enforcement of two-party representation in poll workers, and extending the retention requirement for election-related records.
However, this plan is, for the most part, an encouraging start.
Last night, the Washtenaw County Republican Party hosted Ken Matiyow, former campaign manager and legislative staffer for Jack Brandenburg, a former lawmaker who served for 14 years in the Michigan legislature – the fullest term possible under Michigan term limits.
Brandenburg, a Republican, was first elected to the House in a district that hadn't been represented by a Republican since 1942.
Consisting mostly of Saint Clair Shores, the district consistently elected and re-elected left-wing Democrat Sander Levin to Congress, from 1983 until his retirement in 2018, when he was replaced by his son.
Republicans seldom compete in "Democrat strongholds," but Jack Brandenburg was determined, and Ken Matiyow discovered the winning formula.
The major issue that year, according to conventional wisdom, was the Single Business Tax. Knocking on doors, Matiyow was giving the usual pitch, until one day shortly after the NAACP had its convention in Detroit. All of the candidates for governor – Jennifer Granholm, David Bonior, and James Blanchard – attended the event, and each pledged support for "reparations": government quite literally robbing citizens of their money to give to black people, ostensibly to atone for slavery, which was abolished in 1865.
It was probably nothing more than the usual identity-politics pandering that dominates left-wing politics, but Matiyow found it interesting enough that he asked for, and received, Brandenburg's permission to experiment with the issue in his door-to-door work.
The response was stunning: The first day he began discussing the topic with voters, he placed 30 Brandenburg signs in people's yards.
The Brandenburg campaign found a winning issue, and created a campaign piece on the topic. Brandenburg became the first Republican to win the district in 60 years.
There are two lessons here. The obvious lesson is that political consultants are poor judges of winning issues. Consultants routinely advise politicians to avoid the issue of immigration, despite the fact the huge majority of the public opposes it.
Consider the 2014 referendum in Oregon on Measure 88. Oregon is, by all accounts, a left-wing state. Yet when voters were asked to approve the measure to grant driver licenses to illegal aliens, voters rejected the proposal by 2 to 1.
Rejecting giving driver licenses to illegal aliens was more popular in Oregon than legalizing marijuana, the incumbent governor, and the incumbent senator.
Last year, California voters said no to "affirmative action," another proposal to grant special privileges to particular minorities over everyone else, despite the forces supporting the proposal outspending the opposition 14 to 1.
The very issues that the "experts" tell Republican politicians to avoid seem to be the very same issues that actually resonate with voters.
But the more important lesson is to the power of knocking on doors.
But here we see it's also critical for identifying the best issues to campaign on.
When you go out and talk to 30 voters or so, you get valuable insight into what issues really motivate people. You can test an issue out on a small number of people, and see what works.
You'll also likely identify like-minded people worth connecting with and inviting to meetings.
It really is incredibly effective, and often becomes fun once you get over the initial apprehension about doing it.
But as Ken Matiyow noted, too many conservatives are just too chicken to do it.
"We talk a good game at our own events," he noted, "But then we freeze up at the notion of going out and actually advocating for our beliefs with strangers."
This is why conservatives are losing in the long run. We allow the radical left to present their morally obscene ideas as perfectly normal, and ours as "hateful."
Knocking on doors is the best, and possibly the only, way to change this paradigm.
Matiyow made this important the media: all the media combined only reach a few million voters, in a nation of 128 million of them. The huge majority of people aren't watching the media.
But if every passionate patriot reached out to just a couple hundred people every few years, we would be winning everywhere.
He noted the incredible political shift that just happened in Ontario, Canada.
For 15 years, the socialist Ontario Liberal Party was the most powerful political party in the province. Prior to 2018 the party won every election since the beginning of the 21st century and governed the province for the previous 15 years.
In 2018, conservative leader Doug Ford ran a Trump-style populist campaign. The socialists lost all but 7 seats in the legislature. It was the worst defeat for a party in provincial history.
40% of Canada's population lives in Ontario. This defeat was the equivalent of New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Minnesota turning from Democrat to Republican in one election.
It can be done. Socialism, which is the true platform of the Democrat Party, is unpopular on its face when voters understand what policies it actually advocates, and disastrous in its practice.
We can win everything back in 2022.
If – and only if – we find the resolve to get out and knock on doors.
Involvement of the intelligence community in the domestic activities of U.S. citizens is one of the most dangerous breaches of civil liberties and democratic order the U.S. Government can perpetrate. [...]
Nobody from the Biden administration or Congressional members demanding enactment of Schiff’s proposed new “domestic terrorism” law can identify any activities that are not now criminal that they believe ought to be. Unless it is to permit intelligence agencies to start policing constitutionally protected speech and associational activities among U.S. citizens, why are any new laws needed? Unless it is to empower them to escalate their already-aggressive use of War on Terror tactics against U.S. citizens, what do they want security state agencies to be able to do on U.S. soil that they cannot now do?
On March 19, 2021, Michigan's attorney general, Dana Nessel, boasted that Marlena Pavlos-Hackney, owner of Marlena's Bistro and Pizzeria in Holland, had been arrested by Michigan State Police, charged with contempt of court for failing to comply with a judge's order to shut down her restaurant in a civil case filed by the appropriately-acronymed "MDARD" (the state department of agriculture).
Dana Nessel was so giddy to report her latest victim that she referred to her by her first name, "Marlena," in her own news release.
"MDARD suspended Marlena's food establishment license on January 20, 2021," Nessel sneered. "...On February 11 the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision and an order continuing the suspension of Marlena's food license."
In the larger context of the evil of our state government being brought down upon citizens that refuse to let their government destroy their lives without resistance, it may seem like Nessel's choice to refer to her victim by her first name is only a minor detail.
Think about it! That Nessel would brag about destroying "Marlena's" livelihood – calling her by her first name – speaks volumes about Dana Nessel's mindset. Marlena Pavlos-Hackney wasn't just some citizen to her: she was Marlena, a woman who stood up for her rights and refused to obey unlawful, immoral, meritless orders. Nessel took her personally. Marlena was a threat to her, and so Nessel intentionally put her down by calling her by her first name, right in her news release.
Dana Nessel is a sociopath. Her conduct throughout her term of office has certainly suggested it, but the seemingly insignificant detail of calling her "Marlena" rather than "Mrs. Pavlos Hackney" is actually a powerful indicator of Nessel's mindset.
Marlena Pavlos-Hackney is a hero. Tens of thousands of businesses in Michigan have been crushed by the governor's insane policies of the past year. Only a handful dared protest, much less resist, their own destruction at the hands of these policies.
The state went after the tiny few that stood up for themselves. First it was Karl Manke, who fought back and defeated the charges. Then it was Huron Valley Guns. Now it is Marlena Pavlos-Hackney.
Other Democrat-governed states have done the same: very publicly used every power of state government to try to crush and humiliate the people that stand up for themselves.
In all cases, the intention is to "make an example" by creating the most public, most devastating personal destruction possible.
Supporters raised a quarter million dollars for Marlena's defense and support. It sounds like an astronomical success, but her actual costs could be that much or more. A gym owner in New Jersey has been fined more than a million dollars.
Knowing the brutality they face from the state – and its mob of leftists that will harass them forever – the people carrying out this nonviolent civil disobedience can only be seen as the most courageous patriots we have.
A lot of people say they care about our country, but do nothing to defend it. Or more often, do nothing of significance; nothing that puts themselves at any risk. Few ever knock on a single voter's door.
Marlena put her life's work and herself in harm's way to stand up for the essential liberty of every Michigan citizen.
If 100 other business owners had such courage, the Attorney General wouldn't have the resources to persecute them all. If a thousand did, the entire house of cards would crumble.
Michigan has over 800,000 small businesses employing half of our total workforce.
That's how rare Marlena's courage is.
But if people continue to organize and speak out, many other might be moved to find that courage within themselves.
Thirty GOP legislators voted for a Democrat farmworker amnesty that would push many Americans out of jobs, push billions of dollars of payroll from rural towns to foreign countries, and slash investment in wealth-creating farm machinery.
The total of 30 yes votes is down from 34 yes votes for a similar bill in 2019, despite much-increased pressure from wealthy business groups, farm lobbies, and ethnic activists. The lobbies favor the bill because it provides Democrats with a future ocean of amnestied voters — and it provides farm companies and their investors with an endless supply of very cheap and controllable H-2A visa workers.
Among the Michigan Republican congressional delegation, only Rep. Fred Upton voted yes. (All of the Democrats voted yes.)
The origin of the six-foot distancing recommendation is something of a mystery. “It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,” said Linsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission at Virginia Tech University.
When the virus first emerged, many experts believed that it was transmitted primarily through large respiratory droplets, which are relatively heavy. Old scientific studies, some dating back more than a century, suggested that these droplets tend not to travel more than three to six feet. This observation, as well as an abundance of caution, may have spurred the C.D.C. to make its six-foot suggestion, Dr. Marr said.
But that recommendation was not universal. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends three to six feet of social distancing in schools, but the World Health Organization recommends just one meter, or 3.3 feet.
Journalists with the largest and most influential media outlets disseminated an outright and quite significant lie on Tuesday to hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, on Twitter. While some of them were shamed into acknowledging the falsity of their claim, many refused to, causing it to continue to spread up until this very moment. It is well worth examining how they function because this is how they deceive the public again and again, and it is why public trust in their pronouncements has justifiably plummeted.
The lie they told involved claims of Russian involvement in the procurement of Hunter Biden’s laptop...
“Well, it was six votes. Six votes,” Pelosi said. “And our Democratic candidate, Rita Hart, asked for this process to begin. What the committee did was very narrow to take the process to the next step and see where it goes from there. An election of six votes out of 400,000 votes cast.
"They won't answer those questions. So we had a hearing, and we invited the department to come and testify the answer to a lot of these questions. And they refuse to testify. We put out a public list of questions we had for them, and instead of answering that and sharing the data, what they told us was, 'Hey, we have the best data out there. We're doing everything right.' But they didn't share it with us.
"Now, I don't know about you, but if I had the best data out there, I wouldn't go around bragging about it. I would just show people the data. But it seems like they're trying to hide something here."
"Then a few days later," Johnson continued, "we find out that the former [health department] director, Robert Gordon, got this $155,000 payout to remain silent about his time there. And you just start to follow all these pieces here, it's looking like they're trying to hide something..."
“I am seeking the truth because the families of lost loved ones deserve to know the truth,” Lucido said. “Those seniors have died without their loved ones holding their hand. I want to stop all the calls, all the heartache.”
My experience covering the hyperpartisan scientific community for years taught me to view coronavirus fearmongering and lockdown orders with skepticism. The credentialed class declared war on Donald Trump the night he won. Scientific “experts” cannot be trusted to separate their political agendas from their professional obligations, which they proved last summer when the “social distancing” dogma they foisted on the rest of us suddenly didn’t apply to mobs of “social justice” protestors and rioters enraged over George Floyd’s death.
Coronavirus hysteria and its cure—shutting down the national economy, including schools—quickly evolved into an explosive issue on the Right; longtime allies were at each other’s throats. Pundits and journalists who were compatriots during Trump’s tumultuous first term fought on social media in a very public feud. The battle, in some cases, became highly personal. [...]
It was a fraught time for everyone, of course, but early lockdown skeptics faced especially harsh condemnation from all sides since we bucked the clichéd “we’re-all-in-this-together” groupthink. The blinders were on for lots of otherwise smart people who were either ignorant or naïve about what the Left is capable of doing or perhaps too frightened of the virus to be honest with themselves. [...]
Even I underestimated the wickedness of the Left, how far they would go to exploit the crisis. I also underestimated the cowardice of so-called conservative leaders who not only refused to confront catastrophic, liberty-crushing lockdowns but went along with those authoritarian government orders. Republican governors, for the most part, have acted as badly as their Democratic counterparts. [...]
The damage done by lockdowns—economic, mental, physical, emotional, educational—is incalculable. Once the shock wears off, the horror stories of what happened after March 2020 will be told for years. The number of victims of inhumane lockdowns will far exceed those impacted by the disease itself...
As we have seen throughout the last year of antifa/BLM riots, in blue states, it’s now legal to commit arson, attempted murder, assault on a law enforcement officer and destruction of property — provided the perp is antifa or antifa-friendly. Andy Ngo’s smash bestseller “Unmasked” gives chapter and verse on antifa’s shocking violence untouched by criminal penalty.
On the other hand, if you’re a conservative, don’t commit a misdemeanor in a blue state. Proud Boys, Capitol Hill protesters, police and other presumed Trump supporters are getting more prison time than actual murderers for minor infractions. Even a couple of personal injury lawyers (liberals) are being criminally prosecuted in St. Louis for brandishing guns at violent looters coming toward their home. The rioters, you see, were BLM protesters.
In all these cases, local Democratic officials gleefully announce that they are locking up “white supremacists.”
Prepare yourself for a lot of witch-trial hysteria in the upcoming trials of Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis and the Capitol Hill trespassers in Washington, D.C. We’ve already seen it with the Proud Boys in New York City...
Before a bunch of female accusers came out with accusations of impropriety in a seemingly coordinated fashion, Cuomo was under fire for his murderous policies of housing COVID-19 patients in nursing homes with the elderly, vulnerable and infirmed...
After this scandal broke, these women – in fashion similar to Brett Kavanaugh and other #metoo hoaxes – emerged at the same time to get the focus off of Cuomo’s killings and put it onto his alleged sexual lasciviousness. This is very convenient, and those other Democrat governors who implemented similar policies may be breathing a sigh of relief as a result.
"Most conservatives realize our cultural and educational institutions are in enemy hands. Public schools and universities fill our kids’ heads with radical anti-American nonsense. TV shows and movies shove woke ideology down the throats of ordinary Americans. It makes sense that conservatives would want to fight back against this.
Yet some conservatives (and many liberals) make the bad-faith argument that resistance to wokeness is, in fact, “cancel culture.” In order to prove you love free speech, you must allow the Left to maintain its total domination of our culture-forming institutions...
Perhaps the most significant blow to the maximalist insurrection/coup narrative took place inside the Senate on Thursday. Ever since January 6, those who were not referring to the riot as a “coup attempt” — as though the hundreds of protesters intended to overthrow the most powerful and militarized government in history — were required to refer to it instead as an “armed insurrection.”
This formulation was crucial not only for maximizing fear levels about the Democrats’ adversaries but also, as I’ve documented previously, because declaring an “armed insurrection” empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry. Over and over, leading Democrats and their media allies repeated this phrase like some hypnotic mantra:
But this was completely false. As I detailed several weeks ago, so many of the most harrowing and widespread media claims about the January 6 riot proved to be total fabrications. A pro-Trump mob did not bash Office Brian Sicknick’s skull in with a fire extinguisher. No protester brought zip-ties with them as some premeditated plot to kidnap members of Congress (two rioters found them on a table inside). There’s no evidence anyone intended to assassinate Mike Pence, Mitt Romney or anyone else.
Yet the maximalist narrative of an attempted coup or armed insurrection is so crucial to Democrats — regardless of whether it is true — that pointing out these facts deeply infuriates them. A television clip of mine from last week went viral among furious liberals calling me a fascism supporter even though it did nothing but point out the indisputable facts that other than Brian Sicknick, whose cause of death remains unknown, the only people who died at the Capitol riot were Trump supporters, and that there are no known cases of the rioters deliberately killing anyone.
Melanie Joseph, the mother who had her timesharing with her 14-year old son suspended by Cohen, told NATIONAL FILE that she is determined to fight for a second chance to get her son back with a different judge presiding over the case. Joseph previously gave up her fight for custody of the boy after Judge Cohen made it clear that he hated her for the maskless photo. MELANIE JOSEPH’S GOFUNDME IS CURRENTLY LIVE.
“There is no reason for my son to be in this position that he is in right now,” Melanie Joseph told NATIONAL FILE. “I have not had hope for many years. The judge put the nail in the coffin of my effort to get my son back because he was carrying out a vendetta against me over one photograph in which I did not wear a mask. Now, I have hope. This is new hope. If it wasn’t for you and your team, this would not have happened,” Melanie Joseph told NATIONAL FILE.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi punted on the issue by provisionally seating Miller-Meeks in January instead of choosing to leave the seat open while the administration committee reviewed Hart’s contest. A refusal to seat the certified winner of a congressional race would be rare...
The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair. After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey. A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.
I was told that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was absolutely livid at Raskin both for blindsiding him with the boneheaded move for witnesses and also for potentially putting Trump’s lawyers effectively in control of the Senate for weeks or months. Schumer reportedly was screaming at the House managers in the Democrats’ cloakroom so loudly that he could be heard from outside the thick wooden doors.
Meanwhile, McConnell and his Republicans were being jocular and poking fun at the lack of critical thinking and political calculus displayed by Raskin and his lollipop guild of weak House managers.
Now that the media and lawmakers on both sides achieved their common goal of weaponizing Sicknick’s death against the president and his supporters, they’ve crudely abandoned his cause. It’s very likely the public never will get the truth, as if those who exploited his death ever really cared.
The D.C. Medical Examiner’s Office refuses to release Sicknick’s autopsy report even though he died two months ago and was cremated. No matter—everyone has moved on with the exception of his grieving family, friends, and colleagues who now surely realize their loved one was used in the most despicable way imaginable by the most despicable people in power.
Freedom of speech on the internet did not lead to a rise in “hate crimes,” according to a report sent from the U.S. Department of Commerce to Congress in January — a report that has yet to appear on any government website...
Sources who were close to the drafting and approval process suspect that bureaucrats and establishment politicians with a vested interest in the “hate crimes” panic are trying to suppress it, because its conclusions challenge popular media narratives alleging a rise in internet-inspired hate crimes...
According to the source, who formerly worked in the Trump administration, the updated report was bitterly opposed by the Civil Rights Division, which is the part of the DoJ responsible for prosecuting hate crimes.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) upstaged her legislative rival Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) on Tuesday by defeating her amendment that would allow violent convicted felons to vote in national elections.
Bush attempted to slip in an amendment to H.R. 1 that would have expanded the voting rights of violent convicted felons and make it more difficult for quality public officials to be elected. By putting the measure to a vote, Greene was able to kill the measure.
“Rep. Cori Bush’s ‘Violent Convicted Criminals Can Vote’ amendment to H.R. 1 was just soundly defeated in bipartisan fashion on the House floor,” Greene announced in a press release.
Bottom line: Those conducting these attacks on U.S. bases and troops in Iraq, provoking American counterstrikes, seek to ignite a conflict between the U.S. and Iran, and its proxies in Iraq and Syria.
And they are succeeding. [...]
The leverage we have are the sanctions Trump imposed. If Biden lifts those in return for Iran returning to the terms of the 2015 deal, he surrenders all of his leverage for a new deal covering Tehran's missile development and aid to Shia militias in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
But if Biden refuses to lift the Trump sanctions, Iran is likely to revive its nuclear enrichment program, give up on the U.S. and elect a hardline regime this year that could adopt a policy of attacking U.S. interests and personnel across the region until the Americans go home.
Six weeks into his administration, Biden seems in danger of being drawn back indefinitely into the forever wars of the Middle East.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
President Trump's keynote address at CPAC buried any notion that the Republican Party is no longer his.
The audience roared in applause throughout Trump's 90-minute address, the theme of which was that our movement is just getting started.
He kicked off by putting to bed the speculation that he would be starting a third party. "We have the Republican Party! It's going to unite and be stronger than ever before!"
It was a quintessential Trump speech. His takedown of Joe Biden and the Democrats was brutal and full of policy.
He spent more than ten minutes just taking down Biden's immigration policy. He exposed the Biden agenda on ending our energy independence, submitting to China, and keeping children out of schools. He even called out the Biden administration's efforts to ruin women's sports.
In substance and form, it was a total contrast to Hillary Clinton, who skulked off in defeat in 2016 and left her minions to make ridiculous fabrications about the election being stolen by Russia.
For his part, Trump stuck to his guns on election fraud, repeatedly noting that swing states broke their own laws to rig the election, as Michigan's did. He exposed the Time magazine confession piece, observing that "they couldn’t hold it in. They had to brag about it."
Best of all, he called out the Supreme Court for the cowards they are.
They should be ashamed of themselves for what they’ve done to our country. They didn’t have the guts or the courage to make the right decision. They didn’t want to talk about it. You had the case led by the great State of Texas. 18 states went in: “You don’t have standing. Oh, let’s not talk about it.” They didn’t have the guts to do what should be done, and that’s on top of all of the other forms of cheating. But this is the most basic of all, they would have local courts and local politicians change the rules, in some cases, a day or two before the election. This should never be allowed to happen to another presidential candidate or presidential race, should never be allowed to happen.
Regardless of your political views, this should concern you as a constitutional matter. The Supreme court, again, didn’t have the guts or the courage to do anything about it, and neither did other judges.
Preach it, Mister President!
Incidentally, CPAC's organizers were clearly in full support, hosting no less than seven panels on election fraud.
It established beyond a doubt: conservatives are not going to let the Democrats and their servants in the mass media browbeat us into conceding the election.
Near the end, he named every House and Senate Republican that supported his impeachment, with a particular slap at "the warmonger, a person that loves seeing our troops fighting": Liz Cheney.
When he mentioned Mitch McConnell, the audience erupted in booes.
He closed by sarcastically hinting at his 2024 run for re-election:
Don’t ever forget it. With your help, we will take back the House. We will win the Senate. And then, a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House. And I wonder who that will be? I wonder who that will be? Who, who, who will that be? I wonder...
Standing before you today, I am supremely confident that for our movement, for our party, and for our country, our brightest days are just ahead. And that together we will make America prouder, freer, stronger and greater than it ever has been before. Thank you CPAC, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you all. Thank you.
It was classic Trump, the happy warrior.
It was the moment we were all waiting for: to see him back in action and unshaken.
The last CPAC I attended was in 2016. It was at that awkward moment when Trump was the clear front-runner but hadn't yet clenched the nomination. Everyone speaking at CPAC that year despised Trump. Most attendees were rooting for Cruz or Rubio. I remember buying a Trump button off of a fellow guest because the none of the vendors carried them.
To Liz Cheney's chagrin, those days aren't coming back. The GOP is no longer the party of globalism.
It's Trump's populist movement, now and for the foreseeable future.
The afflicted develop negative feelings toward those who seek to help them, and positive feelings for those who abuse them...
The Democratic Party is holding the citizens of this country hostage. While we are all their victims, the Democratic voters in this country suffer from the additional psychological condition of Stockholm syndrome.
"The state has now crushed businesses, kept us from gathering in free assembly to worship as the First Amendment provides, is invading our bodies... which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, restricting movement, fining us in New York state... the violations go on and on...
"...and now we’re at something I never thought I would see in my lifetime ... and that is the suspension of the rule of law and that is when you start to be a police state, and we’re here. There is no way around it."
Jody LaMacchia, Chair of the Oakland County Democrat Party and candidate for State Representative, was "triggered" by a local billboard's simple message:
"The government won't save you but Jesus will. Put down your mask and pick up your Bible!"
LaMacchia took to Facebook to post a rant that plainly expressed the radical left's attitude toward religion and government that it usually takes great pains to conceal:
In the first sentence, Jody LaMacchia levels an all-too-common attack on free speech by accusing the statement of having "put our Oxford neighbors in harm's way." To leftists like Jody LaMacchia, their own opinions are undeniable truth, and everyone else has no agency. This is the mindset necessary for the statement "put down your mask" to be interpreted to mean "put our neighbors in harm's way."
This statement alone illustrates how dangerous someone with this mindset can be but LaMacchia continues: "You're alive because of the very policies [mask mandates] enacted by Democrats."
Again, the contempt for the individual – and for science, which has found no evidence masks have done anything to prevent the spread of the Chinese coronavirus – is breathtaking.
But LaMacchia blunders on, and dares to say "Jesus is cringing." To the left, leftists speak for God.
And as is their habit, LaMacchia mangles a passage in the Bible she does not understand to make her point. Romans 13:1-2, she claims, says "Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there."
To begin with, this is not even a faithful translation of Romans. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God," is the King James translation. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God," reads the New International Version. These translations are clearer. Paul says lawful authorities deserve obedience, not that there is only one lawful institutional authority that must be obeyed.
The Grace Community Church in southern California understands the true meaning of the passage. As they explained in a statement released on July 24, 2020:
Scripture does mandate careful, conscientious obedience to all governing authority, including kings, governors, employers, and their agents (in Peter’s words, “not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable” [1 Peter 2:18]). Insofar as government authorities do not attempt to assert ecclesiastical authority or issue orders that forbid our obedience to God’s law, their authority is to be obeyed whether we agree with their rulings or not. In other words, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 still bind the consciences of individual Christians. We are to obey our civil authorities as powers that God Himself has ordained.
However, while civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state, neither of those texts (nor any other) grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church. God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. A father’s authority is limited to his own family. Church leaders’ authority (which is delegated to them by Christ) is limited to church matters. And government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries of a nation or community. God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church. The biblical framework limits the authority of each institution to its specific jurisdiction. The church does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of individual families and ignore parental authority. Parents do not have authority to manage civil matters while circumventing government officials. And similarly, government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders.
When any one of the three institutions exceeds the bounds of its jurisdiction it is the duty of the other institutions to curtail that overreach. Therefore, when any government official issues orders regulating worship (such as bans on singing, caps on attendance, or prohibitions against gatherings and services), he steps outside the legitimate bounds of his God-ordained authority as a civic official and arrogates to himself authority that God expressly grants only to the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign over His Kingdom, which is the church. His rule is mediated to local churches through those pastors and elders who teach His Word (Matthew 16:18–19; 2 Timothy 3:16–4:2).
The U.S. Senate parliamentarian ruled Thursday evening that President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats cannot procedurally include a [job-killing] minimum wage hike in their $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, a setback for the Democrats and the new president.
Many traditional Americans are sleepwalking into a conflict they are not mentally prepared to handle. The ideals of blind justice and due process are now, for all intents and purposes, quaint relics, and relying on constitutional rights for protection is dangerously naïve.
Like it or not, we live in a police state, controlled by an increasingly authoritarian regime with near-total electronic surveillance. The national security apparatus views conservatives and free-thinkers as domestic terrorists, and there are now more military deployed in our nation’s capital than in war zones overseas. If America were any other country, it would be considered a non-permissive environment—not a free country...
Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too...
It is a testimony to the power of propaganda, institutional capture, and the desire to socially conform that masking of the general population has successfully been imposed during the COVID-19 era. The harms from this imposition are palpable, and potentially long-term and gargantuan, not the least of which is the psychological training of the public to comply with an absurd measure that has direct personal negative impact. I review the mounting evidence of the obvious: Universal masking harms people and society, without any detectable benefit.
Top officials at Rochester Community Schools in Oakland County enjoyed significant pay increases in 2020, a year when private businesses were closed by government order during the coronavirus pandemic.
Robert Shaner, superintendent of the school district, saw his gross pay increase from $233,771 in 2019 to $261,263, a $27,492 increase or 12%...
While I think the United States Supreme Court stumbled badly in its 7-2 rejection of the Texas case on standing last year, the refusal to “grant cert” (i.e., to take the case) yesterday in a Pennsylvania case is horrifying beyond words. I could say that our election laws are now full-on banana republic, but I’d hate to insult bananas that badly.
What the Supreme Court codified yesterday, and what it started with the Texas rejection, is that election laws and procedures cannot be challenged beyond a state court, at any time, regardless of how badly those states shred the United States Constitution, and regardless of the major consequences to the other 49 states as a result. They don’t ever say that per se, but the results of what those two rulings have done are just that. Period.
Those trying to challenge Pennsylvania’s obviously corrupt and rigged election system have been told that they cannot challenge the laws ahead of the election, because there is not yet a victim. They’ve been told that fellow Americans impacted by Pennsylvania’s corrupt system cannot challenge, because of standing. Now they’ve been told that they cannot challenge after the election, because it’s after the election - and therefore moot...
“Don’t get me wrong: There are questions about voter fraud and there have been throughout this whole process, but I think we do ourselves a disservice if we don’t look at where Trump declined in support and why,” Moorhead said...
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Jeff Hoverson (R), called mask mandates “diabolical silliness,” characterizing them as a conspiracy run by “unelected, wealthy bureaucrats who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies,” the Herald reported.
The Justice Department has publicly said that its task force includes senior public corruption officials. That involvement “indicates a focus on public officials, i.e. Capitol Police and members of Congress,” the retired FBI official said.
House Bill 2595 would prohibit “discriminatory ‘divisive acts’ in the workplace,” end “the teaching of ‘divisive acts’ in West Virginia schools,” and ban “state funding to agencies who promote ‘divisive acts,'” the legislation outlines.
“Divisive concepts” are defined to include the concepts that “one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex,” the “United States is fundamentally racist or sexist,” “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,” “an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex,” “members of one race or sex cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race or sex,” “an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by his or her race or sex,” “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex,” “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex [or] meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.”
“The term ‘divisive concepts’ also includes any other form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating,” the legislation says.
The response from the Democrats following the infamous Capitol riot shows that their version of unity mirrors that of radical Islam. Democrats want unity in the sense that their opposition must submit to their every whim and accept their permanent subjugation. Republicans must castigate themselves and beg for forgiveness for ever electing Trump as president...
Democrats now talk of unity in one statement while declaring the need for the federal government to treat their political opposition like ISIS in the next breath. Their notion of unity is akin to conversion by the sword. This is not how the American Republic is meant to function.
The Senate impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump confirms historian Henry Adams's adage a century ago that politics “has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” The impeachment process was a farce that should fortify Americans’ disdain for Washington. Considering how Democrats are using the January 6 clash at the Capitol to justify enacting a new domestic terrorism law, Americans need to recognize the frauds that permeated this process from the start...
In a healthy democracy, populist skepticism could lead to bipartisan reform efforts to restore confidence in election procedures. But the powers that be do not even acknowledge the legitimacy of any skepticism. Even after Trump is out of office, they stage a show trial, a second impeachment. The idea is to shame Trump, but also to shame anyone who supported his efforts to highlight weaknesses in our system. Taken for granted in the article of impeachment is that challenging the legitimacy of the election is itself disloyal, an effort to overthrow the American government.
In this column, I'll review each of the proposals and discuss their applicability in an election reform law in Michigan.
1. Counties would be prohibited from receiving grants from private third-party organizations for “get out the vote” initiatives.
"Get out the vote" initiatives are a legal method for tax-exempt non-profits to engage in partisan electioneering. These efforts tend to benefit Democrats to begin with, since those who are eligible to vote but fail to vote tend to be ideal Democrat voters: ill-informed and lazy. It is all the more beneficial to Democrats when the "non-profit" effort is targeted toward Democrat-leaning districts.
CTCL [Center for Technology and Civic Life, a left-wing nonprofit funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg] awarded eleven grants in Michigan. Recipient cities were Detroit ($3,512,000); Lansing ($443,742); East Lansing ($43,850); Flint ($475,625); Ann Arbor ($417,000); Muskegon ($433,580); Pontiac ($405,564); Romulus ($16,645); Kalamazoo ($218,869); and Saginaw ($402,878). In the 2016 election, only Saginaw was won by candidate Donald Trump; the remainder were won by candidate Hillary Clinton. In total, $5,939,235 was awarded to the ten jurisdictions where candidate Clinton won and only $402,878 where candidate Trump won.
The report understates the partisan bias of these grants. Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Pontiac are overwhelmingly Democrat areas.
Moreover, the report noted, these grants create legal liabilities for recipients:
The claw back and reporting provisions in contracts between CTCL and local counties and municipalities, if exercised, will result in inaccurate recordkeeping and state reporting under HAVA [Help America Vote Act] 254(a)(5) and the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments at 41 CFR Part 105-71.
The claw back language in the CTCL agreements represents a longterm, contingent liability for counties and municipalities who received the CTCL grants. These liabilities pose long-term audit, bonding, or pension risks to those counties who received CTCL grants. [...]
The appropriate mechanism for charitable donations for electoral purposes is through donations earmarked into the general fund of the individual state legislatures. There is no state or federal statutory authority for counties, municipalities, or other local electoral jurisdictions to solicit, receive, or appropriate private funding outside of state HAVA implementation plans.
Not only was the funding problematic and distributed in a partisan manner, it was entirely unnecessary. As the report noted:
Local electoral officials in Michigan who performed due diligence on CTCL grants observed the sufficiency of CARES [Corona Virus Aid and Relief and Economic Security] Act funding and remarked as to the non-necessity of CTCL grants. As example, Michigan’s Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown decided not to seek CTCL funding stating: “We already had an opportunity through the CARES Act to get extra equipment and things we would need at the county level. It seemed to me that they were offering up the same sort of thing.”
The December 2019 HAVA Title II 251 Report to the EAC from Michigan Secretary Jocelyn Benson documented an unexpended HAVA surplus for administration of statewide elections of $1,285,975.
The public record also indicates that Secretary Benson was aware of the availability of adequate public funding for dissemination to Ann Arbor, Flint, Lansing, East Lansing, Muskegon, Pontiac, Romulus, Kalamazoo, and Saginaw – jurisdictions that received CTCL grants.
The report, which contains far more information to cast doubt on the legitimacy of private, partisan funding of public elections, concludes:
The confusion and negative effect from illegitimate infusion of private funding in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and several other states during the 2020 election can be shown to have had a disparate and inequitable impact on the electorate.
Although history is replete with examples of elite groups attempting to gain influence, the current incidence of CTCL and other private donors purposefully injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into swing states is troubling because county officials who should know better actually accepted the grants, to the exclusion of abundantly available public funding. Even the most casual of observers can understand that acceptance of any private funding for administration of public elections creates inequity, dependency, and the potential for collusion, or even fraud.
All well-taken points. Michigan should follow Florida's lead and prohibit private funding of public elections.
2. Ballot boxes would be examined for their trustworthiness.
This proposal needs elaboration, but it is certainly true that ballot boxes should contain the highest level of security possible, particularly absentee ballot containers.
Michigan introduced outdoor absentee ballot drop boxes in 2020. Their security features are unknown. At the very least, they extend the chain of custody of ballots and introduce a new potential point of failure. There is no statutory guidance for the security of absentee ballots in outdoor drop boxes. At least one outdoor ballot box was the target of an arson attack last year.
Michigan should prohibit the use of outdoor ballot drop boxes, and require that absentee ballots received by the clerk are held in secure boxes prior to signature verification and tabulation.
3. Ballot harvesting would be checked so that no one could have a ballot other then their own or their immediate family.
Ballot harvesting is illegal in Michigan. In fact, it is a felony. However, in 2020, the Michigan Court of Claims suspended the law, using COVID as the pretext. Litigation may be necessary to prevent the law from being suspended again in 2022.
4. Vote-by-mail ballots could not be sent en masse; only voters asking for a ballot would receive one.
It is shocking that this occurred in Michigan in 2020, but voters have reported receiving unsolicited ballots--not just applications, but ballots. The law needs to be clarified that it is a felony for any election official to mail an absentee ballot to a voter that did not request one, and a request for an absentee ballot applies to only one election. Reportedly, clerks automatically mailed ballot in November to voters that requested one for the August election.
5. Vote-by-mail requests must be made each election year.
They should be required for each election, not just once a year.
6. Vote by mail ballot signatures must match the most recent signature on file.
More importantly, there needs to be clear and specific guidelines for signature checks, and they should be uniform for all verification purposes. Signatures for citizens' petitions should be reviewed by the same standards as ballot applications.
7. Political parties and candidates must be permitted to observe the signature matching process.
Yes. This is critical. Currently, absentee voter signature verification occurs behind closed doors with no scrutiny from poll challengers or poll watchers. When Absentee Voter Counting Boards convene, the signatures are already "verified" and the observers simply watch ballots being removed from the envelopes and fed into the tabulators.
The entire absentee ballot process should be conducted at public meetings.
The same policy should apply to in-person elections. When I worked at a polling location in Detroit on November 3, 2020, no signature checks of voters were conducted at all.
8. Supervisors of Elections must report how many ballots have been requested, how many have been received, how many are left to be counted, and must post over-vote ballots to be considered by the canvassing board on their website before the canvassing board meets.
Most of this is already law in Michigan, except that over-vote ballots should not need to be considered by the canvassing board. An over-vote ballot -- where, say, a voter votes for more than one candidate in a race where he's only supposed to vote for one -- should simply not have the vote count in that race. It should be unlawful in Michigan to process an over-vote any other way.
9. Precincts must have real-time reporting of voter turnout data.
It's not clear what exactly this means. Precincts currently report daily how many absentee ballot applications have been mailed and received, and how many absentee ballots have been mailed and received. Precincts should not be able to report throughout Election Day how many ballots have been cast, because that would require either equipment being connected to the Internet, or poll workers constantly updating the clerk's office.
Overall, this is an excellent list of important reforms that Michigan should consider as well.
As DeSantis said:
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, a lot of states used that as a pretext to be able to do hastily new forms of voting. We didn’t do that in Florida. We had a system; we had confidence in the system; we knew it was safe, and we did it. We were not going to be sending out unsolicited mass mail ballots because, as we’ve seen, there’s problems with that. And when people tried to sue us, we told them, “Pound sand. We’re not going to change what we’re doing.”
So the result of 2020 from an administrative perspective was that Florida had the most transparent and efficient election anywhere in the country. Other states took days, weeks, and even months to count their votes, and yet Florida, by midnight on Election Night, we had 99% reporting and 11 million votes counted, tabulated, and put out to the public. It can be done, and don’t let anybody tell you it can’t be done.
So I think it’s important to point that out, and I think Floridians of all stripes can rest assured that in this state your vote counts. Your vote matters; your vote will be counted. It’s gonna be transparent; it’s gonna be above board. It’s gonna be a confidence-inspiring process. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Don’t let anyone point to any other state and try to act like that is how Florida conducts elections because that is not true. That may have been true 20 years ago; that is not true now.
DeSantis is right. Florida went from a national embarrassment to a paragon of clean elections, while Michigan, having had an unbroken record of clean elections for over 20 years, became a national disgrace under the control of Jocelyn Benson a radical left-wing activist Secretary of State.
The Legislature needs to prevent the abuses of 2020, and do so before the next election, when the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state are up for re-election.
Amid the dire Covid warnings, one crucial fact has been largely ignored: Cases are down 77% over the past six weeks. If a medication slashed cases by 77%, we’d call it a miracle pill. Why is the number of cases plummeting much faster than experts predicted?
Condemning that riot does not allow, let alone require, echoing false claims in order to render the event more menacing and serious than it actually was. There is no circumstance or motive that justifies the dissemination of false claims by journalists. The more consequential the event, the less justified, and more harmful, serial journalistic falsehoods are.
Yet this is exactly what has happened, and continues to happen, since that riot almost seven weeks ago. And anyone who tries to correct these falsehoods is instantly attacked with the cynical accusation that if you want only truthful reporting about what happened, then you’re trying to “minimize” what happened and are likely an apologist for if not a full-fledged supporter of the protesters themselves.
The article goes into great depth on the media lying about the alleged killing of Officer Brian Sicknick.
One of the most significant of these falsehoods was the tale — endorsed over and over without any caveats by the media for more than a month — that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was murdered by the pro-Trump mob when they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. [...]
The problem with this story is that it is false in all respects.
[I]f the American establishment was an individual, it would be diagnosed as clinically insane, likely suffering from delusions of persecution and paranoia.
Yet this same establishment calls half the population of the US conspiratorial, delusional, and terroristic, even as it parades a lunatic’s version of events during a second unfounded, evidence-free impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump, and as it continues lamentations over the supposed malignancy of his presidency, weeks after it has ended.
Facebook announced Thursday it has blocked Australians from viewing and sharing news on the platform because of proposed laws in the country to make digital giants pay for journalism. [...]
Australian users cannot share Australian or international news.
International users outside Australia also cannot share Australian news.
“The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content,” Facebook regional managing director William Easton said.
“It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter,” Easton added.
There you have it.
Facebook just threatened to shut down an entire first-world country if it passes a law averse to them.
In October of 2020, an election inspector audio-recorded training sessions in which Detroit election officials encouraged them to use "social distancing" requirements to impede poll challengers.
This was traced to a Secretary of State policy to allow this, in violation of the legal rights of poll challengers. A candidate and a poll challenger sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and just days before the election the Secretary of State settled the case by agreeing to reverse the policy and inform election officials of the change.
Despite a legal settlement overturning the policy, the agreement was completely ignored, and poll challengers on Election Day were impeded by election officials everywhere. These were, in fact, felonies in every instance.
Nobody was charged. It was a total violation of Michigan election law.
This case calls upon the Court to protect the rights of a specialized team of professionals known as election challengers so that they can perform their vital role in ensuring fair, lawful, and transparent elections. The role of election challengers is created by statute. MCL 168.730. Political parties and other organized groups with an interest in the "purity of elections" and guarding against abuses are authorized to appoint election challengers to closely monitor both the voting process and the counting of ballots. Id. Once duly appointed and qualified, these credentialed persons are given a wide range of authority by the Michigan Election Law to closely monitor the election process.
Because election challengers play such a vital role in our democracy, our Legislature has even made it a felony to threaten, intimidate, or impede the work of an election challenger. MCL 168.734; MCL 168.733(4). In fact, there are only two reasons given by statute to support the expulsion of a challenger from a polling place: (1) if there is evidence that the election challenger is drinking alcoholic beverages; or (2) is engaging in disorderly conduct. MCL 168.733(3). [...]
On October 16, 2020, the defendants issued a written directive to local election officials outlining procedures for the upcoming November 3, 2020 general election... In relevant part, they have directed - or at the very least permitted - local election officials to condition the presence of election challengers upon wearing a face mask. And then even while wearing a mask, a local election official may mandate and expressly command that election challengers remain socially distanced [at least 6 feet] from election workers...
These directives render it impossible for an election challenger to fully execute their duties and exercise their rights under Michigan Election Law. As a threshold matter, and as described above, an election challenger can only be denied his or her right to inspect and challenge if he or she is consuming alcohol or acting disorderly. MCL 168.733(3). The statute does not provide for expulsion or impediment based on any other factor. But this case does not merely advance a technical challenge to the defendants’ directive. More critically, an election challenger is not able to discharge his or her critical duty and right from a distance of six feet.
Plaintiff Cushman is a duly appointed election challenger who intends to serve in that role during the November 3, 2020 general election. Additionally, Plaintiff Cushman served in that role during the August 2020 primary election. As described in the verified complaint, Plaintiff Cushman states that it was and will be very difficult to impossible to exercise his full rights from a distance of at least six feet. By way of specific example, from his own personal experience he states:
A. It was very hard to impossible to read names in the poll books. B. It was impossible to tell whether the high-speed tabulator operator cleared the results before re-running the stack of ballots because of a jam of one ballot. C. It was hard to see and hear the adjudication process. D. It was very hard to impossible to observe computer screens which contain election data. E. It was very hard to impossible to observe the checking of each ballot for seal and to observe whether envelopes were signed and dated.
And it is not just election challengers who recognize that they can't perform their statutory duties while socially distanced; local election officials know it too. Based on the defendants’ directives, a local election official in the City of Detroit who was training poll workers rather gleefully describes how election challengers are to be impeded:
Election Official: They have to wear a mask and they have to stay six feet. That's important because they can come behind your table, but if you don't have six feet, they can't come back there. They cannot wear anything that signifies who they work for. It has to be on the card. So, they can't walk in with a party, or anything on, just like you can't on your mask, they can't either. Any questions?
Poll Worker: So if they're six feet back, they can't actually see.
Election Official: Exactly, unless they got really good vision or they brought their binoculars.
Election Official: Six feet. That's the rule, right? And you are entitled to your six feet!
[END MOTION EXCERPT]
The lawsuit had such merit that the Secretary of State settled out of court at the first hearing and agree to amend their policy to clarify that poll challengers may not be impeded on the pretext of social distancing requirements:
What took place at the TCF Center were serial felonies. Poll challengers were unlawfully impeded.
The problem here wasn't that the law was wrong. The problem was that it was broken and could not be enforced. The aggrieved parties did not have sufficient video evidence and documentation to file criminal charges against election officials.
All election proceedings where ballots are not being cast should be permitted to be video-recorded by members of the public.
Absentee ballot counting boards (and even absentee ballot signature verification) should not take place behind closed doors. These are public proceedings. The only reason to prohibit video at elections is the potential to intimidate voters. This condition is not present at absentee voter counting boards.
Require all election inspectors wear name tags identifying their names and the political party they claim to represent.
When I was a ballot box inspector for the City of Detroit, red and blue name tags were given out, but nobody was required to wear them, nobody was instructed to wear them, nobody assumed "blue" meant Democrat and "red" meant Republican, and the name tags themselves did not make that distinction clear.
It should be a misdemeanor for a poll worker to not wear name tags that accurately identifies the name the party he or she claims to represent, so that if they break the law they can be identified.
These are common sense reforms to ensure the law is followed and that our elections are transparent.
This is the first of a series of posts about legislative remedies to resolve the problems Michigan experienced in the November 2020 election.
There are many issues to address, and it would be a very long column to go through them all, so this will appear instead as a series of posts to address each issue specifically.
In this first column, we're going to examine the issue of poll workers, or as they are referred to in the law, "election inspectors."
Election inspectors perform the vital role of administering elections. Poll challengers may raise issues if they are conducting the election improperly, but if the election inspectors are honest and decent people, there would be no misconduct to report in the first place.
Michigan's election law specifies that "the board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party." MCL 168.674.
Lawmakers understood that an election is an inherently adversarial process in which parties compete for power. Therefore, maintaining an equal number of Democrats and Republicans as election inspectors was crucial to ensure that neither party could break the rules. If, for example, all poll workers were Democrats, it would be possible for them to apply rules improperly, in a biased manner, with little recourse available to outsiders.
Of course, this is exactly what happened in Detroit, and probably elsewhere, in November 2020. Almost no Republicans were hired by the City of Detroit to work at the polls on Election Day, and at the TCF Center were absentee ballots were being counted, election officials illegally had Republican poll challengers removed from the premises. According to whistleblowers, signature checks were not performed, and over-voted ballots were improperly ruled to have voted Democrat.
How did Detroit get around the statutory requirement that poll workers be appointed equally from both major parties?
First, Michigan does not have partisan voter registration. We don't have "registered Democrats" and "registered Republicans." We're all just voters.
The only enforceable exception is for a small percentage of people who are public officials, party officers, or precinct delegates with a public party affiliation.
The law does say that one is considered a member of a party if he or she "has made documented public statements specifically supporting by name" the party or its candidates in that same calendar year.
However, even if the election officials were to vet the public statements of every poll worker applicant (which they don't), it would be easy to find people with no record of public statements.
Indeed, that appears to be exactly what Detroit did: They hired a massive number of teenagers, people under 18 years who were not even eligible to vote, to be electronic pollbook inspectors.
This problem could be easily remedied.
MCL 168.673 allows for the county chair of the Republican and Democrat parties to submit to the local clerks a list of individuals who are interested in serving as election inspectors. However, under current law, election officials may ignore this list completely.
The solution is simple: Amend Section 168.674 to require boards of election commissioners first appoint those eligible and willing to work as election inspectors from the lists provided by the county chairs.
This way, the county parties would be able to vet candidates for election inspectors, and the election officials must hire their qualified candidates first.
Additionally, the law should be amended to require boards of election commission first appoint registered voters over any other eligible person.
There is no logical reason American elections should be conducted by aliens, felons, or children. They should be conducted by stakeholders in the election, i.e. the voters.
Finally, subject to these constraints, boards of election commission should be required to appoint remaining election inspectors by random selection of qualified applicants.
Another problem with Detroit's election was that the election inspectors were not hired in a normal public hiring process. Typically, a government agency will post job openings and have an application process available to the general public.
Detroit didn't do that. The online application was never linked from its home page: it was a secret link that the public would never have been able to find. They posted a paper application, but provided no email address to submit it electronically or even a street address to deliver the application.
Instead, the hiring practice appeared to consist of tipping off their political friends.
The law should be amended to require boards of election commissioners to post notice, via its office building, website, or print media (i.e. similar to public notices) a period during which individuals may apply to become election inspectors. The board shall not accept applications prior to the start date and shall only accept applications after the end date if there is an insufficient number of qualified applicants. Members of the board of election commissioners shall not solicit applicants in a non-public manner.
Implementing these changes would go a long way toward ensuring that the spirit of the current law is faithfully implemented by requiring election officials to hire an equal number of genuine members of each political party.
The right-wing media is taking victory laps for Donald Trump becoming the most acquitted President in American history.
It certainly was a triumph for President Trump. His legal team, led by Michael van der Veen, methodically destroyed the meritless case brought in bad faith by the Democrats, and they won their client's acquittal.
There are too many highlights to mention. They caught the Democrats submitting fake evidence and doctored photos. They played long, brutal montages of Democrats committing the actual behavior they accused of President Trump.
They slammed Democrats on the obvious legal grounds for dismissal, including the lack of jurisdiction to impeach a private citizen retired from office, the total denial of due process, and the fact the President's statements were constitutionally protected speech. They even hit on less obvious grounds: that the Senate's own rules prohibited multiple allegations being brought under a single charge, an important protection to ensure senators wouldn't vote to find a defendant guilty on differing claims.
They pulled no punches in calling the impeaching Democrats out on the obvious malice with which the charges were brought. They proved the crimes committed at the Capitol were premeditated and could not possibly have been incited by the President.
Best of all, they highlighted the hypocrisy of the entire exercise: They showed not only that the Democrats' own words over the past year be at least as responsible for the chaos on January 6 than the President's own, but that the impeachment itself underscored to the public how corrupt our system is and poured gas on the fire of discontent, just to conduct a purely malicious act of political retribution.
Their case was crisply argued, using just two and a half hours out of the sixteen allotted. And their entire presentation was assembled in just a few days, with the team not even receiving the evidence until the trial was underway. They created an incredible performance on an emergency deadline.
Van de Veen's performance was a masterclass. David Schoen was good, too. They knocked the defense off balance and never relented.
And yet, all the same, the impeachment achieved what it actually set out to accomplish.
If you're puzzled by this, you don't understand the tactics of the radical left.
It is a standard tactic for them to demand total surrender from their victims, only to graciously (or bitterly) settle for a smaller victory, when in reality, the smaller victory was the goal all along.
H.L. Richardson described this tactic decades ago:
"By definition, compromise is a settlement of differences with mutual concessions being made by both parties. This is how the dictionary defines the word. Both sides give up something.
"This is not how the leftists 'compromise.' They will ask for 100 percent, then give in a little on their outlandish demands when opposition becomes formidable. They may call it compromise, but what are they giving up? Absolutely nothing! In order to implement their humanist agenda, are they sacrificing anything? Are they relinquishing control or perhaps abandoning some other established bureaucracy in order to negotiate in good faith? Never. They relinquish nothing while insisting we compromise away a piece of our freedom."
Democrats couldn't convict Donald Trump, but they committed grievous damage to the foundation of the American legal system.
They did so with total unanimity. Every Democrat member of the House and Senate voted to burn the Constitution of the United States and conduct a witch trial. If not for Republican opposition, they would have prevailed.
But even without the requisite two thirds, they still had a majority in both chambers, and more than zero Republicans joining them to destroy our most basic constitutional civil liberties.
Think about the implications. Not for Trump, but for our country.
The party that controls the two strongest branches of the federal government just told the world that the entire American history of defending the legal rights of defendants can be tossed in the garbage if the judge doesn't like the defendant's politics.
Just before the hearing, 144 lawyers, many of them highly prominent, influential, and in positions of control, signed a letter arguing that the President's defense team should be sanctioned and potentially disbarred if they dared to assert the President's First Amendment rights as a defense. They hideously characterized this defense as unethical to even be raised.
These sick people are undermining the fundamental rights to free speech and to counsel, and it will be the American public, not Donald Trump, who will be the victims of this reckless attack.
These Americans include Lucas Gerhard, who has been under arrest for over a year, accused of making a "terrorist threat," for joking that his legally-owned rifle "ought to make the snowflakes melt."
American jurisprudence on free speech protections evolved dramatically over the past century, over many landmark civil rights cases. The impeachment put these protections in mortal danger.
The impeachment trial legitimized madness. Every member of Congress that supported it, including each and every Democrat, wasn't waging war on Donald Trump, although in their obsessive hatred, perhaps some believed that's all they were doing.
The real victim of impeachment was the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental right of free speech, due process of law, and the presumption of innocence.
The Democrats, along with a few enabling Republicans, legitimized a blueprint for insane legal attacks on common citizens across the country.
They moved the center to the left. And nobody even noticed.
In this case, what they moved wasn't the political system; it was the legal system.
They moved us closer to mob justice in a big way.
This is profoundly dangerous. People need to understand that our Constitution is in grave peril, and this sham impeachment was a turn for the worse.
It's tempting to think that anyone familiar with the Constitution and rules of legal procedure would consider the second impeachment of Donald Trump as a national disgrace. The Democrats' arguments were buffoonish and barbaric.
The entirety of "evidence" presented by Democrats on the second day of the impeachment trial consisted of ascribing to President Trump the words spoken, and actions taken, by those who were not Donald Trump.
As the brilliant attorney Harmeet Dhillon succinctly put it: “In a real trial with a real judge and a real jury of disinterested, non-witness jurors, almost none of the evidence and none of the false, bombastic, weepy, and demagogical ‘legal arguments’ we’ve seen in this impeachment trial would have been allowed.”
But no. Many people of sound mind are lapping up this garbage.
Days earlier, no less than 144 prominent lawyers signed a letter arguing that President Trump's lawyers should be disbarred if they dare make the argument that the President's statements—which included no incitement to violence or any illegal activity whatsoever—were protected by the First Amendment, and therefore could not possibly be considered unlawful speech.
This came just days after the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state of Michigan—Gretchen Whitmer, Dana Nessel, and Jocelyn Benson—filed a formal complaint with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Michigan seeking the disbarment of attorneys that represented Donald Trump.
These are serious attacks, not just on Donald Trump, but on the legal profession itself.
What is the goal of this impeachment? Obviously it cannot possibly drive Trump out of office, because he is already out of office.
If the intention is to prevent Trump from running for President in 2024, it is a hopeless endeavor. Democrats will not get two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict Donald Trump. If they attempt to pass some rule to allow for a simple majority to bar him from office, Trump will sue, and put the impeachment itself on trial before a court. Chief Justice John Roberts' refusal to preside over this sham trial is a strong indication on the outcome.
The real intention of this proceeding is only to trash Donald Trump.
In doing so, however, Democrats are escalating very serious attacks on the pillars of our legal system. They are presenting to the American people a barbaric contortion of the legal process, while behind the scene they are legitimizing the dangerous practice of attacking the right and duty of attorneys to zealously represent their clients.
The entire impeachment trial is a sham, and a dangerous assault on our legal system. It is an attack on the civil rights of all citizens to be represented by counsel and for their counsel to offer every possible argument in their defense.
But at the very end of the day on Wednesday, February 10, Senator Mike Lee exposed the sham for what it is.
Here's what happened:
David Cicilline, a House Representative from Rhode Island, Impeachment Manager, and complete moron made a false claim that on January 6, President Trump inadvertently called Senator Mike Lee when he intended to call Senator Tommy Tuberville, to ask Senator Tuberville continue objecting to the election results and in doing so "buy time" for more objections.
The senile presiding judge and juror, Patrick Leahy, had no idea what to do.
In a knee-jerk reaction to the motion of Republican Senator Lee, Democrats scrambled so swiftly that Patrick Leahy never actually ruled on Senator Lee's motion.
Leahy goes on to confirm with Lee that a roll call vote is demanded.
Senator Roger Wicker asks: "What is the question? Is it, 'Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?'"
Nobody knew what was going on.
Senator Mike Lee called him out: "What, may I ask, is the ruling of the chair?!" Leahy never said. "My point was not about whether it's appropriate for them to make characterizations. My point was to strike them, because they are false."
Leahy went on to rule against Lee, claiming that the Senate rules allowed the statement.
Lee would have none of it. "Mister President, that is not my motion! You've ruled on a motion that was not what I moved. What I asked was, statements were attributed to me repeatedly. As to which I have personal knowledge, because I am the source. They are not true. I never made those statements. I asked that they be stricken. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are based on evidence, which they are not. It's simply based on the fact that I am the witness. I am the only witness. These statements are not true and I ask that you strike them."
Chaos erupted. Democrats had been lying all day long, but they overplayed their hand by lying about a sitting senator.
Mike Lee demanded a roll call vote, and the clerk began calling the roll. "Miss Baldwin... Mister Barasso..."
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stopped the vote. "Point of clarification, what is the question?"
The proceeding ground to a halt.
In a normal criminal trial, the prosecutor lying about facts, as David Cicilline did, would be grounds for a mistrial.
Democrats had no idea what to do. Mike Lee called them out on a bald-faced lie, and demanded a roll call vote to have the lie stricken from the record.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick-witted enough to put a stop to the roll call vote, and said "I suggest the absence of a quorum while we work this out." Another bald-faced lie, because every senator was in the room.
After a huddle, Democrats moved to render Lee's objection moot by volunteering to strike their own lies from the record.
But the damage was done.
In one move, Lee exposed that the Democrats used false evidence. He was only able to do so because in that instance, he was the witness to the allegation. Lee exposed that Patrick Leahy, the Trump-hating biased juror and judge presiding over the show trial, was so incompetent that he couldn't understand the motion in front of him.
In one move, Senator Mike Lee proved the entire trial of the former President was a total sham.
It won't stop the Democrats from pressing forward on impeachment. Be thankful: They are digging their own graves.
The spin on the article is ridiculous, but the truth shines right through.
This statement, near the top of the story, nicely illustrate the spin and sum up the facts:
"That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it."
The hubris is stunning. "When we manipulate an election, we're not rigging it; we're fortifying it!"
But despite the outrageous and offensive slant, the facts presented are worth knowing.
Saturday February 6, Michigan Republicans will have their convention to elect new party leadership. If you are a state delegate like me, this is your opportunity to vote and choose who we want to be our leaders.
Here are my recommendations:
State Chairman and Co-Chair: Ron Weiser and Meshawn Maddock.
Before even addressing the disaster that occurred today, let's just compare results.
Ron Weiser has donated millions of dollars to Republicans over the years and raised many millions more. He was once Finance Chair of the national committee.
Meshawn Maddock ran Michigan Trump Republicans and Women For Trump, bringing thousands of new supporters into the campaign. This was after building (along with Marian Sheridan and others) some of the largest conservative grassroots organizations in Michigan.
Weiser's opponent, incumbent Chairwoman Laura Cox, lost her race for State Senate in 2018. That same year, the candidate to replace her in the State House lost the race, and the Democrats took over the congressional seat of her district with a complete lunatic, Haley Stevens.
This somehow qualified her to run the state party, which went on to fail to reclaim the two lost congressional seats and, of course, lose the White House.
It was no surprise when Laura Cox dropped out of the race a few weeks ago, but a complete stunner when this morning Cox kicked out an email blast to state delegates, accusing Ron Weiser of misconduct and potential crimes.
The 2,000-word accusation was full of inside baseball and carefully-worded insinuations relating to Weiser allegedly using party money to pay a candidate to drop out of the race for Secretary of State in 2018.
"Wherever the money came from does not solve or negate the potentially serious violations of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (“MCFA”), i.e., for the use of undisclosed corporate funds to influence a state race," Cox wrote.
Weiser's reply was brutal:
Laura Cox's baseless allegations are a desperate attempt to smear my name, based on a longstanding political grudge, and her inability to hold onto the job of party chair that she could not keep on her own merits. The contract in question was drafted by counsel, and I relied on that counsel. What's more, Laura's false allegations have been reviewed by former Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr. of the Michigan Supreme Court, who has also consulted with other legal experts, and they all agree there have been no violations. Laura has known about these issues for the past two years and, had there been any violation, which there wasn't, she would have compounded the problem and she would have been liable. Furthermore, Laura appointed Grot as chair of the budget committee, putting him in charge of the party's finances, undermining her entire assertion.
I'm disappointed by Laura's shameful attempt to destroy our party with unfounded and reckless conspiracy theories so that she can get back in the chair's race and save her paycheck. We must focus on our party and our future. As such, I have started putting together a staff and a plan to win in 2022.
I've been involved in GOP politics long enough to know that dirty tricks are the norm in state convention races. But what Laura Cox did today was appalling.
I have no doubt that Weiser's legal team ensured that everything he did was by the book, but having made this public accusation, Laura Cox just invited the Attorney General and Secretary of State to harass the party over this matter for the next two years.
And this comes just a day after the Governor, AG, and SOS publicly filed complaints against members of Trump's legal team in an open effort to have them disbarred, demonstrating they are perfectly willing to abuse their offices and taxpayer money to weaponize their agencies for political purposes.
It was an extraordinary lack of judgment on Cox's part to hurl these accusations publicly, and will very likely damage the party for the next year or more. She is totally unfit to remain in office.
Administrative Vice Chair:Diane Schindlbeck.
This one's another no-brainer. Schindlbeck is a major grassroots leader and Trump supporter; she founded West Michigan Republicans, co-founded Michigan Trump Republicans, and serves on the board of Michigan Conservative Coalition. She was also a national delegate for Donald Trump in 2016, and helped defeat the effort to defeat Trump from getting the nomination at that convention.
Her opponent, Gerry Hildenbrand, is establishment all the way, even having recruited and funded a primary challenger to one of the most conservative and liberty-oriented members of the State House, Steve Johnson, in 2018.
It's also worth pointing out that the Administrative Vice Chair's main job is organizing conventions, and the party has basically allowed Gretchen Whitmer to control our conventions through unconstitutional lockdown orders. These "online" conventions are a parliamentary disaster, and totally fail to be the grassroots pep rallies they are supposed to be.
Outreach Vice Chair: Ty Bundy.
I don't have strong feelings about this race, but Bundy is the incumbent Outreach Vice Chair, and has done yeoman's work in the Detroit area to spread the Republican message. He ran four Detroit offices in the 2020 campaign and then went down to Georgia to help out with the runoff effort. I might pass him over for a superstar candidate, if we had one. But the other candidates are not impressive.
Brandon Brice is a Never-Trumper. Here's a video where he endorses the President's impeachment (the first one) and essentially calls Donald Trump supporters cultists.
Dana Whitehead seems to mean well, but her short campaign letter offers little in the way of new ideas for outreach. She says "As your Outreach Vice Chair, my priority will be reaching out to Christians. 70% of the population of Michigan, identify themselves as Christians. It's time we reach out and rally the Christians, and educate them about the anti-Christian policies that the Democrat party support."
This is not a winning strategy. Christians are the core constituency of the Republican Party already. The job of the Outreach Vice Chair is to bring in new constituencies where there are big opportunities to turn Democrat voters into Republicans. Donald Trump did an incredible job bringing the blue-collar vote over, for example.
Bundy's probably the best we've got.
Grassroots Vice Chair: Marian Sheridan.
This one's another no-brainer. Nobody has worked as hard for Donald Trump as Marian, and Marian was one of the only people working like crazy to help stop the criminal impeding of poll workers and poll challengers.
Marian knew what would happen, and she personally organized hundreds of people to guard the vote. If she hadn't been alone in this effort, we might have had a very different outcome in Detroit.
She's also a top leader at Michigan Trump Republicans, Women For Trump, and Michigan Conservative Coalition.
Her opponent, Cindi Holland, is endorsing Laura Cox after Cox's disgraceful conduct today. How embarrassing for her.
Youth Vice Chair: Paul Stephens is running unopposed.
Ethnic Vice Chair: All three candidates are great.
I have no strong feelings on this one. I like all three candidates.
Coalitions Vice Chair: Anyone but Gabi Grossbard.
Gabi Grossbard told the Jewish News last year: "I'm not a radical right-wing lunatic nut... I really think that I'm in the middle."
Translation: RINO. Vote no on him.
(There may be a runoff, so be sure to stick around if he survives the first ballot.)
David Yardley has been a conservative activist forever, Tami Carlone was a great candidate for Michigan Board of Education and is a tireless advocate for freedom and choice in education, and Heather Cerone is a grassroots leader in Traverse. Any of them would be good.
I hope this was informative to you. Be sure to tune in to the convention; maybe some of the candidates' speeches will decide your preference.
May we have a better GOP in 2021-2022 than we had this past cycle.
Supporters of liberty are fighting on two fronts: On one, against the radical left, the sworn enemies of liberty; on the other, the political establishment within the right, which has always been a consistent ally of globalism, central banks, the military-industrial complex, and big tech.
With all of that on our plate, you wouldn't think we'd have time to treat our friends worse than our enemies, but somehow, people find the time.
Remember: Ted Cruz voted against Trump's impeachments, and supported Senator Paul's motion to dismiss the latter on grounds of unconstitutionality.
Moreover, Ted Cruz was the senator who raised the objection to certifying the Arizona electors on January 6, and was one of just six senators opposing the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania. He was, of course, viciously attacked by Democrats and the media, even facing calls for his resignation because he stood with the President.
No matter! Cruz had the temerity to criticize the outgoing President, and no criticism is acceptable.
Ironically, the very statement Cruz was crucified for making was attempting to establish reasonable nuance on the issue.
“President Trump's rhetoric, I think, went way too far over the line. I think it was both reckless and irresponsible because he said repeatedly—and he said over and over again—he won by a landslide; there was massive fraud; it was all stolen everywhere. That evidence, the campaign did not prove that in any court, and to make a determination about an election it has to be based on the evidence, and so simply saying the result you want, that's not responsible and you've never heard me use language like that.
What I've said is voter fraud is real, and we need to examine the evidence, and look at the actual facts; and in particular, what is the evidence of how much voter fraud occurred, and did it occur in sufficient quantities and in sufficient states to alter the outcome of the election. That would have been the mandate of the election commission; to assess.”
We should point out that Cruz is completely right about this.
It would have been one thing had Trump said vote fraud had occurred, that the races in key states were extremely close, that there was significant evidence of extreme irregularities, that these irregularities may have included fraud, that the potential for fraud exceeded the margin of Biden's victory in these states, and that courts denied the President and his team the opportunity to lay out their case.
But of course, Trump didn't say that. He declared, "We won in a landslide!" He said "this was not a close election." He said he won in 2020 "much bigger than the first." He said Joe Biden "had 80 million computer votes."
Trump said on January 6 that "in Detroit, turnout was 139% of registered voters." This is provably false!
Detroit had 506,305 registered voters, and according to official results, 257,619 ballots cast (51% turnout): 240,936 votes for Biden and 12,889 votes for Trump.
Incidentally, this is a better result than he had against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
By making inflammatory and inaccurate statements about the election, Trump didn't just undermine his own case, he hurt his supporters and defenders.
Trump owes his defenders rigorous adherence to the facts. Instead he made sloppy and incendiary remarks that made us all look bad.
Cruz had every right and every reason to criticize President Trump's statements.
We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place, if only Trump and his advisors had the foresight before January 6 to be explicitly clear that the President did not encourage and did not support any unlawful or otherwise not peaceful activity.
It's true that Trump said in his speech "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," but that was hardly a directive and more like an afterthought.
It's true that calls for his censure, resignation, impeachment, 25th Amendment removal etc. are all outrageous and transparently dishonest efforts to smear the President and every member of Congress making these calls are the ones who should be ashamed and disgraced.
But this does not matter. The game isn't fair, and President Trump should have expected, planned for, and counteracted the predictable sabotage.
What happened on January 6th did the maximum damage possible to Trump, to his legacy, to his movement, and to his election challenges.
And he is not blameless for this.
Ted Cruz wasn't being a coward. He was speaking the truth, and he was trying to help people see how some of the President's tactics were counterproductive.
Of course, the Gateway Pundit framed the article, written by its founder and editor, by saying "Senator Cruz is an example of a Republican who will never win a national election and especially moving forward after the 2020 election."
Most of the over 5,000 commenters appeared to agree. "Cruz caved in", "Lyin' Ted", "Hawley and Cruz have shown they are Dems" were among the top comments.
The message this hatred conveys to Ted Cruz is: "You'll never be perfect enough for us. You're either with us or against us."
And the take-away they're encouraging our political allies to receive is that we are lousy allies.
Lindell, asked why his company's Twitter page was deleted, began to reply by saying “we have all this election fraud with these Dominion machines – we have 100 percent proof –” before being cut off by the host.
The back story to this exchange is that Dominion is suing Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and others for defamation. Most recently, another voting machine company, SmartMatic, filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News, despite that, like Newsmax, Fox News retracted their stories on Dominion when the company mailed them litigation-hold letters in December.
Gateway Pundit's Cassandra Fairbanks even admitted at the bottom of the story: "It is highly likely that they are attempting to avoid a lawsuit, which Dominion has been handing out left and right," -- oh, you think?! --"but silencing their guests leaves them little room to critique censorship by others," Fairbanks complained.
Lindell wasn't "silenced." The reporters interrupted him to read a disclaimer, and when Lindell was given the next opportunity to speak (which is definitely not being "silenced") Lindell accused them: "You're going to suppress, just like Twitter."
Over 6,000 commenters proceeded to trash Newsmax.
The irony of all this is that Cassandra Fairbanks herself was trashing Donald Trump just days earlier, and far more brutally than Newsmax ever had.
Fairbanks had been working tirelessly to lobby the President to pardon Julian Assange. A pardon was totally merited and richly deserved. Assange was and is being persecuted because he exposed the crimes of the American Deep State and its mass spying on law-abiding U.S. citizens.
If Trump's final act had been pardoning Assange, it would have been a tremendous slap to the Deep State that worked so assiduously to sabotage his presidency from start to finish.
He did not, and Fairbanks retweeted, among other things, Glenn Greenwald's comment: "Trump left the White House about as weak, cucked, and submissive as it's possible for a grown adult to scamper away."
Cassandra Fairbanks has every right to share this sentiment. But to then lash out at a fellow right-wing news outlet for "censoring" a guest because they don't want to be sued into oblivion over a guest's remarks is unfair.
Newsmax didn't do a story on Gateway Pundit reporter Cassandra Fairbanks tweeting that Donald Trump "went out like a bitch," which she did. They did nothing to deserve this attack, and if anything, these news agencies should be showing a little solidarity.
Dominion may file suit against Newsmax next. They may file against Gateway Pundit next. Or individual reporters. We don't know. They are clearly taking an aggressive posture, and navigating a defamation lawsuit--even one without merit--can easily cost a company or an individual hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Dominion, and the federal government itself under Joe Biden, are weaponizing the legal system against dissenters.
Instead of fighting back against our actual enemies, we're attacking each other.
It was reported last night that five of Donald Trump's lawyers for his upcoming impeachment trial had left his legal team, including two "lead" lawyers, reportedly over a disagreement on legal strategy. These included Butch Bowers and Deborah Barbier, both of South Carolina.
[The way] the president could challenge [the impeachment] is that he's been denied due process already and would be on a continuous basis. So the bill of attainder violation, first amendment violation, fifth amendment violation, and this not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment, are all grounds he could challenge in the courts. So he could have challenged in the courts; he still can challenge in the courts, however it appears he won't.
He may move to dismiss before the Senate, but what's happening is -- this is a constant refrain in Trump world [heeding bad counsel from those who don't have his interests in mind-A.D.] -- he decided to hire someone at the recommendation of Lindsey Graham. And so the defense is almost being structured by Lindsey Graham as much as it is by Trump.
Lindsey Graham's pitch is "don't challenge the Senate's power, don't go to court, don't contest it in that way," also telling him "don't use it as an opportunity to document issues related to the election and whether the election was on the up-and-up in 2020, don't be in any way dismissive of the proceedings, on whether it's a violation of constitutional provisions to even hold them. Just hold a limited trial presentation that still argues the Senate may not have the authority to do so, but more so, argue that -- he didn't do anything that's in fact impeachable as a high crime or misdemeanor, he did no illicit incitement, and so forth."
Now that Lindsey Graham's picks are out, it appears Trump may indeed bring legal challenges against the impeachment to the courts.
Which means the President may actually get a fair hearing after all. Should a court--the U.S. Supreme Court, in all likelihood--take up this matter, it will be the House and Senate Democrats on trial. Given the flagrant unconstitutionality of the whole affair and the obvious malice with which this impeachment was brought forth, it's hard to imagine the court would not throw the article of impeachment in the garbage and put an end to this sham proceeding.
Even more encouraging is that the President finally seems to have made a smart move, and turned down the advice of his enemies.
Parler was the rising alternative to Twitter following Twitter's recent purge of President Trump and thousands of conservative users. That was until January, 10, when it was nuked from orbit by its web host, Amazon.
Hours before Parler was taken offline, I thought I might check in on Milo Yiannopoulos, who was banned from Twitter back in July of 2016, for his thoughts on the subject. Mainstream conservatives turned their back on the flamboyantly gay right-wing provocateur, just as they would when Alex Jones was banned in 2018. They didn't understand at the time that these gadflies were the canaries in the coal mine. They didn't realize they'd be next.
I found Milo on Parler, joyously counting down the minutes before the platform would cease to exist.
It wasn't that Milo had decided to oppose free speech. It was just Milo being Milo. I can't quote him verbatim, since Parler is offline, but the essence of his comments was that the Parler community was insufferably boring and miserable, and the world would be a better place without it.
I can't blame Milo for not defending the company's principled stance on free speech, when nobody of significance had stood up for his.
And his point about the quality of content on Parler was well taken. Since Parler's downfall, the new (though actually older) alternative is Gab, which appears to have a similar user base. Just look at its home page. It is completely dominated by right-wing posts.
"What's wrong with that?" you might ask.
The problem is that these alternative platforms for hard-core free speech advocates and refugees from Big Tech's platforms are never going to achieve ubiquity among "normal" people.
Most people--normal people, i.e. not people like you and me--joined Facebook to keep up with friends and family. "Non-political" people, which are the huge majority, aren't affected dramatically by social media censorship, and they're not going to switch to a new platform unless it becomes more socially relevant to them than the ones they currently use.
Even people like me find value in Facebook precisely because I can reach people that aren't in my club of right-wing politicos. I use Facebook for nothing more than posting political snark, but at least that snark is occasionally seen by family and friends that disagree with me. It provides me the opportunity to engage in discussion and debate with some (admittedly small) hope of changing people's minds.
From a political perspective, isn't that the whole point of social media? To engage people that don't agree with you? To share information with those that otherwise wouldn't hear it?
If every conservative voice departs the mainstream networks like Facebook and Twitter for our own, what would it accomplish?
It would create a massive echo chamber of like-minded people, who don't reach anyone else. There's a very vulgar but very appropriate term for this sort of thing.
At the same time, a conservative exodus from the mainstream networks would only serve to compound the effect of censorship. The loss of banned (and shadow-banned) voices is compounded by those that no longer bother to post in the first place.
The result is that the only political news and commentary on mainstream platforms is the left's. Our own non-participation only makes a bad problem worse.
"So, what do you suggest we do for speech online?"
I guess it depends on your relationship to social media. If you're an "influencer" or a political campaign, maybe Gab and other "free speech" platforms will work for your purposes.
But if you're just a regular person expressing your views, and you haven't been kicked off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc., you might as well continue to use them to reach your friends and family you won't find elsewhere.
But here's my recommendation for everyone: Reclaim the most important social network: The Real World.
The forces of domination and control -- Big Tech, Big Media, the Democrats -- they want to destroy real-world communities and real-world relationships. That is the lockdown agenda.
"Social distancing" is an oxymoron. "Social network" is an oxymoron.
These are profoundly anti-social creations.
Yeah yeah, Covid is bad. Vulnerable people should take proper precautions. But the destruction of humanity is far worse.
Don't look to "alternative" social media platforms for any kind of salvation. They don't translate to political results anyway, if that's your goal.
Get back into the real world. Lead by example. Defy our evil government and double down on your efforts to get people together in the real world.
That's the only way we are going to overcome the antisocial agenda, which is much bigger and more pernicious than just Big Tech.
"The scientific dictatorship of the future has arrived, and Biden is the proper vegetable to usher in this dystopian nightmare. The Republican establishment wants to play their constituents as suckers for the umpteenth time and leave them whining about socialism while playing right into Biden’s hands. Republicans cannot afford to fall into this trap yet again. This demonic system needs to be opposed in terms that are accurate and will resonate with the public. The GOP must evolve into a populist workers’ party in the years to come, embracing government action when it helps the people and the nation and rejecting state power when it does not serve those narrow functions. Otherwise the Republican Party suffers a much-deserved demise, possibly with our nation and our civilization dying alongside it, with gullible, stubborn conservatives only having themselves to blame."
Since the Civil Rights Era, Americans have strived for racial "equality," not "equity."
Martin Luther King called for racial "equality", not "equity." A few quotes, among many:
"The sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality."
"Make a career of humanity. Commit yourself to the noble struggle for equal rights. You will make a greater person of yourself, a greater nation of your country, and a finer world to live in."
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed; We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
"Equality" was what was strived and "equality" was the term used.
Until about three months ago.
Mysteriously, and quite suddenly, the left began replacing "equality" in its lexicon with "equity."
Joe Biden announced that today is some sort of "Equity Day."
What happened to "equality"?
Whenever a new word is suddenly foisted into the public consciousness, we need to examine where it came from, how it came to be, and why.
Why the new word? We were not consulted. Whose decision was this?
We cannot pinpoint whose idea it was, but that such a term could be instanteously replaced in the political establishment certainly proves how rigidly controlled our media are.
What was wrong with "equality"? Only that it was too ambiguous. Some people actually took the words of Dr. King to mean "equality of opportunity" and "equality under the law," not the Marxist notion of "equality of outcome."
Affirmative action has always been wildly unpopular. The public recognizes it for the retributive racism that it is. Michigan voters approved a ban on affirmative action in the state Constitution by over 550,000 votes in 2004. Liberal California passed a similar proposal in 1996, and just last year, voters again rejected affirmative action when it was brought to the ballot a second time by an even greater margin than they did in 1996. The 2020 vote was despite being outspent by the Democrat establishment, $31 million in favor of racial retribution and $1.6 million in opposition.
Affirmative action was a bad brand.
Enter the new term: racial "equity."
The intent is to confuse the public into thinking that retributive racism is no different than equality under the law.
As I said in the first column in this Grassroots Leadership series, the question I get asked more than anything else is, "What can I do?"
People aren't asking for generalities about effective leadership. They're asking for clear instructions.
In the first two columns I discussed what is generally effective (grassroots organizing) and what is not (volunteering on a campaign or trying to educate the public).
Now it's time to get into the nuts and bolts of grassroots leadership.
Maybe you are already involved in a grassroots group and are looking to change its direction. Maybe you run a grassroots group, but are asking "what should we focus on?"
I will cover these in a future column.
In this column, I want to discuss starting from scratch. Let's say you have no local liberty organization, or none you're aware of.
Sadly, this is the case for most people. This is why liberty is losing.
We need local organizations in every city and township. And every city and township has more than enough people to start an effective organization.
Where do you start? The very first step is bringing people together.
You Need To Organize A Meeting
Not online. In the real world.
There are three huge problems with meeting online.
The first is that all politics is local, and by meeting online, you're already tempting yourself to bring in people that don't live anywhere near you.
The group you want to create will be going out into the real world, to bring more people together and to create political impact in your area. This isn't going to work if your group members are far-flung and aren't going to be able to work together in the real world.
Second, online meetings are hugely dysfunctional by their nature. Any meeting with a substantial number of people is going to have a substantial number of technical difficulties. You'll also have problems with people being inattentive and minding what's going on around them instead of paying attention to the business of the group. You will have problems with group organization. Either a group leader will control who can speak and who is muted, which can often put off participants, or it becomes a free-for-all where people talk over each other and nobody can hear anything.
Third, meeting online will never have the human component of bringing people together to talk and socialize, and this is a critical component, especially if you're getting people together for the first time.
Local political groups die when members don't feel like they're forming a community. The social aspect of a meeting is critical.
When every real-world meeting ends, people hang out and chat. This is how relationships are formed. This is often when, after someone at the meeting announces he or she wants to do something, another person or more volunteer to help. Before the evil lockdowns, people would often migrate to a restaurant to discuss matters further, and begin laying plans.
When an online meeting ends, everyone is immediately cut off. There is no immediate follow-up in a more relaxed setting.
Online meetings do not work, period.
If you have the technology and want to offer an online alternative for your meetings, where people can "watch" the real-life meeting from home and possibly comment over a PA system, that's fine.
But you cannot rely on an online format. It will not be successful.
You need a real-world location.
Getting People Together
Before we discuss when and where to meet, let's first discuss how the heck you find like-minded people to invite, because this will actually make these other tasks much easier.
Finding a good meeting location is difficult in these times. Normal places like restaurants and public buildings are shut down. If you can first find people with a desire to get together and meet, there's a likelihood one of them has a heated pole barn or an office, or knows someone with a suitable meeting space.
How are you going to find like-minded citizens to invite to your meeting?
It is time to take your very first step. It is time to create your list.
The list is the backbone of every effective political organization. Whether it's a township group or a presidential campaign, the list is the foundation.
Be organized and create a spreadsheet (or a database, if you know how). I'll discuss list-building in more depth in a future column, but for now, just create columns for first name, last name, email, phone, address, and city. (Make sure you put first and last names into separate columns. Trust me; you'll regret it if you only use one column for name.)
The first people is to add like-minded people you know personally that live in your city or township, or close enough to be worth inviting. Hopefully, you have at least a few people you can think of. These are your friends, coworkers, and fellow church-goers. Even if you have no particular relationship with them, if you know they share your politics, put them on the list.
Your objective is to build the biggest list you can.
Now it's time to find some new people.
It isn't as hard as you might think.
Take a look around your neighborhood. Depending on where you live, you might just walk, or it might be easier to drive.
Get a map and survey your neighborhood, including all of the side streets and cul de sacs. You're almost certain to find people who still have Trump signs or flags in their yards. You'll see "Don't Tread On Me" flags.
But don't just look for the telltale signs.
As you go from house to house, notice how many homes' appearances tell a story.
Children's toys in the yard tell you the family has young children or grandchildren. Signs for so-and-so and the sports team tells you they have middle or high school children at home.
You'll see fishing boats, sports cars, religious symbols, and all kinds of other clues to the family's lifestyle.
Some communities are more outgoing than others. If you come up with little information, try again at another time on another day. You'll see different cars with different bumper stickers. You'll see open garages that were closed before.
You'll learn something. And you will find some households that practically scream "Trump supporter."
Write down those addresses. Put them on your list.
And then you must do what is extremely hard to do for the first time: knock on their doors.
If the house is obviously a Republican household, you might say:
"Hey, I like your yard sign. I'm Adam; I live around the corner. I'm a Trump supporter too. I'm looking to get some neighbors together and start a group. Something that's part social club, part trying to figure out what we can do to help people see what's going on."
I know how hard it is to talk to strangers for the first time. Start with these houses, where it's very likely you're talking to a friend. But if the person at the door gives you a cold "no thanks", you just have to accept that some people are like that, and move on to the next door.
Summoning the nerve to knock on the first door is the hardest step. With every door, it gets easier.
Depending on your community, you might come up with other creative ways to find people to invite to your meeting.
I recently chatted with a business owner whose business has a high percentage of Trump supporters. I recommended this process, until I remembered he lives in Ann Arbor, a city dominated by Marxists where conservatives live in fear of expressing their opinions. He would be unlikely to find anyone with a Trump sign in the yard.
But having made the recommendation, it suddenly occurred to him:
"I get lots of Trump supporters in here every day! I'll just start up a list!" He whipped out a pad and wrote at the top: "MAGA Supporter Group Sign Up!"
In the past four years, the guy never thought to build a list of Trump supporters. In two weeks he will have dozens of people's phone numbers and emails.
In a normal world, a restaurant, library, or town hall would be suitable, but in this postmodern hellscape, you'll have to be more creative.
You may find a church willing to host your group. You should certainly ask.
You may find somebody with an office or other space they will allow you to use. If they offer you the space, you need to make sure they understand and accept the risk, because you cannot allow them to cancel after you begin promoting your meeting.
If you promote the meeting in a public way, it may draw the attention of the left-wing mob. If your host is sensitive to public pressure, he might cancel your meeting. (It won't help him; the mob only reacts to placation with increased hostility. But he won't know that.)
On the other hand, if you only invite people to the meeting that you know you can trust, negative publicity is very unlikely. And if the host is a MAGA supporter, he may not care what the left says or does about it.
But before you choose a meeting location on private property, you need to make sure the host understands the risks and is willing to take them.
In the non-winter seasons, a park may suffice as a meeting location. You can probably use a pavilion without a reservation, as very few people are using them these days anyway.
Finally, you might have a meeting at someone's home, if it meets all the proper considerations. First, it must have enough space. Second, the host must be comfortable with bringing in strangers. Some people have enough space and amenities to host a meeting in the garage or pole barn
Whatever you come up with, it has to be something, and you may have to settle for the best option among those with shortcomings.
But find a meeting place, you must.
Time and Format
Next you must set a date and time. I recommend a weeknight, 2 to 3 weeks in the future. You need to give yourself time to invite people.
As I will discuss the next column, regular meetings should be only one hour in duration. But the first meeting may need to be a little longer.
Your first meeting is going to be mostly about people getting to know each other a little. You'll want to allow everyone a few minutes to introduce themselves. Your first meeting might go 90 minutes, or even two hours. But it shouldn't be longer than that.
Any weeknight is fine, even Fridays, since people aren't going out these days. Start sometime between 6:30 and 8:00pm.
Preparing For The Meeting
Once you have a time and location, begin to invite people.
Don't just kick out an email. Call people to follow up. Get their commitment to attend.
Make sure you create a sign-in sheet. I recommend making a sheet in "landscape" orientation (11 inches wide on the page) with little gray squares instead of blank lines to encourage people to write neatly. Include fields for name, email, phone number, and zip code.
You'll want a clipboard and pens for the sign-in sheet. Make sure the host puts out chairs. I don't recommend serving food, because it is distracting, but offering water or coffee is a nice touch.
Now you have everything you need to organize your first meeting.
What are you going to do at your meeting? Stay tuned for my next column.
After the debacle of January 6, Donald Trump left office humiliated.
Social media censorship is ramping up rapidly, and the Washington establishment is already calling for a new "domestic War on Terror" against Trump supporters and the entire political right.
Say what you will about how unfair everything is.
Such is life.
The question is: What are you going to do about it?
I've heard from people in the grip of despair, saying they are going to give up on politics altogether.
This is exactly what the left is hoping you do. The enemies of liberty want you to despair. They want you to feel hopeless.
Their goal is to break you.
If they succeed, forget about the real world ever returning to normal. Forget about ever taking a date to a movie, having a party with friends, or taking your family to the amusement park.
If you surrender, who do you think will save our country?
"But," you say, "there's a lot we can do besides politics. I can get involved in education, my church, my community..."
No. These are all good things to do. But they are not a substitute for political activity.
Only political activism will recruit quality candidates. Only political activism will collect the necessary signatures to end the lockdown by citizen-initiated legislation. Only precinct leadership will turn out the votes to end the Democrat monopoly on federal power in 2022.
And if you really look at the political landscape, despite the best efforts of the deep state to make it look otherwise, things aren't as bad as they seem.
The current circumstances are hardly the first time things have looked bad for the movement for liberty in America. Every election creates people convinced that our country is collapsing.
Your political participation is needed, and not just for one candidate, one issue, one election, but to become a leader for the long haul.
Time and again, people have looked for some easy way out--for some single, simple thing we could do to make everything right.
For years, it was talk of an "Article V" constitutional convention.
More recently, it was Donald Trump himself. He was supposed to be the hero that would "drain the swamp."
The fact is, our political system was designed to be a very slow and difficult process. Most of the time, that works to our benefit.
If it wasn't this way, we would have lost our gun rights every time their was an incident that allowed the mass media to whip the public into anti-gun hysteria.
Many people are now saying the situation is hopeless because Democrats steal elections.
Well, sorry to be the bearer of good news, but vote fraud isn't as bad as Donald Trump would have us believe.
Certainly, vote fraud occurs, and it certainly occurred in November 2020. But it can only go so far. You will realize this if you stay involved in politics long enough to understand the mechanics of an election. There are simply too many people, too many personnel, too many precincts, too many paper trails for elections to be stolen by computer wizardry.
Ballot-stuffing does occur and absentee ballot fraud is the worst source of election corruption. But there's only so far that can go without being busted.
Vote fraud is a hurdle. Life isn't fair. Vote fraud is not an excuse to give up and allow our remaining liberty to be crushed.
Are you going to wallow in self-pity and do nothing to take back our country, or can you accept the loss, learn from the experience, and vow to work harder than ever to take back our country?
We need to hold Republicans accountable for their fecklessness. We need to recruit a new generation of candidates to take back the party from the RINOs that got us to where we are.
It will take a great movement of patriots, and we need every man and woman that still loves this great country to answer the call.
When social media deplatformed Alex Jones in 2018, mainstream conservative media pooh-poohed the incident as a mess of Jones' own making.
Instead of pointing out that Jones was the canary in the coal mine and defending his free speech rights, Republicans defended Big Tech.
Now these same personalities find Big Tech deplatforming them for their own constitutionally-protected speech.
At the same time, the Republican Party establishment is in a mad rush to throw President Trump under the bus.
In a vicious slap to Trump's 75 million Republican voters and the Constitution of the United States, ten House Republicans, including Reps. Peter Meijer and Fred Upton of Michigan, voted to impeach the President in his last week in office, under the totally unconstitutional pretext that the President's speech, which contained no words of incitement whatsoever, was itself a criminal act.
What do these fools hope to achieve? Bipartisanship?
Yesterday, former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was charged by Attorney General Dana Nessel with two counts of willful neglect of duty for his alleged negligence in the Flint water crisis. These are criminal misdemeanors.
Rick Snyder was a centrist, business-oriented governor who had nothing but contempt for the ideological right. He threatened to veto even the most modest income tax cut proposed in 2019, called for more immigration as a solution for Detroit, and vetoed a bill to extend an existing law that banned providing abortion-inducing drug prescriptions over the phone.
He was a raving never-Trumper. He refused to endorse Bill Schuette for governor after Schuette handily defeated his own lieutenant, Brian Calley, in the Republican primary.
Democrats labeled him a right-winger for signing Right to Work into law in Michigan, but Snyder had always opposed Right to Work -- until organized labor tried a ballot initiative to kill his baby, the emergency manager law. One week after the vote on the ballot initiative, Snyder reversed his position and called upon the legislature to bring Right to Work to his desk.
At the end of his term, knowing that Democrats would be taking the governor's mansion and offices of attorney general and secretary of state in weeks, Snyder vetoed lame-duck legislation to guarantee the legislature standing in cases brought against the state over the laws they passed, knowing that Dana Nessel would not mount a good-faith defense of any law she didn't like.
In his last days, he even vetoed legislation to expand access to child foster care. The bill sponsor had voted against his pork-laden budget supplemental.
Snyder was a typical RINO (Republican In Name Only), contemptuous of conservative principles and always too eager to find common ground with liberals.
But the charges brought against him yesterday are probably as meritless as those made against President Trump.
Democrats are systematically destroying what remains of the rule of law in America.
If RINOs like Peter Meijer, Fred Upton, and Mitch McConnell believe that joining with the Democrats to destroy the Constitution will be politically expedient for them, they have a rude awakening coming.
In my first column in this series, we looked at why the main entryways for concerned citizens into politics -- getting involved in campaigns, or trying to educate the public -- lead to dead ends.
In this column, we will look at what is effective.
First, we need to debunk one of the core myths of politics: that once elected, politicians don't care what their constituents think.
On the contrary, most politicians live in constant fear of alienating their constituents. Many seats in the legislature are won and lost by just a few percentage points. Congressmen and Michigan state representatives are up for re-election every two years. Senators have a little more leeway with four-year terms in Michigan and six years in the U.S. Senate, but they too must be careful.
Even in what we call "safe seats" -- seats where the baseline is so high for one party or the other that the seat is unlikely to be "flipped" in the near future -- those politicians worry constantly about "losing majority." They want to raise money for the caucus to spend in more fragile seats, for the sake of majority (and for plum committee assignments, which are awarded to those that raise the most money).
The result of this is that politicians are motivated by real-world pressure. They want to avoid political pain (e.g. angry voters), and maximize political pleasure (e.g. money).
"Education" does not transfer to real-world consequences for politicians. This is especially true for "education" over the Internet, because politics is so geographical.
Here's a concrete example. Today, two Republican congressmen from Michigan, Fred Upton and Peter Meijer, voted to impeach President Trump, who leaves office in less than seven days.
It was a reprehensible vote. It was not just a slap in the face of the Trump-supporting Republicans that elected them, it was a betrayal of the entire American constitutional system.
President Trump would have been wise to have placed far greater emphasis on encouraging demonstrators to be peaceful prior to the event. But nothing he actually said on January 6 encouraged violence or criminal behavior in any way. It was completely protected speech, and to impeach the President on these grounds was a gross abuse of the Constitution.
It also provided ammunition to the Democrats to abuse the Constitution again and again, having legitimized politically-motivated impeachment.
Explaining this to people by posting it on the Internet would be a form of education.
But what will be the real-world consequences for Rep. Upton and Rep. Meijer?
Peter Meijer just took office two weeks ago. He won office by less than six percentage points. If just 11 percent of his voters decide to stay home in 2022, or vote 3rd party, he loses his seat.
If a strong candidate emerges to challenge him in the 2022 Republican primary election, there's a good chance he loses his seat to a Republican challenger, who can make the credible argument to primary voters that if Meijer is even nominated for a second term, his betrayal of the Republican base will cost the party the seat altogether.
Even if he survives the challenge, the money and resources he will spend defending himself is money he doesn't have for the general election, and certainly doesn't have to share with the caucus. Which means he doesn't get the committee assignments he wants.
All of this is intense pain for a politician.
This is why real-world grassroots leadership is so important. Voters in Texas can't do anything about Peter Meijer. Activists in Meijers' district can. If angry voters organize, they could recruit a primary challenger. Educating people on the Internet won't accomplish this. It takes people getting together and forming a plan to deliver maximum pain, to send a strong message to the new congressman that there will be a severe punishment for bad behavior.
Meijer is especially vulnerable because his name is on a massive business across the Midwest, owned by his father and uncle. If activists begin a #BoycottMeijer campaign, the blowback to his vote to attack the President, the Constitution, and his constituents will be economic and personal as well as political.
This is how politicians learn what boundaries they can and cannot cross with their base. How well they learn is proportional to how much political damage they take. Maximum pressure produces maximum results.
This is why grassroots leadership -- the real-world organizing of people to have real-world consequences for the political class -- is so critical.
Education alone won't do it. Complaining on the Internet won't do it. (Although I certainly encourage you to do your part to get #BoycottMeijer trending!)
What ultimately changes public policy, and the composition of the legislature itself, is grassroots movements.
The left has understood this, and that is why today's Democrat party is so radical. They have systematically targeted the moderates, and replaced them with hard-core leftists.
When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or ("AOC") defeated incumbent Joe Crowley in the Democrat primary of 2018, she damaged the Democrats severely. Crowley was the chair of the House Democrat Caucus. He was their top fundraiser after Nancy Pelosi herself.
But the Democrats got the message: there is no place for moderates in their party.
That's the message the grassroots must send to every RINO in Washington and in Lansing.
AOC had no qualification to be a member of Congress. But she was a "community organizer," just like former President Obama had been.
Community organization works for the left, but tactics are ideologically neutral. They work just as well for both sides.
This is why grassroots leadership is so essential. It really is what ultimately shapes the circumstances that create political and policy outcomes.
Want to save America? Then you must get involved at the grassroots level.
In the next column, I'll begin discussing how to do so.
My grandfather turned 93 today. He was 11 when Germany invaded Poland, 35 when President Kennedy was assassinated, and 53 when I was born.
I visited him the day after Christmas. It was his first Christmas alone. None of his four sons visited.
Other than one of my cousins, my whole family are liberal Democrats. All of them are scared of the Chinese coronavirus and all of them seemed to be fine with obeying the government's orders not to see one another. My family is far-flung--we all live in different states--so we don't see each other often to begin with.
I only visited my father for Christmas because I insisted. It wasn't until I got there that I resolved to swing by my grandfather on the way home and pay him a visit as well.
When I first announced my visit, Dad raised all the standard corona cultist concerns. He demanded I get tested before coming and wear a mask at gas stations in transit.
I did neither. I would never put on the burqa. I considered getting a test and handing him the bill, but I discovered the day before my departure that the test results take 4 days to come in. A "rapid response" test delivers the results immediately, but costs nearly $200.
I asked Dad what he wanted me to do. I had no idea how he would reply. I fully expected him to say, "you know what, forget it; let's just be safe and you can call me on Christmas."
But he said the opposite. "Screw it; we'll take a chance."
And so I had a wonderful visit with my father, with plenty of conversations about how awful the lockdowns were.
Democrat politicians can preen all they want about how lockdowns are necessary, but everyone, including their voters, is fed up with them and won't suffer them much longer.
Then I went to visit my Grandpop. His situation was quite worse than Dad's. He never learned computers, the Internet, and smartphones before it was too late. Being almost always alone at home for eight months had taken a bad toll.
I will cherish that visit for the rest of my life. Grandpop's short-term memory was poor, but he recalled his young life like it was yesterday. He couldn't remember what movie it was we watched 20 minutes ago (it was Casablanca), but when I mentioned that my favorite classic was Arsenic and Old Lace, he remembered it vividly.
"That film, which was also a play, they had to censor the line that was the climax. In the play, the main character, who in the movie was played by Cary Grant, shouts out with pride, 'I'm the son of a bastard!' In those days, though, you weren't allowed to say 'bastard.' That's why in the movie he has to say, 'I'm the son of a sea cook!' "
I bonded with him more that night than ever before.
The next morning, we went out for breakfast before I headed home. Unlike Michigan's cruel governess, Pennsylvania still allowed its citizens to meet and eat. We had dined the same restaurant after the family reunion three years ago; their thick-cut iron-flat bacon was unforgettable.
It was the most meaningful Christmas I've ever had, and I know it meant as much to my father and grandfather.
Dad had told me the reason he hasn't visited his father was because of Grandpop's own urging that he should be safe. Maybe it hadn't occurred to him that it was a request motivated by politeness and political correctness, not genuine desire.
But for Grandpop's birthday, Dad came to visit him. And I know he saw what I saw: a man who needs his family.
The lesson here is that the bonds of family are stronger than the lies of government, and sooner or later people will realize how essential human contact is and how damaging social isolation has been.
The longer the left pushes lockdowns, the sooner its base will crumble. Tyrannical New York governor Andrew Cuomo has realized this. Michigan's imbecile governor hasn't figured it out yet, but she soon will.
The most common question newly-interested concerned citizens ask me is: "What can I do?"
This is the first of an ongoing series of columns dedicated to the nuts and bolts of effective political action. I intend the series to start at the very beginning: Where do you start if you have no experience, no leader to turn to, nothing but a newly-ignited passion to defend and restore liberty?
From there, each column will progress through the process of developing an effective local organization that can control the local political environment and significantly impact that of the state.
But before getting into the procedural details, it's important to explain some fundamentals.
Ask a member of the political class, "What can I do?" and you'll almost certainly be told: "Get involved in a campaign. They'll show you the ropes."
The first problem with this advice is that many campaigns, especially high-level campaigns such as for governor or congressman, are run by lazy consultants that have no clue what to do with volunteers. They are more interested in raising money, spending it on advertising, and (often unbeknownst to the candidate) making a handsome commission on the ad buys.
If the volunteer isn't tasked with mindless work like stuffing envelopes, he'll be given a phone or door-to-door app where he's asked to robotically read a candidate survey and report the results--which are usually "not home", "bad number", or "refused survey."
(I use the old-fashioned "he" but I mean both sexes.)
The volunteer will soon tire of performing what feel like worthless tasks. Being emotionally invested in the campaign, however, he already has "skin in the game" and will soon answer the campaign's requests for financial support.
If the candidate loses, the volunteer's time and money is lost, with no lessons learned and no meaningful relationships established. Soured by the experience, the volunteer decides he's done his duty and moves on with his life.
If the candidate wins, what happens next is often worse: The candidate the volunteer believed to be Joe Goodguy turns into Senator Twoface.
(Why is this so common? I'll explain in a future column, but if you can't wait, pick up a copy of the essential book, What Makes You Think We Read The Bills? by the Senator H.L. Richardson, from whom I borrowed the funny names. It's explained in Chapter 12. Senator Richardson passed away last year. The conservative movement lost a master strategist as well as a delightful writer.)
At this point, the volunteer will either throw up his hands in frustration, or become an excuse-maker for the politician's bad behavior. Instead of imposing his will on the political establishment, he becomes a servant of the political establishment.
The concerned citizen set out by asking the political establishment what to do, and the political establishment's answer proved totally self-serving. The concerned citizen set out to defend his values, and in the end was taken for a sucker.
Occasionally, a volunteer demonstrates enough talent and enthusiasm that the campaign offers him a job. The pay is almost always lousy. The Republican Party is notoriously abusive to staffers. They are intensely pressured to "produce results," which usually means generating a large quantity of phone calls or knocked doors to report the good numbers to donors. The incentive to make up fictitious results is great.
Ever wonder why so few College Republicans stay involved in the party after they graduate? Ever wonder why Republican Party lists are so inaccurate? Now you know.
Having now covered the political establishment's answer for what you can do, let's examine the other common mistake.
Many people understand intuitively that getting involved with a politician might not be a good idea. But they want to do something, and search themselves for ideas.
What most people come up with is education. "If only more people knew the truth, our side wouldn't be losing."
On the surface, the logic makes sense. We've all developed our own beliefs through some process of education. We think we can replicate that in others. We see the mass media infecting the public with outrageous lies and feel compelled to combat them.
But this thinking has severe problems.
First: Education alone will never achieve certain essential goals for political success. Education will not find the outstanding candidates we need for so many public offices.
Great representatives need a grounding in constitutional and moral principles and the courage to do what is right, even if it is unpopular and even in the face of threats. But they need much more than that. They need the communication skills and charisma to get elected in the first place. They need the time, financial security, and fortitude to run for office without compromising their families.
The right combination is rare, and on top of that, they have to be in the right district at the right time--and be willing to run.
Education will never find quality candidates.
Second: People seeking to "educate the people" aren't the great teachers they think they are and rarely reach the right people.
Most people's idea of education consists of posting or sharing articles on the Internet. Who do they reach? Mostly people whose minds are already made up, on their own side or the opposing side. They're either preaching to the choir, or debating the opposition with nobody watching.
And frankly, few of us are skilled writers or debaters. Mass media personalities are expert propagandists.
Third: Public opinion does not make policy or win elections.
Americans overwhelmingly hate foreign aid, illegal immigration, and tax increases. Has that made any difference? Of course not.
The vast majority of Americans vote for the same political party, Democrat or Republican, no matter who the candidates are. Elections are determined by voter turnout and the small (and shrinking) number of swing voters.
Fourth: Education isn't what shapes public opinion anyhow.
People are not the intellectual creatures we think we are. We are emotional; we rationalize our opinions to fit our emotions.
People respond to social pressure. The left are masters of social pressure. If a conservative points out that welfare programs consistently backfire and encourage ongoing poverty, the liberal responds: "Why do you hate the poor?"
This is why the left doesn't debate the merits of Trump's policies. Republicans tout Trump's accomplishments: record low unemployment, higher personal incomes, extricating us from no-win wars in the Middle East, etc. Democrats don't debate these points; they simply paint him as a racist and sexist.
To sum up: Education doesn't change minds, public opinion doesn't decide elections, and elections don't decide policy.
All of this is not to say education has no role in politics.
But Andrew Breitbart had it right: Politics is downstream from culture.
And even then, culture doesn't change public policy in and of itself.
Now that you know what doesn't work, in the next column I'll discuss what does.
It feels like America is on the verge of a civil war.
That is a truly frightening prospect, something that ten or even five years ago seemed unimaginable.
But consider the circumstances.
It isn't just that the mass media has ginned up both sides over the past four years, although that is certainly a part of it. Throughout his term, the media has portrayed President Trump as the second coming of Hitler and the country that elected him as some sort of racist monster. The campaign of hatred is endless; tracking each incident is as hopeless as tracking particles of sand in a tornado.
Just days ago, Kurt Eichenwald, journalist for the New York Times, tweeted that he wanted to "find an antimasker and beat them to death." Responding to a Joe Biden tweet saying it's time to "unite, heal, and rebuild," prominent actor and comedian David Cross tweeted in reply: "Fuck that. I want blood."
Around the same time this was happening, the recipient of the 2019 National Teacher of the Year award, Rodney Robinson, lionized the neighbor of Senator Rand Paul that battered him, leaving the senator with six broken ribs. Robinson called the perpetrator "a true Kentucky hero" and urged Senator Mitch McConnell's neighbors to "step up" and do the same.
While the left gins up its base by condoning, encouraging, and even praising violence, the rank hypocrisy of the mainstream in condoning these statements -- while at the same time ostracizing and vilifying any conservative that says anything remotely similar -- is increasingly leading the right to think there is no hope in traditional American institutions for justice.
To say nothing of the recent election, consider that while left-wing figures routinely make threats, encourage and even perpetrate violence with impunity, Lucas Gerhard, a 21-year-old conservative, faces charges for making terrorist threats -- a 20-year felony -- for posting a photo of his lawfully owned rifle and joking among friends that it "oughta make the snowflakes melt."
For this statement, Lucas was arrested on August 28, 2019, and spent the next 83 days in jail, denied bond. A Type I diabetic, Lucas nearly died in jail before being released on $250,000 bail under house arrest, where he has remained to this day, and prohibited from using the Internet, even to attend school.
Even if the charge is defeated, Lucas has lost at least a year and a half of his life, and his hopes of becoming a law enforcement officer are forever lost.
Meanwhile, as journalist Andy Ngo has meticulously documented, almost none of the rioters in Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere will be prosecuted for their actual violent acts of political terrorism.
The right correctly perceives that there are two systems of justice in America: one for themselves, in which one misstatement can destroy their careers and their ability to feed their families, and another for the left, who can lie, threaten, bully, assault, and batter anybody and face no consequences.
This is all leading towards a climate of political violence, and the powder keg may be lit in Washington on January 6.
At a time like this, we need a voice of peace, a great voice capable of guiding the movement like Martin Luther King did in the civil rights era.
Nonviolence was the principle Dr. King endorsed above all else.
To cite just a few of his most famous quotes:
"Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
"Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love."
"The choice is not between violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and nonexistence."
But just as odious as the buffoonish effort of today's left to portray King's occasional sympathy for the motivations of rioters as a tactical endorsement is the mainstream whitewashing of what Dr. King actually accomplished.
Years ago, I stumbled across an obscure article on, of all places, Dailykos.com, a website of, by, and for commie punks.
What follows is a very long quote from his article--almost the whole thing. For readability's sake I wish I could shorten it, but there is no way to make the thrust of the article more succinct without cutting essential context. It must be quoted almost in completeness, because the lesson is that important.
But read on, because the lesson is critical, and it isn't being taught anywhere else, certainly not in schools and universities.
It's being erased, and the lesson is more important than ever, and applies now to the MAGA movement of today.
I remember that many years ago, when I was a smartass home from first year of college, I was standing in the kitchen arguing with my father. My head was full of newly discovered political ideologies and black nationalism, and I had just read the Autobiography of Malcolm X, probably for the second time. [...]
I was having this argument with my father about Martin Luther King and how his message was too conservative compared to Malcolm X's message. My father got really angry at me. It wasn't that he disliked Malcolm X, but his point was that Malcolm X hadn't accomplished anything as Dr. King had.
I was kind of sarcastic and asked something like, so what did Martin Luther King accomplish other than giving his "I have a dream speech."
Before I tell you what my father told me, I want to digress. Because at this point in our amnesiac national existence, my question pretty much reflects the national civic religion view of what Dr. King accomplished. He gave this great speech. Or some people say, "he marched." I was so angry at Mrs. Clinton during the primaries when she said that Dr. King marched, but it was LBJ who delivered the Civil Rights Act.
At this point, I would like to remind everyone exactly what Martin Luther King did, and it wasn't that he "marched" or gave a great speech.
My father told me with a sort of cold fury, "Dr. King ended the terror of living in the south."
Please let this sink in and and take my word and the word of my late father on this. If you are a white person who has always lived in the U.S. and never under a brutal dictatorship, you probably don't know what my father was talking about.
But this is what the great Dr. Martin Luther King accomplished. Not that he marched, nor that he gave speeches.
He ended the terror of living as a black person, especially in the south.
I'm guessing that most of you, especially those having come fresh from seeing The Help, may not understand what this was all about. But living in the south (and in parts of the midwest and in many ghettos of the north) was living under terrorism.
It wasn't that black people had to use a separate drinking fountain or couldn't sit at lunch counters, or had to sit in the back of the bus.
You really must disabuse yourself of this idea. Lunch counters and buses were crucial symbolic planes of struggle that the civil rights movement used to dramatize the issue, but the main suffering in the south did not come from our inability to drink from the same fountain, ride in the front of the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth's.
It was that white people, mostly white men, occasionally went berserk, and grabbed random black people, usually men, and lynched them. You all know about lynching. But you may forget or not know that white people also randomly beat black people, and the black people could not fight back, for fear of even worse punishment.
This constant low level dread of atavistic violence is what kept the system running. It made life miserable, stressful and terrifying for black people.
White people also occasionally tried black people, especially black men, for crimes for which they could not conceivably be guilty. With the willing participation of white women, they often accused black men of "assault," which could be anything from rape to not taking off one's hat, to "reckless eyeballing."
This is going to sound awful and perhaps a stain on my late father's memory, but when I was little, before the civil rights movement, my father taught me many, many humiliating practices in order to prevent the random, terroristic, berserk behavior of white people. The one I remember most is that when walking down the street in New York City side by side, hand in hand with my hero-father, if a white woman approached on the same sidewalk, I was to take off my hat and walk behind my father, because he had been taught in the south that black males for some reason were supposed to walk single file in the presence of any white lady.
This was just one of many humiliating practices we were taught to prevent white people from going berserk.
I remember a huge family reunion one August with my aunts and uncles and cousins gathered around my grandparents' vast breakfast table laden with food from the farm, and the state troopers drove up to the house with a car full of rifles and shotguns, and everyone went kind of weirdly blank. They put on the masks that black people used back then to not provoke white berserkness. My strong, valiant, self-educated, articulate uncles, whom I adored, became shuffling, Step-N-Fetchits to avoid provoking the white men. Fortunately the troopers were only looking for an escaped convict. Afterward, the women, my aunts, were furious at the humiliating performance of the men, and said so, something that even a child could understand.
This is the climate of fear that Dr. King ended.
If you didn't get taught such things, let alone experience them, I caution you against invoking the memory of Dr. King as though he belongs exclusively to you and not primarily to African Americans.
The question is, how did Dr. King do this—and of course, he didn't do it alone.
(Of all the other civil rights leaders who helped Dr. King end this reign of terror, I think the most under appreciated is James Farmer, who founded the Congress of Racial Equality and was a leader of nonviolent resistance, and taught the practices of nonviolent resistance.)
So what did they do?
They told us: Whatever you are most afraid of doing vis-a-vis white people, go do it. Go ahead down to city hall and try to register to vote, even if they say no, even if they take your name down.
Go ahead sit at that lunch counter. Sue the local school board. All things that most black people would have said back then, without exaggeration, were stark raving insane and would get you killed.
If we do it all together, we'll be okay.
They made black people experience the worst of the worst, collectively, that white people could dish out, and discover that it wasn't that bad. They taught black people how to take a beating—from the southern cops, from police dogs, from fire department hoses. They actually coached young people how to crouch, cover their heads with their arms and take the beating. They taught people how to go to jail, which terrified most decent people.
And you know what? The worst of the worst, wasn't that bad.
Once people had been beaten, had dogs sicced on them, had fire hoses sprayed on them, and been thrown in jail, you know what happened?
These magnificent young black people began singing freedom songs in jail.
That, my friends, is what ended the terrorism of the south. Confronting your worst fears, living through it, and breaking out in a deep throated freedom song. The jailers knew they had lost when they beat the crap out of these young Negroes and the jailed, beaten young people began to sing joyously, first in one town then in another. This is what the writer, James Baldwin, captured like no other writer of the era.
Please let this sink in. It wasn't marches or speeches. It was taking a severe beating, surviving and realizing that our fears were mostly illusory and that we were free.
So yes, Dr. King had many other goals, many other more transcendent, non-racial, policy goals, goals that apply to white people too, like ending poverty, reducing the war-like aspects of our foreign policy, promoting the New Deal goal of universal employment, and so on. But his main accomplishment was ending 200 years of racial terrorism, by getting black people to confront their fears. So please don't tell me that Martin Luther King's dream has not been achieved, unless you knew what racial terrorism was like back then and can make a convincing case you still feel it today. If you did not go through that transition, you're not qualified to say that the dream was not accomplished.
That is what Dr. King did—not march, not give good speeches. He crisscrossed the south organizing people, helping them not be afraid, and encouraging them, like Gandhi did in India, to take the beating that they had been trying to avoid all their lives.
Once the beating was over, we were free.
It wasn't the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act or the Fair Housing Act that freed us. It was taking the beating and thereafter not being afraid. So, sorry Mrs. Clinton, as much as I admire you, you were wrong on this one. Our people freed ourselves and those Acts, as important as they were, were only white people officially recognizing what we had done.
The lesson of this article is uniquely relevant to understanding black history, but from the perspective of today's MAGA movement, which is most certainly not predominantly black, it is also a lesson on tactics.
Any of this remind you of more recent events? It should.
Today, then, as conservatives regroup from battering elections in 2018 and 2020 and prepare for the reign of terror we know is coming in a Biden/Harris administration (and to a remarkable extent is already here), I ask: where is our Dr. King?
Where is our voice of peace?
Years ago, it was Ron Paul. But the elder Dr. Paul was never the charismatic orator we needed, and at his age he is in no shape to lead a movement.
Donald Trump? Please don't be silly.
The rally in Washington, DC this Wednesday could easily turn into a bloodbath. Violent attacks from Antifa are a certainty. Provocateurs are a certainty. And no matter whether 90, 95, 99, or 99.9% of demonstrators are unarmed and peaceful, the small, even infinitesimal minority of conservatives that come armed will be used to smear all the rest.
The only man who can pre-emptively stop this is President Trump, by declaring that those welcome are only the disciplined, the peaceful, the smart and the safe people who are there only to protest the theft of their votes and of their president's second term.
But no. Instead, Trump tweeted: "Should be wild!"
We need a new leader. I don't know where we can find one, but we had better start searching now.
In days, patriots will descend on Washington, DC to protest the theft of the presidency. What do they hope to accomplish?
Many undoubtedly want to simply "make our voices heard" by showing up in droves. But many are hoping, praying, some even expecting that what happens on January 6 will somehow lead Congress, or Vice President Pence, to designate Trump-supporting electors, or have a vote in the House by state delegation, to hand the President a second term.
This is misplaced hope. The legal system has let them down at every turn. The Republican-controlled legislatures in the contested states let them down. In Michigan, Republicans on the Board of State Canvassers and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers let them down.
No--"let down" is too soft a term for it. "Betrayed" is more accurate.
Not every election lawsuit had merit, but the lawsuit by 18 states, led by the Attorney General of Texas, was well drafted and rigorously argued. It accurately pointed out that states like Michigan violated their own statutes--systematically and as a matter of policy--and therefore held illegal elections.
Absentee voting rules were ignored, meaningful signature checks were not conducted, and poll challengers--eyewitnesses--were impeded, which in Michigan is a felony. Instead of arresting election officials for these crimes, Detroit police aided and abetted them.
The U.S. Supreme Court didn't even deign to take up the case. It was dismissed without comment, other than to claim that the 100 million citizens of the 18 states had no standing to sue others for effectively disenfranchising them.
But it wasn't hogwash from left-wing jurists; the Court consists 6-3 of justices appointed by Republican presidents, three appointed by President Trump himself.
In Georgia, the Republican governor, attorney general, and secretary of state all sought to quash investigations and litigation surrounding the election -- even with another on the horizon, one that will determine whether the left takes over the U.S. Senate.
Given the total betrayal everywhere else, what on earth leads people to think that Congress will save us?
"Well," some say, "maybe there will be a miracle."
This is more realistic than hoping Congress does the right thing, but that's not saying much.
If a miracle happens, I will be grateful. But why should there be?
But most of them obeyed, and instead of demanding they resist, most of their congregants didn't even complain.
And this gets to the heart of the matter: In the face of the most radical take-away of civil rights in American history -- with the most intensely painful personal consequences -- an incredible number of Americans chose to accept it and suffer.
We don't know how much vote fraud actually occurred, but more than 5 or 10 percent isn't plausible. That much would certainly have been enough to make the difference in key swing states, but the point is, it shouldn't have been remotely close.
Sure, the mass media and Big Tech systematically hid the skeletons in Joe Biden's closet, and fabricated scandals against President Trump.
It wasn't remotely fair, but such is life, and conditions won't be any different in elections to come.
This is a burden that can only be overcome by grassroots organization, and grassroots organization is what will be needed to win the struggles that are surely coming.
How convenient for the left, that nine months of social isolation has destroyed all aspects of community life.
The only option, other than accepting this free-fall into total tyranny, is a great grassroots movement of patriots, organizing in our own communities.
This is not as easy as it sounds. Nobody enjoys knocking on doors, talking to strangers, and organizing volunteers.
But it's the only thing that works.
We all want to stay in our comfort zone. Posting on the Internet is easy.
We all want a one-time event that makes everything right. That's why so many will march on Washington in the hope that somehow it will set everything right.
And Antifa notwithstanding, protesting isn't all that difficult. It's actually kind of exciting.
But it's not going to work. I wish it would. But I know it won't.
The only way to take back our country is to organize our communities.
And besides, if you can't save your neighborhood, what makes you think you can save your country?