Saturday, November 14, 2020

Concede Nothing -- There IS No ‘President-Elect’ Yet - Marc Sheppard


​ by Marc Sheppard

It is NOT over -not by a long shot!

The media continue to build upon the shaky foundation they poured on Saturday when they prematurely called the 2020 Presidential Election for Joe Biden. Rising from the traditional “nothing to see here” to the admonishing “all votes have been counted” and ultimately to Whoopi Goldberg’s incendiary “suck it up,” it seems clear that the plan is to make the election over simply because they say the election is over. 

And, despite Hillary’s strong suggestion that Biden not do so under any circumstances, the mask-muffled screams from Trump-haters of all persuasions demand that the president accept that Election 2020 is over and concede that he’s lost.  Lost, believe it or not, to a bumbling, poorly scripted automaton in the throes of rapidly creeping dementia.

Except that it’s not over.  Not by a longshot.

Not with ongoing ballot counting in key states, a fast-growing number of serious legal challenges pending in previously “called” states and an even faster-growing number of sworn (under penalty of perjury) fraud allegations, it’s not.

And more to the point, it’s not over until at least 71 million Trump-voting Americans (that we know of) who have every reason to smell yet another big fat Democrat Rat have been at least somewhat convinced it’s over.  Not by dismissive acceptance speeches or talk of transition teams and task forces and ridiculous cabinet choices from Joe Biden.  Not by the celebratory dancing of blathering woke-parvenus playing endless games of virtue-signal-tag in the playground of social media.  

But rather by reasonable and irrefutable facts, dished out in helpings of very viable responses to very viable accusations of widespread systemic election fraud.  Accusations which continue to grow in number, scale, variety and, most importantly, credibility.

In just the past few days, fresh news stories of widespread and wide-ranging vote-rigging schemes, particularly in vital swing-states, have broken as fast as Pro-Joe Media can ignore them and Twitter can block them.  To name just a few, I offer ballot-scanner misreads and software “glitches,” all miraculously changing Trump votes to Biden votes as well as dozens (and growing) of sworn affidavits by eyewitnesses of magically appearing Biden ballots and mysteriously disappearing Trump ballots, often at the hands of corrupt election officials.

Speaking of whom, have you heard the story of Richard Hopkins, a Pennsylvania postal employee who blew the whistle on Postmaster Rob Weisenbach's order to backdate late ballots to Nov. 3?  News of Hopkins’s conversations with federal investigators apparently prompted the WaPo to publish a hit-piece on him, wrongfully claiming he had recanted his allegations --  something he fervently denies [video].  In a word: Wow.

And there’s more:  More late ballot backdating, more mass-voter-fraud by Detroit officials, fabricated proof of residence data for illegal and deceased voters, sudden huge swaps in county Trump and Biden tallies, apparently by intentional injection, and even an alleged link between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and the company responsible for the data-manipulating voting machines, which have added hundreds of thousands of bogus Biden votes nationwide (See herehere,  here, here and here).

These incredibly credible whistleblower reports continue to roll in, adding further evidence to the attempted coup and substance to the lawsuits ahead.

Team Trump got that ball rolling on Monday, filing a lawsuit [PDF] in Pennsylvania seeking an emergency injunction to stop officials from certifying Joe Biden’s victory due to “potentially fraudulent votes being counted without proper verification or oversight.”

Trump spokespeople have promised a slew of similar filings, and, given the recent increased inflow of sworn voter fraud complaints, there’s little reason to doubt them.

Yet, by far the strongest of Team Trump’s court challenges is not one of voter fraud, but rather judicial fraud.  In March of this year, the 5-to-2 Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court bowed to leftist pressure and, purportedly in response to COVID-19, extended the mail-in ballot deadline by an arbitrary three full days.  Not due to ambiguities or unconstitutionality, as is usually the case, but simply because after declaring coronavirus a "natural disaster," they felt empowered to just throw out the existing law and write a new one, effectively changing election day in Pennsylvania. 

This one will surely be re-decided quickly by the Supreme Court.  SCOTUS had previously passed on the case by a 4-4 pre-Amy Coney Barrett vote, a decision so outrageously bad that one intrepid Justice, Samuel Alito, broke with tradition by making it his personal project to revisit it after the election.  Indeed, this one will most certainly go Trump’s way.

So what impact will these allegations, sworn or not, together with well-targeted and favorably adjudicated lawsuits, have on who resides at 1600 Penn for the next 4 years?  Check this out.

Image Credit -- Real Clear Politics website screen shot   

As of this writing (11/11/2020 02:00 EST) Real Clear Politics has NOT called Pennsylvania or awarded its 20 votes to anyone, media reports to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor Alaska (3), North Carolina (15), Georgia(16) or Arizona (11) – All too close to call.  In fact, the renowned and highly respected aggregator of election statistics has Biden 11 electoral votes short of the 270 required to substantiate the dubious title of “president elect” he’s been bestowed. 

Indeed, until all votes are not only counted but also verified (and State certified), there is no president-elect.  Sure, Sleepy Joe can call himself whatever floats his boat, be it Joe, Jill, or, during particularly demented moments, even Hunter.  And so long as the media dutifully parrot his choice, he can lay claim to whatever title his demented mind desires, including president-elect. 

And speaking of counting votes, why not do some vote counting of your own – electoral votes that is?  RCP has Trump at 214 and Biden at 259.  270 wins; winner takes it all.  65 votes still up for grabs.  Oh, and Michigan, which was called blue, has 16.  Any guesses why I mention that?

Heads exploded everywhere on Monday when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to an impudent question about his employees’ preparations to engage with Joe Biden’s transition team by declaring with a smile, “There will be a smooth transfer of power … to a second Trump administration.” 

How dare he suggest it’s not over and that Trump may still emerge the victor?  Did that smile suggest he knows something we don’t?

Finish the math yet?

Image credit: PxHere public domain


Marc Sheppard is a data analyst, software engineer, and writer.  He's been a frequent contributor to American Thinker and welcomes your feedback.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Friday, November 13, 2020

When computers cheat, they inevitably leave evidence behind - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, a multi-credentialed MIT grad, ran the numbers, and the computer data generated in Michigan scream out “fraud!”

You should learn three main things from this post: (1) the Supreme Court can consider statistical evidence of fraud and can order a new election.  (2) Most of the computers used for voting in America have a built-in mechanism that allows votes to be weighted in favor of a candidate.  (3) If someone does tell a computer to mess with the election outcome, the computer's processes will inevitably create unnatural data trails that prove human intervention in vote counts — and that's what happened in three Michigan counties.

The Supreme Court

Alexander Macris found Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York, 435 F.Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), a case with close parallels to 2020's election.  After President Ford lost in 1976, Republican voters sued New York, alleging that systematic fraud deprived them of their voting rights.  The district court allowed the suit and stated the following legal test: (1) plaintiffs had to prove specific acts of misconduct that (2) involved "willful or knowing" ballot fraud (3) by state officials or private persons acting jointly with state officials that (4) changed the outcome of the election.

The court held that the plaintiffs could introduce expert opinions and statistical analyses showing that voting patterns markedly deviated from the predictable uniformity to be found in random samples from elections counts that were honest.  If the plaintiffs, won, said the court, they could get an order requiring a new presidential election.  Any other outcome would fail to protect election integrity (especially in presidential elections) that is "essential to a free and democratic society."

Donohue plaintiffs were unable to meet the legal test because they did not introduce sufficient evidence showing that fraud changed the outcome.  However, there's an unending flow of evidence in this year's election, both witness testimony and data evidence, showing fraud sufficient to change the election's outcome in the contested states.

Vote-counting machine irregularities

Some of the statistical data Trump needs can be found in the video at the bottom of this post.  In it, Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., a multi-credentialed MIT grad whom leftists despise, works with Bennie Smith, a software engineer, election commissioner, and data analyst, and Phil Evans, an inventor, engineer, and data analyst, to show massive voting machine fraud in three Michigan counties.

Ayyadurai leads with some fundamentals.

First, most vote tabulation using computers is fraught with ambiguity and the potential for error.  As we've learned, the ballots going into the system can be fraudulent (dead voters, fake voters, faked ballots, etc.).  Democrat-run states increase the potential for fraud with mass mail-in voting, prohibitions against voter ID, and a failure to check signatures.

Second, we don't know what goes on inside the computers.  The computers work by taking a snapshot of each ballot and then working off the snapshot.  By law, these snapshots must be saved for 22 months, but Democrat-run counties and states tend to delete them immediately.

Third, we don't have evidence tying voters to the ballots fed into the computers, since voters leave empty-handed.  Moreover, if voters enter data on the computer screen and then hand a printout to a poll worker, although voters can see accurate words on that printout, they have no idea if the coding that the computer reads is accurate.

Fourth, almost all voting machines (including Dominion's) are intentionally programmed with something called a "weighted race feature."  This allows the computer to add a multiplier to a candidate's actual votes.  For example, the machine could automatically multiply every Biden vote by some number over one.

In the video, Ayyardurai carefully demonstrates that in Oakland, Macomb, and Kent counties, the machines were set to systematically take votes away from Trump and hand those same votes to Biden.  The outlier was Wayne County, a heavily Democrat, minority county.  Not only did the machine not steal Trump's votes, but the data also showed that Trump overperformed in this county (although not enough to win in it).

Intriguingly, the more heavily Republican a precinct was, the more votes the machine stole from Trump and gave to Biden, creating a beautifully sloping line on the graph that could never have occurred naturally.  If you know how to read them, machines are rotten liars.

It's noteworthy how ambiguous the data are.  For just three of the four counties analyzed, the analysis showed that Trump's margin was reduced by a minimum of 138,000 votes.  Now imagine if this vote theft occurred in Michigan's other 80 counties.

And keep in mind that Michigan is one of the states that allegedly passed thousands of fraudulent ballots into those voting machines.  (See herehere, and here for examples.)  When you consider that Biden allegedly "won" by less than 3%, the combination of voting machine manipulation and illegal votes means Trump is right — he probably won Michigan handily:


Image: Shiva Ayyadurai on computer manipulation in Michigan.  YouTube screen grab.


Andrea Widburg  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Examining the code, internet geeks conclude 'Trump's win was yuuuge' - Nick Chase


​ by Nick Chase

Internet geeks are finding anomalies embedded within the code.

Around 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 4, when I went to bed, Trump was leading in the vote count in two Midwest swing states I was closely watching, Wisconsin — about 2%, and Michigan — about 3%, well on his way to an "unexpected" election victory nationwide.

Around 4:30 A.M., I woke early and decided to catch up on the election results on my iPhone, being careful not to wake my wife.  Imagine my surprise to see that, overnight, Trump's lead had shrunk to less than 1% in Wisconsin and about 1.5% in Michigan.  But what really startled me was that Biden's raw vote total had increased substantially in both states, and Trump's raw vote total had not changed at all!

That is an enormous red flag for fraud being committed, and I knew right away that the Democrats, who had failed at dislodging Trump from office by impeachment, were now going to deny him victory by stealing the election.  Further confirmation came when I saw the pictures and video of mystery bags and boxes being dragged into Detroit's TCF Center at 4 A.M., followed by the windows in the room being boarded up and by the ejection of Republican poll-watchers.

Well, the election theft appears to be complete, with the corrupt media declaring Biden president-elect, and lefties dancing in the streets (unmasked!) with joy.

So I asked myself, by how much did Trump actually win this election if the fraudulent votes are not included?

Fortunately, the internet geeks have been busy massaging the election data for statistical anomalies, and today (Nov. 11), I got my answer (partly) from information posted via The Gateway Pundit by blogger "PedeInspector" (whom I will refer to as "Pede").

Perhaps you saw the video of a network Election Night broadcast made by a person (not identified), also posted on The Gateway Pundit, which showed a sudden switch of votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania the night of Nov. 3.  I took two screen shots from that video.  Before the switch:


You can see that, almost instantly, 19,958 votes were stolen from Trump, and 19,958 votes were added to Biden's total.  The timestamp on the video (not shown in my pictures) is 10:23 P.M. (CST).

Well, this video also intrigued "Pede," and he (or she) went to work.  Pennsylvania uses Dominion voting systems, which forward their data to Edison Research, which then Javascript-encodes it and sends it on to the New York Times and the networks.  So "Pede" downloaded the Edison data for Pennsylvania from the New York Times at this address and analyzed it to locate all similar vote switches, as well as for votes that just went missing.  (Although I've given you the link, I wouldn't bother opening it, because it's just a big pile of Javascript code that's incomprehensible to the naked eye unless you know your Javascript.)  In the Javascript code, "Pede" located the specific code that changed the voting percentages for Trump and Biden:

Even if you're not a computer programmer, you can still see that the code changed the percentages shown in my pictures from Trump 56.6%, Biden 42.0% to Trump 56.0%, Biden 42.6%.  (The code that caused the switch of 19,958 votes is buried elsewhere in the Javascript code.  The "votes" shown are total votes cast, including for minor parties, and are not useful information here.)  The timestamp on these events is Nov. 4, 4:07 A.M. GMT (10:07 P.M. CST Nov. 3) and Nov. 4, 4:08 A.M. GMT (10:08 P.M. CST Nov. 3).  The 15-minute gap before this switch showed up on the TV is likely due to a delay in updating the Pennsylvania info at the network.

Now, I know nothing about "Pede," but as you can see, the vote switch was shown on TV, and "Pede" located that percentage switch in the code, which means that "Pede" is working with real data and has the skills needed to identify the code and expose the anomalies.  My experience has been that geeky internet bloggers are a hell of a lot more honest than most any politician, and I think we can safely proceed on the assumption that the research "Pede" has done is offered in good faith.  (The only clue to "Pede's" identity is that "Pede" refers to the events as "Nr. 187" and "Nr. 188", using the European abbreviation for "number" instead of the American "No." which suggests that "Pede" was born or educated overseas.)

As "Pede" puts it, "I made a script to run through the data and gather all instances where votes switched from Trump to Biden.  'Lost Votes' means that the total amount of votes counted decreased by that amount throughout the counting."

Here are the results "Pede" found for the swing states:

Pennsylvania: Switched, 220,883; Lost Votes, 941,248

Florida: Switched, 21,422; Lost Votes, 456

Michigan: Switched, 20,213; Lost Votes, 21,882

Georgia: Switched, 17,407; Lost Votes, 33,574

Wisconsin: Switched, 2,078; Lost Votes, 3,408

North Carolina: Switched, 0; Lost Votes, 15


Arizona: Switched, 4,492; Lost Votes, 0

Minnesota: Switched, 2,766; Lost Votes, 195,650

Colorado: Switched, 1,809; Lost Votes, 0

Nevada: Switched, 0 Lost Votes, 0

Remember, these numbers are for electronic fraud, above and beyond the paper-ballot fraud also committed and which is slowly being uncovered and documented.

Here's what I think happened:

The crooked Democrats actually believed their own propaganda — that Biden would win easily or that, at worst, it would be a tight race.  So they created enough fraudulent paper ballots to be inserted into the counting to overcome any worst-case situation for them, which would be a "squeaker" Trump win.  But Trump still led in the upper Midwest, even with the paper-ballot fraud, so they had to switch or destroy enough votes electronically to give Biden a "squeaker" win.

But as the votes were being counted on Election Night, it was quickly clear that Trump had a blowout win in Pennsylvania, far more than could be fraudulently papered over, so electronic fraud there went into overdrive, allowing it to be easily detected.  (Although "lost votes" apply to the total vote count, forgive me if I suspect that most of them are Trump votes being thrown away.)

As of midnight on Nov. 11, the candidates' vote totals, corrected for "Pede"-detected vote switches, are as follows:

Pennsylvania: Trump 3,550,163; Biden 3,159,698.  Trump wins (55.5% to 44.5%).

Michigan: Trump 2,668,046; Biden 2,774,61.

Georgia: Trump 2,475,263; Biden 2,454,538.  Trump wins (50.5% to 49.5%).


Nick Chase is a retired but still very active writer, editor, and webmaster and records classical music concerts for radio broadcast.  You can read more of his work on the American Thinker website and at


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Trump's Pennsylvania complaint is brilliant - James V. DeLong


​ by James V. DeLong


Here is a superb piece of legal craftsmanship


The complaint filed in Pennsylvania by the Trump campaign is a superb piece of legal craftsmanship.

It was filed in federal court, not state.  The gist is that some of the state's actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.

The point is obvious enough once one thinks of it, but it's brilliant all the same.  It shifts the focus from state law, where a politicized Pennsylvania court has the last word, to federal law, where the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

As for the obviousness of the point, consider as a thought experiment a state law requiring that all votes be counted in secret by an unelected board named by the party in power.  Could it survive a constitutional challenge?

As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, "to ask the question is to answer it."  It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities.  Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions.

Even the late Justice Ginsburg, who never met a progressive argument she could not support, would have trouble upholding such a law.

Given this framework, the historic decision in Bush v. Gore becomes useful but unimportant.  The problem there was that the Florida Supreme Court pretended to be interpreting state law, and the legal convention is that the U.S. Supreme Court must defer on state issues, even though the Florida court was making up new law as it went along and changing its mind shamelessly.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was muddled by the need to wiggle around this problem without addressing it head-on, because it would not do to cast doubt on the integrity of fellow judges.  (The union is strong.)  Only a three-justice concurrence said flatly that the Florida Court was contradicting the Legislature, and that would not do.  Four justices went off on an opaque Equal Protection argument.

A result of this muddle, say friends in academia, is that progressive legal scholars are contemptuous of the decision and dismiss it as irrelevant.

Trump's Pennsylvania case does not have the complication of the state versus federal law interaction because it jumps over the state law and, as noted, relies on a host of U.S. SCOTUS cases about the importance of voting. 

The complaint has much more, designed to bolster its central point. Many other instances of fraudulent activity are cited, which lends credibility to the main accusation.  They are also indispensable to establish a factual case — that the exclusion not only occurred, but mattered, because thousands of ballots were counted in secret.

Reading the news reports, it appears likely that similar complaints are going to be filed in other swing states and that perhaps we are seeing the exposure of a broad-based effort to corrupt the election.  Joe Biden claimed that the Democrats were mounting the biggest voter fraud effort in history, and a good rule for living is that when someone tells you he is about to screw you over, believe him.

It is possible, then, that a number of cases will hit the Supreme Court in about three weeks.

Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v. Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election.  This assumption is the reason for the Democrats' efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president's lawyers may have out-maneuvered them.  The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.

The legitimacy of the Court could survive through, and even be enhanced by, a carefully explained reversal of initial results.  It could not survive a mealy-mouthed ratification of obvious fraud.  If Trump's lawyers make their case factually, the Court must agree.

As Lincoln said: "we cannot escape history.  We ... will be remembered in spite of ourselves ... in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation." 


James V DeLong lives in the Shenandoah Valley and is a former editor of the Harvard Law Review.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Democrats Say AT&T, Comcast and Disney Decide Presidential Elections - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

President Trump took on the companies behind CNN, NBC’s Biden election calls.


The first to call the presidential election for Joe Biden was AT&T.

AT&T, through its subsidiary CNN, one of the largest conglomerates in the world with a market cap of over $200 billion, billions of which come from lucrative federal contracts, was the first to claim that Biden was the winner. Beyond government contracts, AT&T has a major stake in the 5G wars and has spent a lot of money investing in the Biden campaign.

AT&T employees were the tenth largest source of contributions to the Biden campaign.

Biden had attended fundraisers at the homes of two AT&T lobbyists, but the ties run deeper.

Steve Ricchetti, Biden's former chief of staff, and longtime confidant, chaired Biden's campaign. AT&T has been the only corporate client of the Ricchetti Consulting Group for nine years. Ricchetti has deep relationships with both AT&T and Biden. And if Biden were to take over the White House, AT&T would have its man on the inside to protect its economic interests.

That’s crucial for AT&T considering how hard the Trump administration fought against the illegal merger of AT&T and Time Warner which ended up hurting consumers. AT&T’s future expansion plans require a compliant and friendly administration. And that’s just what Biden would mean.

When Democrats claim that CNN’s call of the presidential election is somehow binding, what they’re really saying is that AT&T should have the right to pick presidents favorable to it.

That’s not democracy. It’s oligarchy.

CNN’s bias is not accidental. It’s about the money. CNN, as an economic entity, was a key issue in the merger with the Justice Department urging AT&T to sell components of the merged company, including CNN, as a precondition for the merger. AT&T and its CNN subsidiary had economic reasons, not just political ones, to want Biden and Ricchetti in the White House.

After AT&T called for the election for Biden, Comcast claimed less than a minute later that Biden was the winner through its properties, NBC and MSNBC.

Comcast, like AT&T, has deep ties to Joe Biden and a deeper animus to President Trump.

Biden launched his campaign at a fundraiser at the Philly home of David Cohen. Cohen is a Senior Executive Vice President at Comcast, and a senior counsellor to Comcast's CEO.

Cohen, a powerful Philly Democrat official, named as one of the most powerful figures in the state, went on to reshape Comcast's lobbying operation. Comcast, under Cohen, spends $14 million a year lobbying in D.C. The Washington Post called him, "Comcast's secret weapon".

NBC was not a sideline to Comcast’s opposition to President Trump. Like CNN and AT&T, it was crucial to it. Comcast had swallowed NBC Universal and then went on to blatantly violate antitrust laws and its conditions for the merger.

President Trump had warned that Comcast "routinely violates antitrust laws". Comcast’s own expansion plans, after it lost Time Warner to AT&T, require Trump out of office. Its attempt to take over FOX’s entertainment properties (not including FOX News) fell through, and to keep growing it will need to keep acquiring content creators and cable providers. A merger with Verizon, the path to an even bigger nationwide monopoly, would be blocked unless Biden wins.

Brian L. Roberts, the CEO of Comcast and the son of the company's founder, was Obama's golfing buddy. Comcast execs and employees have been Biden's seventh largest career contributors and 94% of donations from Comcast executives have gone to Biden. Comcast employees were the seventeenth largest source of donations to Biden.

This year, Roberts announced that Comcast was plowing $100 million into various Democrat-allied organizations including Al Sharpton’s racist National Action Network, the NAACP, and the Community Justice Action Fund, a Tides Foundation project. CJAF is funded by corporations while closely intertwined with Democrat organizations and political agendas.

This isn’t just ideological spending. Comcast’s investments in Sharpton and other political organizations enlisted political support for grabbing NBC. When Roberts, Cohen, and Comcast invest in Democrats and left-wing organizations, they’re buying support for Comcast’s growth.

Despite all its social justice spending, the Trump administration caught Comcast discriminating against its employees in Philly, resulting in a settlement.

Comcast's expansion plans also include an aggressive push into government business. Last year it picked up BluVector in its search for cybersecurity contracts and created a federal sales division. Its big plans for federal contracts will work much better if President Trump is gone.

After CNN, a subsidiary of AT&T, and NBC and MSNBC, two properties of Comcast, targeting slightly different demographics, CBS News, or more accurately, National Amusements and Shari Redstone, called the presidential election for Biden. National Amusements employees directed their donations primarily to Joe Biden. More importantly, top CBS lobbyist John Orlando has been tipped for Biden’s short list to head the FCC. Along with Disney’s Susan Fox.

After AT&T, Comcast, and National Amusements picked Biden, Disney’s ABC News joined in.

Disney boss Bob Iger, who had considered running for president, was one of Biden's big donors, maxing out his donations to the Democrat candidate, and plowing $250,000 into the Biden Victory Fund. Abigail Disney, Roy's radical leftist granddaughter, kicked in another $50K.

Disney employees were Biden’s fourteenth largest source of political donations. And the company has significant ties to the Democrat infrastructure. Biden has longtime ties to Hollywood and has helped it broker deals in China. Disney’s big focus is on China. Its ability to release movies and maintain properties in the Communist dictatorship is crucial to its growth.

President Trump’s immigration policies and resistance to China was bad for Disney’s business. Disney’s reliance on replacing American workers with cheap immigrant labor and on dealing with China made getting him out of office vital to protecting its business model and its future.

Like AT&T and Comcast, Disney wants President Trump out, not for domestic or federal contract reasons, but to protect its economic dependency on Communist China.

After the oligarchy that is swallowing the economy made their call, the rest was anticlimactic.

The Associated Press, headed by Steven R. Swartz, the CEO of Hearst Communications, and Gary B. Pruitt, the former CEO of McClatchy, called it for Biden. Hearst is partnered with Disney.

Then FOX News, which depends on AP’s data, called it for Biden.

While FOX News describes its data set as the Fox News Voter Analysis, which sounds properterial, it doesn't come from FOX.  Instead the FOX News Voter Analysis comes from AP VoteCast. AP VoteCast is actually a project of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. NORC is funded by the National Science Foundation whose directors are embedded for six years. As a result, France Cordova, an Obama appointee, held down the NSF for most of Trump's first term. That’s the origin of the data set FOX News used to make its calls.

But FOX Corp already made its call last year when it hired Danny O’Brien, Biden's former chief of staff and the head of his 2008 presidential campaign, as its head lobbyist. O'Brien went on working to help the Biden campaign while lobbying for FOX. That’s not an accident, it’s a plan.

After handing over most of its valuable entertainment properties to Disney, FOX Corp is a shell of its former self, but it still has entertainment and business interests beyond FOX News. What the Disney deal really meant was that FOX couldn’t compete with the monopoly bosses.

The real picture of the election and of the oligarchy can be seen in the order of Biden calls, with the biggest titans, AT&T and Comcast, getting first in line, followed by powerful, but more limited content powers like Disney and National Amusements, followed by dying organizations like the AP and FOX that have no future except servicing some of the big players in the new economy.

It’s not just about President Trump or the election. It’s about who runs the country.

The Democrats argue that when AT&T, Comcast, and Disney declare the election, that’s it. A handful of expanding monopolies can and should decide who’s going to be the president.

And the party of social justice and dirty cash is not even ashamed to make that argument.

America is not an oligarchy. Presidential candidates are not selected by a handful of lefty corporations or their media mouthpieces. The oligarchy has its fists clenched around the country’s neck. It has outsourced our economy, plundered our resources, and depressed the nation, while concentrating wealth and power in a few major cities and their suburbs.

The real question on the ballot was whether a handful of oligarchies should be running America.

When you look at the voting map, you’re not just looking at counties, but economic segments, some of which are incredibly wealthy because they’re concentrated around sources of government and corporate power, and others which are struggling to survive. The real poverty isn’t in the urban homeless encampments cultivated by Democrats, it’s in parts of rural America and the Rust Belt that are struggling to survive, but still working hard every single day.

President Trump won their support because he took on the oligarchy. Now the oligarchy is trying to crush him. And the Democrats insist that the oligarchy decides elections.

2020 will not only decide who sits in the White House next year, but whether AT&T, Comcast, and Disney decide who gets to occupy the Oval Office, or whether the American People do.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

What Would a Biden Presidency Mean For Israel? - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

Biden may have a “deep feeling for Israel,” but does he care about its protection?


Let’s be charitable. Let’s consider the best case to be made for Biden “as a friend of Israel,” which just appeared from a veteran Israeli journalist, Raphael Ahren: “Biden a veteran friend of Israel, settlement critic, may be at odds over Iran,” by Raphael Ahren, Times of Israel, November 7, 2020:

…“He has a deep feeling for Israel,” said Michael Oren, who served as Israel’s ambassador to the US when Biden was vice president. Oren opposed almost all of the Middle East policies championed by Biden and his boss, Barack Obama, especially on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian question. Still, he annually attended Biden’s Rosh Hashanah party, and asserts that the former Delaware senator is genuinely concerned about Israel’s well-being.

According to former Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, Biden has a “deep feeling for Israel” and is “genuinely concerned about Israel’s well-being.” That’s good to know, but along with that “deep feeling” and “genuine concern,” a lot more intellect needs to be applied – that is, Biden needs to acquire a detailed knowledge of Israel’s history, its legal rights, the security threats the Jewish state has beaten back but will always have to confront, whatever agreements it reaches with Arab states. It’s nice that he has a warm feeling for Israel, but it would be even nicer if Biden knew why Israeli settlements are legal, built on land — Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank — that by right belongs entirely to Israel. Read the Mandate for Palestine, Joe, especially Article 6, where the U.K., as the holder of the Mandate, is instructed “to facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

The U.K. was, as the holder of the Mandate, duty-bound to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “close settlement by Jews on the land.” What land is that? Look at, study, commit to memory, Joe – you can do it! — the Mandate maps, that show that land which was set aside to become the future Jewish state. It extends from (roughly) just beyond the Golan Heights in the north, to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east, to the Mediterranean in the west. The West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria) is entirely within that Jewish state.

It would be heartening, too, if Joe Biden fully understood the meaning of U.N. Resolution 242, which offers an independent basis – beyond that conferred by the Mandate for Palestine — for Israel’s right to retain territory that it won in the Six-Day War, territory that it needs to hold onto in order to have, in the language of the resolution, “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries.” I suspect that in Biden’s nearly fifty years in Washington, despite the hundreds of times he must have spoken feelingly about Israel, he has never read either the Mandate for Palestine or U.N. Resolution 242, as explicated by its author, Lord Caradon. Now is the time for him to do both.

Biden is from a generation that remembers 1967 and 1973,” Oren said, referring to the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, respectively. “He has Israel in his heart. He actually gets it. He gets Israel.”…

Oren opposed almost all of the Middle East policies of Obama and Biden, which were dangerous to Israel, including the Iran deal, attempts behind the scenes to persuade Israel to stop settlement building, and even the shameful abstention – the first time for the U.S. — on a U.N. vote condemning Israel’s settlements as “illegal.” So why does he insist that Biden “has Israel in his heart. He actually gets it, He gets Israel”? What does that mean? Does he “get” that Israel has a legal right, superior to all other claims, to the entire West Bank? Does he “get” that Israel cannot possibly return to the 1949 armistice lines, with that nine-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea, which Abba Eban once described as the “lines of Auschwitz”? Does he “get” that instead of seeking, in vain, for a “solution” to the Arab Muslim war on Israel, as generations of peace-processors have tried, we should recognize that this Jihad against Israel is not a problem to be solved but, rather, a situation to be managed? Does Biden understand that  the best way for Israel to manage this situation is through a strategy of deterrence, which requires that Israel continue to control, at a minimum, the Jordan Valley and the five large settlement blocs in the West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria)?

“Biden has known every Israeli prime minister since Golda Meir, “and more than just casually,” he [Ambassador Oren] noted.

“He has retold many times the story of his meeting with Meir in the summer of 1973, during his first overseas trip as a young senator: The Israeli premier showed him maps and told him about the militarily precarious situation her country found itself in. Biden looked depressed, but Meir cheered him up, telling him that Israelis have a secret weapon against the Arabs: They have nowhere else to go.

“During his decades in politics Biden — who has Jewish grandchildren, as two of his three children married Jews — met countless world leaders. But he still describes his interaction with Golda Meir as “one of the most consequential meetings I’ve ever had in my life.”

Less known is a meeting with her successor Menachem Begin a few years later, which The New York Times at the time described as a “highly emotional confrontation.”

In June 1982, a few days after the start of the Lebanon War, known as Operation Peace for the Galilee, Begin met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. Several lawmakers grilled him over Israel’s alleged disproportionate use of force.

“A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem.

The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.

I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said. “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war… Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.”

“But while Biden had sympathy for Jerusalem’s actions in Lebanon, he let it be known that he opposed Israel’s West Bank settlement enterprise. He warned Begin that Israel “was losing support in this country because of the settlements policy,” according to The Times.

Biden was right. Israel has been “losing support” because of its “settlements policy.” But that doesn’t make that policy wrong. The decline in support is merely testimony to the deficiencies of Israel’s hasbara, and the success of Palestinian and other Arab propaganda efforts. “War is deceit,” Muhammad said, and the Palestinians are past masters at this kind of warfare. Apparently those efforts won over Biden himself. Instead of accepting what he has been fed by those propagandists, he owes it to the Jewish state that he keeps insisting he feels so deeply about, to investigate the moral, historic, and legal claims of Jews to the West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria) on which those settlements have been built.

“He hinted — more than hinted — that if we continue with this policy, it is possible that he will propose cutting our financial aid,” Begin recalled. “And to this I gave him a clear answer: Sir, do not threaten us with cutting aid. First of all, you should know that this is not a one-way street. You help us, and we are very grateful for your help; but this is a two-way street: We do a lot for you. And also in recent battles we did a lot for the United States.”

Begin, in his own telling, warned the young Delaware senator that “if at any time you demand of us to yield on a principle in which we believe, while threatening to cut aid, we will not abandon the principle in which we believe.”

It was “a lively discussion” that he thought was “very helpful,” Begin concluded.

Begin, a noble and also tragic figure (for the way he was treated with such hostility and contempt by Jimmy Carter at Camp David, while Anwar Sadat, who was getting back the entire Sinai, was seen by Carter as a veritable Prince of Peace) stood his ground at Biden’s implied threat of a cut in aid. And his performance likely made a deep impression on Biden, for since that exchange with Begin, Biden has always said that he would never cut aid to Israel to force a change in its policy. We’ll soon have a chance to see if he still means it.


Hugh Fitzgerald  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

IAEA report: Iran continues to violate nuclear deal - Elad Benari


​ by Elad Benari

UN’s atomic watchdog says Iran continues to increase its stockpile of low-enriched uranium far beyond limits set in 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran continues to increase its stockpile of low-enriched uranium far beyond the limits set in the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and to enrich it to a greater purity than permitted, the UN’s atomic watchdog agency said Wednesday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in a confidential document distributed to member countries and seen by The Associated Press that, as of November 2, Iran had a stockpile of 2,442.9 kilograms (5385.7 pounds) of low-enriched uranium, up from 2,105.4 kilograms (4,641.6 pounds) reported on August 25.

The nuclear deal signed in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, allows Iran only to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms (447 pounds).

The IAEA reported that Iran has also been continuing to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5%, higher than the 3.67% allowed under the deal.

The IAEA said in its previous report on Iran that the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of enriched uranium now stands at more than ten times the limit set down in the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

Iran has gradually scaled back its compliance with the 2015 deal in response to US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement in May of 2018.

At the same time, the Iranian government has continued to allow IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilities, a key reason the countries that remain parties to the JCPOA say it’s worth preserving.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi last month told the Austrian paper Die Presse that Iran does not at this stage have enough enriched uranium to make one nuclear bomb under the UN atomic watchdog’s official definition.

In the quarterly report distributed to members on Wednesday, the IAEA said it still has questions from the discovery last year of particles of uranium of man-made origin at a site outside Tehran not declared by Iran.

The agency has been pressing Tehran for information about the kind of activities being carried out at an undeclared site where the uranium particles were found.

While the IAEA has not identified the site in question, it is believed to be the Turquzabad facility which was identified by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during his address before the UN General Assembly in 2018 as a "secret atomic warehouse."

Although the IAEA says it has the power to carry out snap inspections anywhere in Iran it deems necessary, Tehran had denied it access to the two sites for seven months until a deal was recently struck for access to the secret sites.

In the current report, the IAEA said the “compositions of these isotopically altered particles” found there were “similar to particles found in Iran in the past, originating from imported centrifuge components.” It said it found Iran’s response to questions last month “unsatisfactory.”

“Following an assessment of this new information, the agency informed Iran that it continues to consider Iran’s response to be not technically credible,” the IAEA wrote, according to AP. “A full and prompt explanation from needed.”


Elad Benari  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

China Squashes a Giant Ant and Nukes Its Financial System - Gordon G. Chang


​ by Gordon G. Chang

Xi demands absolute obedience, something incompatible with a modern financial system.

  • Beijing has cast doubt on the soundness of China's equity markets and, more broadly, on the long-term viability of the country's private sector.

  • China is not big enough for two big personalities. Xi is building a personality cult, and so is Ma Yun, better known as Jack Ma to the international financial and business communities.

  • Ant's lending volumes grew fast because the company was largely unregulated.

  • "The message is that no big private businessman will be tolerated on the mainland." — Chen Zhiwu of Hong Kong University, Financial Times, November 6, 2020.

  • Xi demands absolute obedience, something incompatible with a modern financial system.

On November 3, Shanghai's Nasdaq-like STAR Market and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange announced the suspension of the largest initial public offering in history, of Ant Group Co., Ltd., about 36 hours before the scheduled start of trading in Hong Kong. The unprecedented actions shocked domestic and international investors. Pictured: The Ant Group headquarters in Hangzhou, China. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

Investors in Hong Kong this week dumped more than $250 billion in Chinese tech stocks. Particularly hard hit were Alibaba Group,, Tencent, and Meituan Dianping.

The rout followed the stunning postponement of what would have been the largest initial public offering in history. Ant Group Co., Ltd., an Alibaba Group affiliate, was set, with the overallotment option, to raise $39.5 billion.

Investors were valuing the six-year-old company at $359 billion, making it worth more than American-based behemoth J.P. Morgan and the world's largest bank by assets, the state-backed Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

On November 3, Shanghai's Nasdaq-like STAR Market and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange announced the suspension about 36 hours before the scheduled start of trading in Hong Kong. The unprecedented actions shocked domestic and international investors.

The now-accepted narrative is that Ma Yun, the driving force behind Ant, angered Chinese regulators in a speech in Shanghai. Another often-heard explanation was that China's stodgy state banks, threatened by the lightly-regulated Ant, retaliated. Others think regulators panicked when they realized that Ant had become a giant.

In any event, Beijing, by ordering the suspensions at the last moment, has cast doubt on the soundness of China's equity markets and, more broadly, on the long-term viability of the country's private sector.

What happened? There are reports that Chinese ruler Xi Jinping personally made the decision to suspend the Ant offering.

China is not big enough for two big personalities. Xi is building a personality cult, and so is Ma Yun, better known as Jack Ma to the international financial and business communities. Ma built Alibaba Group, the New York Stock Exchange-listed online sales platform, and he can act -- and literally dress up -- as if he is a rock star, especially in front of domestic audiences.

On October 24, at the Bund Summit in Shanghai, Ma publicly accused Chinese banks of having a "pawnshop mentality," a reference to their collateral-based lending. He also said Ant would spur reform and trigger lending to small businesses.

Ma even had choice words for China's central bank and the country's banking regulators. "We cannot manage an airport the way we manage a train station, nor can we manage the future the way we managed yesterday," he said.

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post called the speech "rousing," but to Beijing, Ma's comments were fighting words. Ant was, in recent years, transforming itself into a lender and loan arranger, going far beyond its Alipay unit's original business as a mobile payment platform.

Ant's lending volumes grew fast because the company was largely unregulated. Fees that banks paid to its CreditTech unit grew 59% in the first six months of this year. Such fees accounted for 39% of Ant's total sales during the period and constituted the largest segment of its business, outstripping even revenues from its mobile payment platform. As the Financial Times pointed out, "the rapid growth of its credit business has been a key selling point to investors."

The central bank -- and the Communist Party itself -- is coming on all fronts for Ant. It is clear that Ant's lending business will be more heavily regulated going forward. On November 2, the People's Bank of China and the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission issued draft regulations restricting online lending, and China's State Administration for Market Regulation on November 10 issued draft anti-monopoly guidelines for internet businesses. Moreover, the central bank's new digital currency, now circulating in trial runs and soon to be introduced nationwide, is going to undercut Alipay and other mobile payment apps.

Ominously, observers think the regime is also targeting Ma himself. As Chen Zhiwu of Hong Kong University told the Financial Times, "The message is that no big private businessman will be tolerated on the mainland."

Xi Jinping tolerates no one, but not all the reasons for the listing suspensions are necessarily suspect. The Shanghai Stock Exchange pointed to "major issues," including the possible failure to meet "listing conditions or information disclosure requirements."

Analysts believe the reference to inadequate disclosures relates to the new regulations to be issued to rein in Ant, yet they could also refer to more serious problems. Jack Ma, after all, has been accused of acting like a pirate -- for instance divesting Yahoo! of its interest in Alipay. Another way to put this is that Ant, through insufficient disclosures, may have been trying to pull a fast one on the investing public.

Given uncertainty about the extent of the last-minute regulation, the IPO certainly carried too high a valuation. Some believe regulators acted to protect investors from a sudden post-IPO drop.

Most analysts believe the IPO will be delayed for "months," as the South China Morning Post suggested, and others think the postponement will last a half year.

The delay will have consequences. Beijing's new rules will result in Ant raising perhaps "less than half of what it is now," as a fund manager in Shanghai told the FT.

Of course, Ant and its regulators should have worked out disagreements long before this month. That they did not do so is a reflection of a political system that has, under Xi Jinping, acted capriciously and erratically and moved in the wrong direction of more control over markets. Xi demands absolute obedience, something incompatible with a modern financial system.

The lesson here is that China's communism and modernity do not mix.

China this month crushed a giant ant, nuked its markets, and once again revealed the essential nature of its political system.


Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute Distinguished Senior Fellow, and member of its Advisory Board.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

This Is a Time for Fighting, Not for “Healing" - Bruce Thornton


​ by Bruce Thornton

A dire moment to protect our Constitution.


As part of his pretense that the presidential race is over, Joe Biden indulged the banal “time for healing” and “we’re all Americans” rhetoric. But we shouldn’t be fooled. Even before Barack Obama’s dishonest “no red state, no blue state” campaign lies were followed by a hyper-partisan, divisive administration, we’ve known that the increasingly left-leaning Democrats will endorse  “any means necessary” tactics to work their political will.

And we also know that too many Republicans will fall for the Dems’ rhetorical bait-and-switch. We shouldn’t let them get away with it this time, for we’re facing a hard fight ahead to minimize the damage that the “woke” Democrats will try to inflict on our Constitution. It’s time to fight, not “heal.”

First, anyone paying attention for the last few decades knows that every time a Democrat starts talking about “reaching across the aisle” and “bipartisanship,” he’s getting ready to pick your pocket. Such bromides are really euphemisms for serving their policy preferences rather than conservative ones, after which they’ll pat you on the head as a “good Republican” or a “maverick” for betraying your conservative principles.

Meanwhile, few Democrats reciprocate. They never cringe preemptively before Republicans lest the Donks call them bad names. Outright racialist behavior such as consorting with a race-hack like Al Sharpton or an avowed anti-Semite like Louis Farrakhan is indulged, and any complaint contemptuously dismissed by Democrat Senators and House Representatives, even as they endlessly chant “racist” or “white supremacist” at Republicans.

The most egregious, and consequential, example of this double standard is seen at Supreme Court nomination hearings. Go back to Robert Bork’s hearings in 1987. Bork was one of the most qualified jurists in modern times. His confirmation should have been swift and uncontroversial. But under the direction of Judiciary Committee head Joe “time for healing” Biden, who took point on the hearings, they devolved into a concerted, duplicitous smear-campaign against Bork. Before they even began, Ted Kennedy orated before the full Senate with rhetoric that every NeverTrump upholders of “norms” and “decorum” should write a hundred times on a blackboard:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens

As Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Helman’s memoirs, every word of this smear was a lie, including “the” and “and.”

Four years later, Biden orchestrated the “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas. After the hearings were over and while the Senate was deliberating, the Dems produced Anita Hill, a former subordinate of Thomas at the EEOC, who accused him of making inappropriate sexual comments. The hearing was reopened, and Thomas smeared with grotesque charges denied by four other female EEOC colleagues.

Thomas’s comments on the spectacle can stand as a summary of the Democrats’ low, any-means-necessary, racialist tactics:

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

And we still remember the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, in which similar slanderous accusations–– sprung at the last minute, but even worse for being decades in the past––were employed to derail a justice not on his merits or qualifications, but on ideological grounds and political policies like abortion that comprise the progressive cult dogma.

Now try and think of anything remotely similar being inflicted on Democrat nominees. In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor, despite troubling racialist statements about what a “wise Latina” could bring to the Court, was swiftly confirmed after hearings in which other than a few Republicans, no challenging questions were asked. A year later Elena Kagan was confirmed after a similarly decorous and gentle hearing. Never in recent years has a Democrat nominee been subjected to the vicious smears and hounding that Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were subjected to. And yet people, including so-called conservatives, blame Donald Trump for divisiveness and wrecking of “norms,” while Joe Biden, the Luca Brasi of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is marketed as the emblem of lost comity, genteel traditions, and “democratic norms.”

We all know that since the Sixties, and increasing every decade since then, the Democrats have moved farther left from the center and increasingly employed the scorched-earth tactics typical of the left. This development reached its peak during the Obama years, when the IRS was weaponized against Republican and conservative political organizations; and the White House began an illegal investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign and administration, in which high-ranking officials from the CIA, FBI, and DOJ participated, many moving on to the specious Mueller investigation that wasted $32 million and two years on a political ad for the Democrats. Meanwhile, progressive allies in government, media, sports, tech, and entertainment waged a relentless smear campaign against the President, egged on by Congressmen staging show-trial “hearings” for the news cameras.

So forgive us for turning a jaundiced eye on Biden’s clichés of “healing” and “unity.” More importantly, such talk bespeaks the guild mentality of like-minded and socio-economically similar technocrats, not the divided and balanced republic the Constitution created for we the people. Apart from times of war and natural disasters, unity should trouble us, for widespread agreement is usually the prelude to concentrations of power that facilitate tyranny.

The Founders distrusted excessive power, so they created a government of separate powers, each designed to check the encroachments of the other, and all checked and balanced by the sovereign states. This structure, along with elections every two years, has been the bulwark of our freedom. But for a century progressives have chipped away at that defense. The executive branch has expanded its size and scope by increasing the number of agencies and expanding their regulatory reach. The states were weakened when the power to select Senators was taken from state legislatures and given to the people. Given the Senate’s power to check the executive––confirming federal justices and cabinet members, declaring war, ratifying treaties––that change reduced the leverage state houses had over the executive. And don’t forget the federal money doled out to states for signing on to various redistributionist programs and illiberal federal regulations. As the British used to say about joining the army, “He who takes the king’s shilling is the king’s man.” State sovereignty has been weakened by this devil’s bargain.

As a result, over that time the scope of our freedom has been reduced, and the Bill of Rights hemmed in by restrictions and regulations. Matters of private conscience to be debated at the local or state level have been usurped by the feds and a hubristic Supreme Court. The very evils the Revolutionary generation fought against––overweening unaccountable power wielded by a distant sovereign––have been insidiously creeping back, and explicit threats have been made against our First and Second Amendment rights, as well as the Electoral College that protects minority rights from the majority.

That’s what “unity” portends–– the reduction of political diversity and freedom by the encroachments of an expanding government power. What we call “gridlock,” the stasis that follows factional disputes, is not a flaw in the system, it is its purpose, and the means for stopping power’s encroachments by setting ambition against ambition. It is how politically we obey the rule “first do no harm.”

If, as seems likely, Biden is certified as the winner of the election, and the Republicans keep the Senate, we will see in the next few years the genius of the Constitution at work. The tyrannical ambitions of the “woke” left will be checked by the Senate and a Trump-appointed judiciary. And in two years the people will have the chance to confirm or revise the status quo.

So pay no attention to the duplicitous rhetoric of “unity” and “healing.” The Dems have for decades proven they’re not interested in reconciliation, but in power. Conservatives are not the “loyal opposition,” they are the “racist, sexist, xenophobic” enemy to be defeated by any means necessary. That means it’s time to fight, not to “heal.”


Bruce Thornton 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter