Saturday, November 28, 2020

The 'smartest man in the room' has joined Sidney Powell's team - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

It's going to be very hard for the Democrats to challenge this comprehensive, authoritative expert testimony about voting machine fraud.

In her Georgia complaint, Sidney Powell included the declaration of Navid Keshavarz-Nia, an expert witness who stated under oath that there was massive computer fraud in the 2020 election, all of it intended to secure a victory for Joe Biden.  Dr. Kershavarz-Nia's name may not mean a lot to you, but it's one of the weightiest names in the world when it comes to sniffing out cyber-security problems.

We know how important Dr. Kershavarz-Nia is because, just two and a half months ago, the New York Times ran one of its Sunday long-form articles about a massive, multi-million-dollar fraud that a talented grifter ran against the American intelligence and military communities.  Dr. Kershavarz-Nia is one of the few people who comes off looking good:

Navid Keshavarz-Nia, those who worked with him said, "was always the smartest person in the room." In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I., he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots. After several months of working with Mr. Courtney, he began connecting those dots too. He did not like where they led.

Not only does Dr. Kershavarz-Nia have an innate intelligence, but he's also got extraordinary academic and practical skills in cyber-fraud detection and analysis.  The reason we know about his qualifications is that it takes seven paragraphs for him to list them in the declaration he signed to support the Georgia complaint.

His qualifications include a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in various areas of electrical and computer engineering.  In addition, "I have advanced trained from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), DHS office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) and Massachusetts Institution of Technology (MIT)."

Professionally, Dr. Kershavarz-Nia has spent his career as a cyber-security engineer.  "My experience," he attests," spans 35 years performing technical assessment, mathematical modeling, cyber-attack pattern analysis, and security intelligence[.]"  I will not belabor the point.  Take it as given that Dr. Kershavarz-Nia may know more about cyber-security than anyone else in America.

So what does the brilliant Dr. Kershavarz-Nia have to say?  This:

1. Hammer and Scorecard is real, not a hoax (as Democrats allege), and both are used to manipulate election outcomes.

2. Dominion, ES&S, Scytl, and Smartmatic are all vulnerable to fraud and vote manipulation — and the mainstream media reported on these vulnerabilities in the past.

3. Dominion has been used in other countries to "forge election results."

4. Dominion's corporate structure is deliberately confusing to hide relationships with Venezuela, China, and Cuba.

5. Dominion machines are easily hackable.

6. Dominion memory cards with cryptographic key access to the systems were stolen in 2019.

Although he had no access to the machines, Dr. Kershavarz has looked at available data about the election and the vote results.  Based on that information, he concluded

1. The counts in the disputed states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia) show electronic manipulation.

2. The simultaneous decision in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia to pretend to halt counting votes was unprecedented and demonstrated a coordinated effort to collude toward desired results.

3. One to two percent of votes were forged in Biden's favor.

4. Optical scanners were set to accept unverified, un-validated ballots.

5. The scanners failed to keep records for audits, an outcome that must have been deliberately programmed.

6. The stolen cryptographic key, which applied to all voting systems, was used to alter vote counts.

7. The favorable votes pouring in after hours for Biden could not be accounted for by a Democrat preference for mailed in ballots.  They demonstrated manipulation.  For example, in Pennsylvania, it was physically impossible to feed 400,000 ballots into the machines within 2–3 hours.

8. Dominion used Chinese parts, and there's reason to believe that China, Venezuela, Cuba interfered in the election.

9. There was a Hammer and Scorecard cyber-attack that altered votes in the battleground states, and then forwarded the results to Scytl servers in Frankfurt, Germany, to avoid detection.

10. The systems failed to produce any auditable results.

Based on the above findings, Dr. Keshavarz-Nia concluded with "high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a [sic] hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred [sic] to Vice President Biden."

This is going to be tough evidence for Democrats to counter.  Back when the na├»ve Democrats thought Trump would be the one to commit fraud, they held congressional hearings and wrote articles about the voting machines' vulnerability.  And with the New York Times touting Dr. Keshavarz-Nia's brilliance and his ability to sniff out fraud, they'll struggle to that he's not a reliable expert.  Things are getting fun.


Andrea Widburg  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Nearly one out five voters would change their vote for Biden - Monica Showalter


​ by Monica Showalter

Democrats played three-card monte on voters with their vote-early scam.

The Democrats knew what they were doing when they pushed voters to vote early.

"Vote. Please vote. Vote early. Come up with a plan to vote. Go to If we use our vote, and we use our voice, we will win," Kamala Harris exhorted in a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris Facebok campaign ad, screwing up her face and pumping her fist for emphasis.

Turns out that was great for them, but a bad deal for the voters. In fact, it was a sleight of hand comparable to three-card monte, to a lot of sad marks who gave up their right to an Election-Day vote, cast their ballot as told for Biden, and now can't get it back.

According to OAN One America News, a survey from the Media Research Institute found that 17% of Biden voters regretted their votes. Some 45% said they had never heard of the Biden scandals, ranging from the sexual assault allegations from legislative staffer Tara Read, to the evidence of selling influence to China and other rogue actors found in the abandoned laptop of Biden's son Hunter. In the OAN interview, MRC's Dan Gainor told OAN's John Hines that 9% of those Biden voters surveyed said they would have changed their votes based on the news of corruption allegations, which had been repressed on social media and ignored by most of the mainstream press. (MRC does not have a link to the survey that I can find).

That's a significant number of people, nearly one out of five.

Which tells us that early voting, like mail-in voting, was also a scam.

We all know how mail-in voting set the stage for multiple ballots sent on hideously outdated voter registration lists, broke the chain of custody, place ballots into the unreliable and politically biased postal service's hands, opened the gates to coerced ballot harvesting, and left authentication as to who actually voted impossible to determine.

But early ballots were if anything at least as insidious.

For Democrats, these were a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition to voters.

With early voting, it didn't matter. Early votes meant less campaigning to worry about for Joe Biden, and enable Democrat ballot harvestors to concentrate pressure on those who didn't.

Early votes could form the starter dough for those late-entry voting dumps that changed the direction of the balloting in some pivotal blue cities, which was another benefit for the Biden team.

They also saved the doddering Joe Biden from having to campaign. Biden, recall, didn't campaign much, never put a detailed platform, changed his positions for different voting audiences, and never said much of what he would do once in office. He was an old shoe with a remarkably empty 47-year track record, adept only at lining his personal pockets, which made him a palimpsest to low-information voters. Getting voters to vote early got the job done for him, and never mind about the voter's interest in casting an informed vote.

The calls to cast one's vote early in fact were marketed to voters as a patriotic duty, and included some claims that the votes could be counted more quickly if they didn't have to be done all at once. That was another three-card monte, given the tardiness of the results in key Democrat-controlled swing states.

It was all to Biden's benefit, because once he had the vote in hand, it was very easy to swing to the far-left. The voters who voted early were left as suckers.

John Hinderaker at Power Line last October found that voter remorse set in early, with a top Google search result being 'How can I change my vote.' Early voting took that chance to cast one's ballot, on Election Day, as has been done for more than 200 years, away for many.

It's sleazy stuff, a pre-planned sleight of hand to seize one a voting moment early and deny voters the right to cast their ballot on the designated day alongside the rest of the nation.

With that much remorse, it puts fuel to the fire that a re-do of such a flawed election is what should be done -- one day, paper ballots, two-party observation. Election day should be the voters' choice on their stated day, not a drawn-out election 'season' which like mail-in-balloting, creates some amazing windows for fraud and opportunism. Election Day should be the measure of a voter's choice, not an extended season to trick voters out of their right to decide with all the facts in.

Where do these voters go to get their votes back? Scrap the vote and do it right.


Monica Showalter  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Help is on the way to understand Sidney Powell's Michigan lawsuit - Andrea Widburg


​ by Andrea Widburg

The inestimable Doug Ross has put together another infographic to explain the massive election fraud that took place in Michigan.

Sidney Powell's Michigan lawsuit is shorter than the Georgia lawsuit she filed (although I suspect that has do to, in part, with a smaller font and different formatting choices).  Nevertheless, it's every bit as complex, because while Michigan had the same overarching forms of fraud (fraud revolving around paper ballots and their counting and voting machine fraud), the supporting facts are different.  Enter Doug Ross, who has a real knack for creating uncomplicated infographics that clearly explain complicated materials.

If you haven't already seen it, I reproduced here Doug's infographic about the complaint Sidney Powell filed in Georgia.  It's a lot easier to understand what he did than it is to understand the complaint.  As is the case with all complaints, that document is larded with confusing, and often repetitive, language that plaintiffs must include for procedural reasons.

Because Georgia is in the news owing to the all-important runoff for Senate candidates, a lot of people missed the fact that, at the same time she filed the complaint in Georgia, Powell also filed a lawsuit in Michigan.  At a fundamental level, the complaint is the same as that in Georgia.  That is, both charge that the two states violated voting laws, engaged in massive ballot fraud, and engaged in computer voting machine fraud.

Each state has its unique factual wrinkles.  In Michigan, Democrats were extraordinarily aggressive when it came to barring Republicans from observing the mail-in ballot vote counting.  Meanwhile, in Georgia, Democrats pretended that the vote-counting venue had suffered a dramatic pipe burst and locked out observers, only to continue counting.

These unique factual wrinkles matter at an evidentiary level.  The complaints have different eyewitnesses and different expert witnesses.  If you've read the Georgia complaint, that's not the same as having read the Michigan complaint.

That's why it's great that, once again, Doug Ross has come through with an extremely clear series of slides showing the core of the Michigan complaint.  I urge you to review them so that you have a firm grasp of what happened in that state:

Image: Covering up windows at Detroit's absentee ballot counting center.  YouTube screen grab.


Andrea Widburg  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Everything is on the Line - Discover the Networks


​ by Discover the Networks

A close look at Georgia Senate Candidate Raphael Warnock.


Born to two Pentecostal-Holiness ministers in Savannah, Georgia in 1969, Rev. Raphael Warnock served at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, New York from 1991 through 2001 – six years as a youth pastor and four years as an assistant pastor. He was then employed as senior pastor of the Douglas Memorial Community Church in Carroll County, Maryland, from early 2001 through mid-2005. And since 2005, he has been senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

In 2020, Warnock, a Democrat, decided to run for a U.S. Senate seat representing Georgia. His campaign raised more than $20 million, of which nearly 80% came from out-of-state donors. Neither Warnock nor the Republican incumbent, Kelly Loeffler, received more than 50% of the vote in the ten-candidate field, thereby setting the stage for a January 5, 2021 special runoff election between Warnock and Loeffler. The result of that runoff will help determine which party controls the Senate.

Following is a close examination of Warnock’s track record, worldview, and political agendas.

Warnock’s Church Honors Fidel Castro (1995)

While Warnock was a youth pastor at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in 1995, that church — on October 22 of that year — held a special event hosting and celebrating the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro. The nearly 1,300 frenzied Castro supporters who were packed into the sanctuary that night gave the guest-of-honor a ten-minute standing ovation, chanting “Fidel! Fidel! Fidel!” Senior pastor Calvin Butts announced, “We have one of the great leaders of the world [Castro] with us today.” And according to a Miami Herald report about the event, Castro “blast[ed] the United States with … vigor” until the festivities ended “with a rousing rendition of the socialist hymn Internationale.” Among the high-profile figures in attendance was the lifelong Communist revolutionary Angela Davis, who smiled broadly at Castro and, according to a New York Times report, “gave him a fisted salute.” (For a video of Castro’s appearance, click here.)

Praising Jeremiah Wright (2008-14)

During the presidential campaign season of 2008, Warnock, who was slated to deliver a speech honoring Barack Obama’s controversial longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, was asked by Fox News reporter Greta van Susteren: “Do you embrace the Reverend Wright, and let me focus on the soundbites, for lack of better words, but certainly he has said things like ‘GD [God damn] America’ and the things he has said … Do you embrace that? Is that something you would do, sir, in your church?” Describing Wright as “a prophet,” Warnock replied: “We celebrate Reverend Wright in the same way that we celebrate the truth-telling tradition of the black church, which, when preachers tell the truth, very often it makes people uncomfortable.”

In a similar spirit, Warnock, in his 2013 book The Divided Mind of the Black Church, compared Wright’s message to that of the biblical prophet Jeremiah. And in a February 2013 speech, Warnock described Wright’s infamous “God Damn America” sermon of 2003 — which likened U.S. leaders to al Qaeda, claimed that HIV was a U.S. government invention designed to exterminate black people, and asserted that the 9/11 attacks were an act of retribution for evil U.S. foreign policies — as a “very fine homily.” Asserting further that Wright’s sermon was “consistent with black prophetic preaching,” Warnock lamented that the black church was “barely understood by mainstream America.”

Defending Socialism & Marxism (2009-13)

Proclaiming that socialism is consistent with the tenets of Christian Scripture, Warnock said in a 2009 sermon: “I’m so sick and tired of all of these folk talking about ‘socialistic medicine.’ And I really get upset when I hear Christians in the midst of this debate, talking about socialism. They ought to go back and read Acts Chapter Two, where the Bible says that the church had all things in common.”

In his 2013 book, The Divided Mind of the Black Church, Warnock wrote: “To be sure, the Marxist critique has much to teach the Black church. Indeed, it has played an important role in the maturation of black theology as an intellectual discipline, deepened black theology’s apprehension of the interconnectivity of racial and class oppression, and provided critical tools for a black church that has yet to awaken to a substantive third world consciousness.”

Anti-Military (2011)

In a 2011 sermon which he delivered at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Warnock suggested that the actions and objectives of the U.S. military are inherently evil and ungodly: “America, nobody can serve God and the military. You can’t serve God and money. You cannot serve God and mammon [riches] at the same time. America, choose ye this day who you will serve. Choose ye this day.”

Praising James Cone, the Racist Who Founded Black Liberation Theology (2013-18)

The man whom Warnock identifies as his religious “mentor” was the late James Cone, who served as Warnock’s academic adviser at Union Theological Seminary. Widely regarded as the founder of Black Liberation Theology — a doctrine of Marxism and black supremacy dressed up as Christianity — Cone famously stated that “the goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white,” and that “Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’” Warnock cited Cone’s 1970 book, A Black Theology of Liberation, more than a dozen times in the chapters and footnotes of his own 2013 book, The Divided Mind of the Black Church. After Cone died in 2018, Warnock eulogized him at the funeral and said: “How blessed we are that someone of the spiritual magnitude and power and commitment of Dr. James Hal Cone passed our way.”

Calling for Empty Prisons & a “Militant Church” (2013-19)

At a “Rights and Religions” symposium held at the Union Theological Institute in November 2013, Warnock delivered the keynote speech, titled “Black Theology, the Black Church and America’s Prison Industrial Complex.” In the course of his remarks, he stated that if “black theology and the black church” failed to support “dismantling the prison industrial complex,” then “both deserve to die.” He also called for the creation of a “new and militant church, preaching deliverance to the captives” — i.e., black prison inmates.

Reasoning from the premise that the American criminal-justice system is thoroughly infested with racism, Warnock in early 2019 joined a number of other black religious leaders in signing his name to a statement condemning “the new Jim Crow of mass incarceration.”

During a “Let My People Go: Ending Mass Incarceration” conference at Ebenezer Baptist Church in June 2019, Warnock called for the mass release of prisoners, saying, “It’s not enough to decriminalize marijuana. Somebody’s got to open up the jail cells and let our children go.” Describing incarceration as an immoral form of “human bondage,” he added: “Every form of human bondage injures the soul of the oppressed. Inflates the self-understanding of the oppressor. And insults the Sovereignty of God.”

Describing Jesus As “a Palestinian” (2014)

In a 2014 speech, Warnock described Jesus Christ as a “Palestinian peasant,” a label that contradicts biblical and scholarly descriptions of Jesus as a Jew hailing from Judea. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, an official at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, explains that Warnock’s allegation has commonly been used as a means of denying the Jewish people’s historical connection to Israel as their homeland: “For people who have no theological or historical rooting, the idea that Jesus was a Palestinian creates a new narrative for Palestinian history, which otherwise does not date back very far. If one can say that Jesus was Palestinian 2,000 years ago, then that means the Jews are occupying Palestinian land.”

Opposing the Second Amendment & “Stand-Your-Ground” Laws (2014)

In a February 2014 sermon, Warnock derided his state’s laws regarding gun ownership, saying: “Georgia has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. Georgia’s idea of gun control is whether you can hold your rifle straight. With all of the lax gun laws in Georgia, they’ve decided that they aren’t lax enough.”

In another sermon that same month, Warnock criticized Georgia Republican politicians “who go to church every Sunday morning, and then walk into that capitol, stand under that gold dome, and come up with the dumbest [gun] legislation you can ever imagine.” Added Warnock: “‘What we need [the Republicans say] is more guns, in more places, by more people.’ Think about all the crazy people you bump into just on the routine, every week. On your job, on the street, some of them in church – don’t look at ’em. Imagine all them people with guns.”

Also in 2014, Warnock condemned Georgia’s “stand-your-ground” laws, which permit people to use firearms or other means of deadly force when they reasonably believe such force to be necessary to defend against a criminal threat of death or serious bodily harm. Said Warnock: “Then they come up with all of these clever names, ‘Stand Your Ground.’ No it’s not a stand-your-ground law, it’s a shoot-first law. Shoot first, ask questions later.”

Comparing Police to “Gangstas” and “Thugs” (2015)

Warnock condemned the police response to the violent riots that swept through the city of Ferguson, Missouri after the August 9, 2014 police shooting (in Ferguson) of an 18-year-old black male named Michael BrownSaid Warnock in a March 2015 sermon: “So, in Ferguson, police power, showing up in a kind of gangsta and thug mentality. You now, you can wear all kinds of colors and be a thug; you can sometimes wear the colors of the state and behave like a thug.”

In another sermon three months later, Warnock remarked: ““Our children are in trouble, and it’s often those who are sworn to protect, who cause more trouble.”

And in November 2015, Warnock said: “When you think about the fact that America still warehouses 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, we shouldn’t be surprised when we see police officers act like bullies on the street…. You don’t get to be the incarceration capital of the world by playing nice on the streets, you have to work for that distinction.”

Hating Trump & America’s “Worship of Whiteness” (2016)

In an October 2016 speech at Atlanta’s Candler School of Theology, Warnock excoriated then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his political supporters as racists: “If it is true that a man [Trump] who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral needs to repent. No matter what happens next month [in the presidential election], more than a third of the nation that would go along with this [Trump campaign], is reason to be afraid. America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness, on full display this [election] season.”

“Racism Is America’s Preexisting Condition” (2017)

At a New Baptist Covenant event on June 29, 2017, Warnock said:

“We are in a special moment. We are in an evil moment. We are in a tragic moment, and I suggest to you that our politics is symptomatic of our sickness. We’ve got a lot of problems, but I would not be a prophet if I did not tell you that racism is America’s preexisting condition. Like the insurance companies, nobody wants to go there. Nobody wants to cover it because we wonder what it would cost. We, the land of the free, and the incarceration capital of the world. In this land where we warehouse 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although we are only five percent of the world, we are to ask ourselves what has it cost us not to cover it, not to face up to it, not to confront it, not to deal with it. Racism is America’s preexisting condition.”

On another occasion in 2017, Warnock sounded a similar refrain: “America has a preexisting condition. It’s called racism. It’s called classism. It’s called bigotry. It’s called xenophobia. And we need God to heal us of our preexisting condition.”

Hating Israel (2018-19)

Soon after President Trump opened the newly relocated U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in May 2018, Warnock said in a sermon : “It’s been a tough week. The administration opened up the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. Standing there [were] the president’s family and a few mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers who are responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in, both there and here — misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

Warnock then proceeded to draw a comparison between the Palestinian rights movement in the Middle East, and the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States. He characterized “Palestinian sisters and brothers” as people who have repeatedly used “peaceful demonstration” to draw attention to the fact that they are “struggling” for “their very lives,” for “their human dignity,” and for their “right to breathe free.” “And yes,” Warnock added, “there may have been some [Palestinian] folk who were violent, but we oughta know how that works out. We [black Americans] know what it’s like to stand up and have a peaceful demonstration and have the media focus on a few violent uprisings.”

“A few violent uprisings”? It would be interesting to hear what Warnock thinks of the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project study which reports that fully 95 percent of the 600+ violent riots that swept across the United States this summer were organized and led by Black Lives Matter.

Warnock’s animus toward Israel was again on display when he proclaimed in 2018: “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey.” Presumably, Warnock’s ignorance is so colossal, that he is unaware of the great lengths to which Israel goes in order to avoid harming Palestinian civilians. As an American Thinker report puts it: “Israel, more than any other country in the world, will do anything, including putting its troops in danger, to avoid harming innocents. The Palestinians, therefore, deliberately place their weapons and fighters in schools and hospitals in order to parade dead children before the West’s cameras.”

In early 2019, Warnock joined a number of fellow black religious leaders in signing an open statement that denounced Israel for oppressing Palestinians with “patterns” of treatment “that seem to have been borrowed and perfected from other previous oppressive regimes.” By contrast, the statement lauded “the leaders of the Palestinian Authority” for their supposedly longstanding efforts to promote peace by making a “conscious decision to forgo armed solutions to the conflict.” Moreover, the statement lamented:

  • “Palestinian communities and homes where people are not allowed to have freedom of movement or self-determination”
  • “state-sanctioned [Israeli] violence in the form of detention, interrogation, teargassed, beatings, forced confessions and death”
  • “the excessive use of force by Israel to subjugate the people in collective punishment of [the] whole population, and the debilitating confinement that renders Gaza as one big densely populated prison”
  • “the ever-present physical walls that wall in Palestinians in a political wall reminiscent of the Berlin Wall”
  • “the heavy [Israeli] militarization of the West Bank, reminiscent of the military occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa”
  • “[Israel’s] unstoppable gobbling up of Palestinian lands to almost render the proposed two-state solution unworkable”
  • “the misery in which poor families in Palestine have to survive, especially those holed up in refugee camps”

Blaming White Racism & “Environmental Hazards” for Black Crime (2019)

In an October 2019 panel discussion at the Memorial Church of Harvard University, the moderator asked Warnock to speak about the “overlap” between crime and climate change. In his response, Warnock asserted that civil rights leaders should remain ever-mindful of the “intersectionality” of race and climate change. Specifically, he cited the case of Freddie Gray, a longtime Baltimore criminal who died in April 2015 as a result of spinal-cord injuries that he suffered while in custody, unstrapped by any seat belt, inside the cargo area of a moving police van. Attributing Gray’s criminal history to impaired brain function caused by environmental factors that disproportionately affect poor black people, Warnock said:

“Freddie Gray in Baltimore. You remember that case? Freddie Gray who died in the custody of the police … His story didn’t begin there. Freddie Gray grew up in Baltimore, where I was a pastor for almost five years. He was a victim of environmental hazards in the built environment. Lead poisoning. In substandard housing. In a country where we have known for decades what lead poisoning does and how it leads to behavioral issues in the classroom and learning difficulties. And then, so he becomes part of the prison pipeline. So these civil rights issues, human rights issues, climate change both in the natural world and built environment, are all part of this larger issue that speaks to the soul of America.”

Supporting Taxpayer-Funded Abortion-on-Demand (2020)

In an August 2020 interview with WGAU radio host Tim Bryant, Warnock said that taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand is “consistent with my view as a Christian minister, and I will fight for it.” Characterizing abortion as a form of “healthcare,” Warnock stated: “I believe that healthcare is a human right. And I believe that it is something that the richest nation in the world provides for its citizens, and for me reproductive justice is consistent with my commitment to that.”

Because of Warnock’s stance on abortion, Planned Parenthood, America’s leading provider of abortions, endorsed him in May 2020 as a “health care champion” and supported his campaign for the U.S. Senate. Warner’s campaign was also endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Characterizing Cash Bail As a “Poll Tax” and “Voter Suppression” (2020)

Warnock is an outspoken opponent of “cash bail” requirements that enable certain accused criminals to stay out of jail while awaiting trial. His opposition is based on the premise that such requirements discriminate against poor people who cannot afford to post bail. During a November 2019 symposium at Harvard University, for instance, a member of the audience asked Warnock for his opinion about states where formerly imprisoned felons are barred from voting in political elections until after they have paid off all the fines and fees associated with their incarceration.

“What we’ve witnessed over the last few years is an attack on democracy itself,” Warnock replied. “And the carceral system is a tool in that arsenal.” Suggesting that “churches and mosques and temples” should consider paying such fees on behalf of formerly incarcerated felons who may now wish to cast ballots in elections, he added: “Us simply paying the beast for what shouldn’t be the case in the first place is not the answer. We ought to push back, and if we did some payment, it would be to draw attention to the issue.” “Sort of like we’re bailing people out of jail,” Warnock continued, “but our ultimate goal is to get rid of cash bail. It’s a poll tax; it’s voter suppression. Our democracy is being hijacked and we have to take it back.”

The no-bail policy that Warner favors has already been tried in New York State, with disastrous results. In 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a criminal-justice reform measure that allows most criminal suspects charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies to walk free without having to post bail. The new law covers hundreds of different “nonviolent” offenses, including drug trafficking and home burglary. The negative consequences of bail reform became particularly apparent in the riots that swept through New York City this summer. Most of those who destroyed storefronts and business establishments were immune from incarceration because of the no-bail law, as the New York Post explained: “Right now, anyone arrested for looting gets rapidly released, with no need to post bail to avoid jail until trial…. [The imposition of bail] requires that the use of a ‘dangerous instrument’ be part of the alleged crime. And the ruling from the state’s top court is clear: Someone has to be on the other side of the window when you throw a brick through it. If no one’s there, it’s not a weapon, and jail/bail is off the table.”

Refusal to Give His Opinion Regarding the Packing of the Supreme Court & the U.S. Senate (2020)

During a November 2020 interview with, Warnock was asked to comment on reports that Democrats, if they succeed in taking control of the U.S. Senate, will move to “pack” the Supreme Court – i.e., increase the number of Justices from 9 to perhaps 13 or 15 — with all the additions being activists who could be counted upon to rule in favor of Democrat agenda items. He was also asked if he would be in favor of Democrats similarly packing the Senate by creating two new U.S. states — Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico — so as to add four additional, guaranteed Democrat seats to the Senate.

These questions are particularly pertinent in light of the fact that the 2020 Democratic Party Platform openly declares that one of its objectives is: “making Washington, D.C. the 51st State.” Moreover, Senator Charles Schumer is on record as having declared that “everything is on the table” if Democrats win a majority in the Senate. Says Schumer: “I would … love to make [D.C. and Puerto Rico] states…. I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing. We are going to get a whole lot done, and as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.”

In response to the questions by, Warnock was wholly evasive, saying: “I think that they’re [Republicans] trying to divide us, again. And it’s really sad, because, at the end of the day, E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one — that’s the covenant that we have with one another, as an American people. I support that. I believe in that with all of my heart. And I’m going to stand up and defend it.”

After being asked once more if he supports the expansion of the Supreme Court, Warnock again refused to address the question, saying: “I’m really focused on representing the concerns of ordinary people here in Georgia. I think it’s presumptuous for me to go further down that path, talking about what ought to happen with the courts. I’m hopeful that the people of Georgia will look at my life, look at my record, and give me the great honor of representing them in the United States Senate.”

When a man repeatedly refuses to answer a simple question, he’s obviously trying to hide something.


Incredible as it may seem, the future of our nation hinges, in large part, on what happens in the runoff election six weeks from now between Raphael Warnock and Kelly Loeffler. If Warnock wins, the Democrats stand a strong chance of gaining control of the U.S. Senate. And if they do that, they will move quickly to permanently transform the country into something that will be unrecognizable to most Americans. Warnock’s policy positions on every major issue, are mirror images of the Democrat Party positions. In short, Warnock defends socialism and Marxism; he views America as a detestable cesspool of racism and oppression; he holds the American military, as well as police officers and the criminal-justice system, in contempt; he seeks to institute law-enforcement policies that are known to breed chaos and violence – all in the name of “racial justice”; he views America’s closest ally, Israel, as an evil oppressor nation; he not only supports abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy, but also insists that American taxpayers should foot the bill; and he favors the tyrannical, totalitarian agenda of packing the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate with Democrats, so as to turn America into a permanent one-party state where no dissent, and no freedom of thought, is tolerated. This is what’s on the line with Raphael Warnock’s Senate bid.


Discover the Networks  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

An Illegitimate Election Plunges the Republic into a Crisis - Daniel Greenfield


​ by Daniel Greenfield

This is how elections are conducted in Third World countries - and now in America.


However the presidential election turns out, one thing is clear, half the country will believe that the man officially sitting in the White House is an illegitimate pretender.

And that’s the way it’s been throughout this century.

The crisis of presidential legitimacy really kicked into gear in 2000. Before that people might hate the president, but the opposing political party wouldn’t insist on his illegitimacy. Afterward every president has been treated as an illegitimate criminal to be opposed and driven out.

Twenty years later, the Democrat strategy of presidential illegitimacy has brought the country to the brink of civil war. Declaring that President Bush was illegitimate wasn’t just rhetoric. Congressional Democrats fought certification of the election results in 2000 and 2004, and touted impeachment. The Iraq War did not radicalize Democrat opposition to Bush, like the pandemic, it gave the already radicalized Democrats a tangible thing to justify their treason.

The Democrat doctrine of presidential illegitimacy changed how our government worked.

The first duty of House Democrats became public shows of resistance and hostility to an illegitimate president. And presidents responded by acting unilaterally through executive orders and actions. The collapse of relations between the executive and legislative branches led to a stalemate that benefited the unelected parts of the government: judicial and administrative.

Republicans worked to secure the judiciary while Democrats tightened their hold on the administrative state. But pitting a conservative judiciary, in politics and temperament, against the culture war of elites and their administrative state that made the rules was an uphill battle.

The losers were voters whose ability to influence the issues they cared about dropped as the unelected parts of government grew more powerful while the power of the voters shrank.

But the American people by inclination and the system by design tended to split the legislative and executive branches between rival political parties to maintain a check on political power.

The Democrats responded with frantic schemes to rig the system through ballot harvesting and election fraud, abolishing the electoral college, and adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states all to bypass the clear preference of voters for a divided political system.

Their goal isn’t to make the system fairer, but to rig the system so no one else can win.

The Democrats reacted to 2016 by demanding that some of the country’s biggest companies, in and out of the tech industry, join them in fighting President Trump. The resulting oligarchy consolidated a political movement and its cultural sympathizers in the administrative state and corporate sphere to declare a total war against President Trump and his supporters using tactics ranging from widespread censorship on the internet to wiretapping and criminal investigations..

The sum total of this effort was to move power further away from voters and into an oligarchy.

The irony of an oligarchy consisting of some of the most powerful men and women in the country, and their corporations and government institutions consolidating power under the guise of fighting for the oppressed has plenty of historical precedents. All of these precedents are bad.

The oligarchy claims that contrary views, which it labels “disinformation” pose a unique threat to “democracy”.The unique threat isn’t posed by disinformation, disagreeable speech, or lies, a concept as old as mankind, but by the usurpation of political power by an unelected oligarchy.

Between 2016 and 2020, elections have been undermined, voters have been disenfranchised, and the First Amendment has been dispensed with in response to various emergencies, from President Trump’s victory to the pandemic by the private-public alliance of the oligarchy.

Governors responded to the pandemic by usurping the power of legislatures and other elected officials, such as the secretary of state in Nevada, to unilaterally ban public gatherings, outlaw protests, enter private residences, and fundamentally change how elections are conducted.

They also worked with tech companies to suppress political protests against their activities.

Tech companies, which command the marketplace of ideas, suppressed political scandals involving Biden, and amplified scandals involving President Trump. The administrative state and elements of the judiciary worked to undermine President Trump, obstruct his policies, and block his actions on any available pretext in a political coup of unprecedented scope and scale.

And, if that weren’t enough, the violent mobs of the Black Lives Matter racist movement, backed by corporate money and massive assistance from foundations like the Ford Foundation, terrorized entire cities and suburbs while mobilizing support for Democrats and their agenda.

The 2020 election occurred under this state of emergency, imposed not by President Trump, but by a coalition of Democrat officials, media propagandists, and tech companies with ugly results.

Even beyond the outrageous voter fraud that marked this election, there could be no better way to delegitimize a presidential election than through the combination of Democrat abuses of power, violations of civil rights, mass propaganda and censorship, and mob violence.

This is how elections are conducted in Third World countries and now in America.

We have come a long way in twenty years since Bush v. Gore. And now it’s not about hanging chads or the details of the disputed elements. It’s that no one trusts elections anymore.

Despite the outraged disdain with which the media met Republican challenges to the election, there is nothing that Republicans have alleged about the election that Democrats did not allege about the previous elections that they lost. The same narratives about voting machine hacking, illegitimately counted, marked, and destroyed ballots, and even calls for electors to reject state results were there and will be there again. But only Democrats are allowed to make them.

Because only Democrats are allowed to wield power. And since only Democrats are allowed to wield power, any election they win is legitimate and any election that they lose is illegitimate.

But the problem with breaking the system to gain power is that the system stays broken.

The Democrats justify each breach by depicting each new Republican as a unique threat to be stopped by any means necessary.  That doctrine of presidential illegitimacy is now a permanent element of our political life. And delegitimizing presidents begins with delegitimizing elections.

Democrats delegitimized Bush and then Trump by attacking the legitimacy of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Is it any wonder that by 2020 no one trusts election outcomes anymore?

The Democrats have made it clear that they want absolute power and that their own legitimacy isn’t a problem because they control the distribution of information through the media and now through an alliance with tech companies that monopolize internet search and social media.

But propaganda doesn’t grant legitimacy, it destroys the public’s trust in institutions.

Public trust, unlike propaganda, isn’t selective. When enough elections are delegitimized, then no election is legitimate. And then no president elected through such means is legitimate.

When public health experts insist that Trump rallies spread the coronavirus but Black Lives Matter riots don’t, then public trust and compliance collapse. The only lasting message of double standards is that there is no standard and that all that really matters is power.

The crisis of this election was decades and generations in the making. It’s now here.

The Democrats embraced a strategy of delegitimizing elections because they don’t derive their power from the traditional political system of the country, but from subverting it. Everything they did this year and the last four years was aimed at subverting elections and voters. And if the public loses faith in elections, that will make elections that much easier to steal in the future.

Their endgame is rule by an oligarchy, by the stakeholders and representatives of identity politics victimhood groups, but not by representatives of the electorate of the states of the union.

That is the fundamental crisis of the republic. The issue is not just one stolen election, but a strategy of delegitimizing elections, shattering representative government, and replacing it with an unelected oligarchy backed by mass propaganda, censorship, and political repression.

The crisis of the republic is emerging out of the shadows of the state and we have to meet it. Its urgent question is whether ours is a government of the people or a people of the government.


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

Israel may have killed top Iranian nuclear weapons scientist to avert dangerous threat - Fred Fleitz


​ by Fred Fleitz


The Jewish state may fear the Biden administration will urge an end to such Israeli strikes


The announcement by Iranian state TV that Mohsen Fakhrizadeh — the father of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program and its top nuclear scientist — was shot and killed Friday in Tehran is a huge setback for Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted: “Terrorists murdered an eminent Iranian scientist today. This cowardice—with serious indications of Israeli role—shows desperate warmongering of perpetrators.”

At least five Iranian nuclear scientists were killed between 2010 and 2012. Iran blamed Israel for all these killings.


If it turns out that Israel is behind the killing of Fakhrizadeh, the strike may reflect the Jewish state’s worry about a major shift in U.S. policy toward Iran under the administration of Joe Biden when he becomes president Jan. 20 (barring a reversal of the election outcome that President Trump is seeking).

Given the obsession by Democrats to rebuke President Trump and rejoin the Iran nuclear deal and Iran’s stated refusal to reopen the agreement for renegotiation, it is likely the U.S. will quickly rejoin the agreement and drop U.S. sanctions on Iran after Biden takes office.

Israel knows such a development would be a huge boon to Iran’s military and nuclear programs and likely also would embolden Iran to step up its meddling in regional conflicts and sponsorship of terrorism.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have concluded that the threat from Iran’s nuclear weapons program was becoming too dangerous and Israel therefore had to take action to deny Iran the benefit of Fakhrizadeh’s expertise in constructing a nuclear weapon. Israel may also have wanted to deter other Iranians from working on this effort.

Israeli officials remember that President Barack Obama’s administration pressed their nation hard in 2014 to stop assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists and to not attack Iran’s nuclear facilities while the Obama administration was engaged in diplomacy that amounted to appeasement of Iran.

The Jewish state may have staged the killing of Fakhrizadeh now in the belief that a Biden administration will begin a new round of Iran appeasement and again press Israel not to take provocative actions against Iran’s dangerous nuclear program.

Israel reportedly recently put its military on alert because of the possibility that President Trump may order an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities before he leaves office.

I believe Trump may have considered such an attack but will not order one, because of his commitment not to start unnecessary wars.  It is more likely that Israel put its military on alert due to actions it was planning against Iran’s nuclear program — like the Fakhrizadeh assassination — in anticipation of Iranian blowback.

Fakhrizadeh was a nuclear physicist and head of Iran’s Physics Research Center. He oversaw the Amad Plan — Iran’s secret research program to develop nuclear weapons.

The Amad Plan was started in the late 1990s or the early 2000s. It included a nuclear warhead design program, modification of a Shahab missile to carry a nuclear warhead, and aid to Iran’s nuclear program from the Pakistan-based A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network and from a former Russian nuclear scientist.

According to the Iran Nuclear Archive documents that were stolen in a daring raid by Israeli intelligence in 2018, an infrastructure was in place under the Amad Plan by 2003 for a comprehensive Iranian nuclear weapons program. The program was scaled-back in 2003 into a secretive and highly compartmented program. 

According to Israel and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Fakhrizadeh continued to head the covert Iranian nuclear weapons program after 2003. The program was renamed the SPND (Sazman-e Pazhouhesh-haye Novin-e Defa’ei), which translates into English as the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research.

Iran engaged in extensive efforts to hide its nuclear weapons program and deceive the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and the world about the Islamic Republic’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons after 2003.

For example, Iran reassigned nuclear-related projects from its military to the nation’s civilian nuclear agency, in an effort to make it appear these activities were part of a peaceful nuclear program.

Israel discovered “deception folders” in the Iran Nuclear Archive documents that recorded the lies Iran told to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and helped Iranian officials keep their stories straight.

The United Nations Security Council imposed a travel ban and financial sanctions Fakhrizadeh and his fellow scientists for their nuclear weapons work in March 2007. These sanctions were terminated in January 2016 by the Iran nuclear deal. That agreement was signed in July 2015 by Iran, the U.S., the European Union, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany.   

Based on the Iran Nuclear Archive documents, Iran’s cheating on the nuclear deal — formally titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — is now indisputable.

Moreover, since Iran ceased complying with all of its obligations under the agreement by early this year, it now has enough low-enriched uranium for two nuclear weapons (if further enriched to weapons-grade).

The nuclear deal was supposed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and was hailed as triumph by President Barack Obama and his administration. But according to the Iran Nuclear Archive, the SPND’s nuclear weapons work continued under Fakhrizadeh despite the nuclear deal.

President Trump wisely withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed U.S. sanctions on Iran that had been lifted under the agreement.

“We cannot prevent an Iranian bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement,” Trump said in May 2018. He called the agreement “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.”

Fakhrizadeh death may be a blow not just to Iran but to North Korea as well, because he may have collaborated with North Korea’s ongoing nuclear weapons program. London’s Sunday Times reported in 2017 that he traveled to North Korea in February 2013 to observe the third North Korean nuclear test. There likely have been other interactions by North Korean and Iranian nuclear scientists that have not been made public.

Iranian leaders are clearly angry by the death of Fakhrizadeh. The New York Times reported that Michael P. Mulroy, the former top Middle East policy official in the Defense Department, said the death of Fakhrizadeh could spark an Iranian military response.

“He was their senior-most nuclear scientist and was believed to be responsible for Iran’s covert nuclear program,” Mulroy told the newspaper. “He was also a senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that will magnify Iran’s desire to respond by force.”


Fred Fleitz  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

How the father of Iran's nuclear program, Muhsin Fahrizadeh, was eliminated - Arutz Sheva


​ by Arutz Sheva

Israel is maintaining ambiguity, but Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hinted in a video he posted on Facebook shortly after the assassination

The father of Iran's nuclear program, Muhsin Fahrizadeh, was killed by several gunmen who emerged after a booby-trapped vehicle was detonated near his car.

The explosives were buried under a cord of wood on an old commercial vehicle in the town of Absard. The blast led to the stopping of Fahirzadeh's Nissan car and at least five gunmen sprayed the vehicle with automatic fire.

He was taken to hospital by helicopter, but there doctors determined his death.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the assassins "terrorists" and wrote on Twitter that "this cowardice, along with serious indications of Israeli involvement, is indicative of desperation." He added that "Iran calls on the international community and especially the European Union to put an end to these double standards and condemn this action."

Israel is maintaining ambiguity, but Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hinted in a video he posted on Facebook shortly after the assassination: "I did a lot of things this week, not everything can be told."


Arutz Sheva  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Obama’s Reason to Hate - Lloyd Billingsley


​ by Lloyd Billingsley

Still surging in 2020.


In his new book A Promised Land, former president Obama claims he sought “a broader struggle for a fair, just and generous society.” That quest brought criticisms including: “how whites avoid taking the full measure of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, and their own racial attitudes. How this left Black people with a psychic burden, expected to constantly swallow legitimate anger and frustration in the name of some far-off ideal.” This recalls a theme from the author’s first book.

“Black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake, I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not. So you might as well get used to it.”

Thus spake the poet “Frank” in Dreams from My Father. Frank is giving advice to young Barry, about to leave Hawaii for Occidental College in Los Angeles. As Frank warns, “They’ll train you so good you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.”

After Dreams from My Father was published in 1995, the author acknowledged that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, still identified as a black journalist and poet. Davis was also a longtime Communist Party activist on the FBI’s security index. When the Dreams author became a rising star in politics, Davis disappeared from the audio version of the book and made no appearance in The Audacity of Hope.

That book mentioned David Axelrod, who in 2007 had been proclaimed “Obama’s narrator” by the New York Times. The next year, the Dreams author became president and set about transforming the United States. As Paul Kengor documented in The Communist, the domestic agenda of the Dreams author bore striking similarities to the views of Frank Marshall Davis. In 2015, Davis did not appear in David Axelrod’s massive Believer, which still proved enlightening on racial themes.

Criticism of Obamacare “was rooted in race: a deep-seated resentment of the idea of the black man with the Muslim name in the White House.” In addition, “Some folks simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of the first black president and are seriously discomforted by growing diversity of our country.” The “radical fringe” of anti-Obama demonstrators “have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African America.” And so on.

As Axelrod recalls, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright issued “fiery jeremiads filled with bitterness and vitriol and anti-American slanders.” These “threatened to undermine Barack’s image as a positive, unifying figure.” Believer does not mention Barack’s 2005 photo with Nation of Islam boss Louis Farrakhan, who believes that people like Barack’s white mother Ann Dunham are the result of an experiment by a mad scientist named Yacub.  Predictably, the Dreams president failed to unify Americans, but there was more to the man.

In his transformed nation, the outgoing president picks his successor and deploys the upper reaches of the FBI and DOJ against her opponent, candidate Donald Trump. As the Strzok and Page texts confirm, the president wanted to know “everything we’re doing” in the anti-Trump operations.

In May of 2017 presidential biographer David Garrow revealed that Dreams from My Father was a novel, not an autobiography, and the author a “composite character.” Garrow’s Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama said the Communist Frank Marshall Davis was “radioactive” for a politician on the rise.

Davis is absent from A Promised Land, and so are Garrow and Rising Star. As it turns out, A Promised Land is a rehash of Believer by Obama narrator David Axelrod, whose novelistic style is also apparent in Dreams from My Father. In that book Frank says “black people have a reason to hate.”

In A Promised Land, the lapses of whites “left Black people with a psychic burden, expected to constantly swallow legitimate anger and frustration in the name of some far-off ideal.”  So as Frank said, black people still have a reason to hate. That would surprise the African American scholar Thomas Sowell ( Intellectuals and Race and many other books)  who grew up in Harlem and earned a BA from Harvard, a master’s from Columbia, and a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago, all before the advent of affirmative action.

Back in the 1990s Clinton DOJ nominee Lani Guinier (The Tyranny of the Meritocracy) questioned Sowell’s blackness. Sowell responded, “I don’t need some half-white woman from Martha's Vineyard telling me about being black.”

In 2020, Americans of all skin shades don’t need some half-white former president to tell them about anything. That especially applies to a composite character president who passed off murderous Islamic terrorism as workplace violence, shipped billions in cash to Iran, and consorted with racist anti-Semites such as Louis Farrakhan.

The composite character is now backing his vice president Joe Biden, who according to A Promised Land had a “handsome face always cast in a dazzling smile.” On domestic issues Joe was smart and “his experience in foreign policy was broad and deep.” Sen. Biden had “skill and discipline as a debater,” but “most of all Joe had heart.”

In October, dazzling, big-hearted Joe Biden openly celebrated the most extensive “voter fraud organization” in history. That massive fraud is an extension of the Democrats’ coup attempt against President Trump. The president’s case against the fraud will soon land in court, and in the meantime one reality remains clear.

We are in a war,” David Horowitz explains, and “war will continue until patriotic Americans summon the courage to call Democrats the racists, liars, character assassins and aspiring totalitarians that they actually are.”

Photo: Evening Standard


Lloyd Billingsley  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter