Saturday, December 5, 2020

The Supreme Court and the Electoral Coup - Scott S. Powell


​ by Scott S. Powell

Since there were no penalties from the previous coup efforts based on the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants, it’s only natural that the Deep State and Democrat Party operatives were emboldened to make a third attempt

It’s out in the open for everyone with eyes and ears, not only here in the United States but around the world.  The November U.S. Presidential election produced a fraudulent result -- appearing to deliver a defeat for extraordinarily popular and remarkably successful incumbent President Donald Trump and a victory for extraordinarily unimpressive Democrat challenger Joe Biden. 

Trump drew crowds of 35-40,000 and more at every rally. Biden couldn’t attract more than a few dozen at his public meetings -- none of which could be called rallies. Biden’s handlers decided on a basement strategy early on, recognizing that a discharged and failing battery was no match for the orange energizer bunny.  Additionally, why take the risk of gaffes in public appearances when you know that the fix is in with upcoming multilevel vote fraud.  First, a refresher and some background.

Donald Trump was elected President in 2016 as an outsider, the candidate whose “Make America Great Again” platform included draining the Swamp and taking on corruption in Washington. 

Prior presidents had generally accommodated Washington corruption, and it naturally grew over time.  A major contributing factor that compelled Trump to run was that under the Obama administration corruption became egregious. First Amendment rights were violated in new ways with surveillance conducted on select media reporters who criticized Obama, and with muzzling of some 160 patriotic conservative groups by Lois Lerner in her position as director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service. Then there was the outrageous saga of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband and ex-president Bill who played tag team in shaking down foreign governments for nearly a billion dollars, which got shoveled into the Clinton Foundation.  All the while Secretary Clinton flagrantly violated U.S. Code § 1924 that prohibits the private storing of classified documents and confidential state matters, which she circumvented by use of an unsecure private server and email system. That was obviously implemented to cover up her conflicts of interest while serving as secretary.

And then there was Obama’s achievements: the Iran Nuclear Deal was consummated with the payment of $1.7 billion to the ruling mullahs in Iran, which the Senate wouldn’t have ratified were it a treaty rather than a backchannel deal. Obama’s crowning achievement -- er crime -- that lead us to today’s vote fraud dilemma was his oversight and approval of massive clandestine surveillance on Trump, his family and his entire campaign staff by way of an earlier fraud -- the illicitly obtained FISA warrants to authorize surveillance -- that were undertaken to facilitate an impeachment coup.    

Because Trump was an outsider committed to fighting corruption and changing Washington’s ways, multiple coup plots against him were contemplated even before he was inaugurated. Taking down General Michael Flynn was just the beginning of the siege of President Donald Trump by the Deep State, instigated by the FBI Director James Comey. Flynn’s takedown was immediately followed by two years of the Mueller Commission investigation into Trump’s alleged ties to and collusion with Russia. Try as they might, no substantive evidence could be found. Then the baton was passed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who commenced impeachment hearings.  That too failed for lack of evidence.

Since there were no penalties from the previous coup efforts based on the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants, it’s only natural that the Deep State and Democrat Party operatives were emboldened to make a third attempt by seizing on the coronavirus crisis to continue the coup effort in Trump’s fourth year -- this time putting in the fix on the November 2020 Presidential election.   

They took advantage of the lockdowns and public fear and pushed specific actions to game the system to increase their delivery of votes leading up to election day. First they legitimized the wholesale distribution of ballots and mail-in balloting, and then they blanketed swing states with armies of lawyers filing suits to challenge voter ID laws, signature verification laws and extending the deadlines for mail-in ballots.  Changing rules in these ways in key swing states created ambiguities that contributed to voting irregularities, such as over-voting, ballot harvesting, filing fraudulent ballots from dead people still on the voter rolls, ballot dumps, and other fraud and poll place shenanigans.  And then there was the use of Dominion voting machines and software technology that were implemented in various jurisdictions in all swing states as well as 18 others.  Dominion vice president of U.S. engineering, Eric Coomer, is on record acknowledging the programmability of Dominion voting technology to fix votes, saying “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not going to win. I made f***ing sure of that!”  

Common sense, longstanding predictable voting behavior patterns in many specific jurisdictions, big data statistical pattern analysis and forensic analysis of Dominion Voting Systems machines and software, and polling place wrongdoings in the contested states don’t just reveal garden variety voting irregularities, but rather overwhelming massive voter and polling place fraud.

People who think Trump is hated for his loud braggadocio persona and style don’t get it. Trump was targeted from the beginning because he threatened the Deep State, which includes a self-serving corporate elite, their Washington lobbyists, the internationalist establishment in and out of government, the one-sided politically corrupt media, as well as a myriad of unaccountable agencies that include the FBI, CIA, FEMA -- to name only a few powerful bureaucracies that now operate with almost no Constitutional constraints.

Donald Trump was uniquely prepared and chosen for such a time as this.  Seen in the context of historical America, the speed at which the demise of Constitutional law and rule in America was advanced during the Bush and the Obama administrations years is startling.  And today, it’s quite obvious -- for Supreme Court justices and all Americans to see -- that we are in the last stage of the takedown and final usurpation of the Constitution of the United States. 

With distrust, division, and corruption being so prevalent in the big cities and lower courts of many of the contested states -- as to nullify the seriousness of over 400 affidavits documenting vote fraud and polling place irregularities, documenting that there were more votes cast than registered voters in quite a number of jurisdictions, and overwhelming evidence of massive computer driven vote manipulation associated with key states’ use of Dominion Voting Systems, and pay-to-play corruption at the highest level of Republican Party-led Georgia government to contract with Dominion to use their voting machines -- the Supreme Court is compelled to adjudicate.

The American people cannot allow fraudulent election results or even the appearance of such to stand.  It undermines the Constitution and demoralizes the citizenry.  When people lose confidence in the integrity of elections, their respect for government is eroded and their willingness to comply with the laws it legislates is undermined. 

Democrats and some establishment Republicans may want to pursue the easier course of denial and ignore the facts of massive vote fraud because it delivers their desired results and/or it protects their crimes, but the world is watching to see what we do as a nation.  Allowing proven election and vote fraud to stand would irreparably damage the nation’s moral authority and relegate the United States to the status of banana republics and communist regimes. And with that status would come ever more corruption, cynicism and even the collapse of the U.S. currency.      

The U.S. dollar is backed by nothing except the full faith and credit of the United States.  If that faith and trust deteriorates, so does the nation’s currency.  No one wants to talk about it, but the U.S. financial balance sheet is now in its weakest condition in the last 200 years. Between 1960 and 2000 the total national debt-to-GDP ratio averaged between 35-55%.  By 2010 debt-to-GDP rose to 90%.  With the $3.5-trillion-dollar COVID pandemic bailout-stimulus, total national debt is now nearly $27.5 trillion and the U.S. debt-to-GDP stands at 128%, a ranking shared with countries like Mozambique and Eritrea.

For those with critical thinking faculties and a knowledge of history, there can be little doubt that this extraordinary energetic leader Donald Trump is what is needed for a time such as this. With America facing almost insurmountable challenges and unfinished business, a decisive majority of Americans voted for his reelection because they sensed that a return to a corrupt establishment government was simply not an acceptable option.  The Supreme Court needs to do its job of adjudication and protect and save the Constitution at this critical time.

Scott S. Powell is senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and founder of RemingtonRand LLC, a law partner search firm .  Reach him at scottp@discovery.Org


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The Dems Had No Choice BUT to Rig the Election - Ayad Rahim


​ by Ayad Rahim

This time they were ready -- because there was too much at stake.


Looking back at the unusual election we just had, and viewing it in the context of political events going back 150 years, it’s clear that the Democrats had no choice but to rig the presidential election -- and, now, they’re going for all the marbles.

In the last weeks of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was drawing tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters several times a day, and people across the land, and at sea, formed massive rallies and caravans of their own. Meanwhile, the Biden camp was barely limping along, with one or two funereal gatherings a week, before, at best, a few dozen people (sometimes, overwhelmingly outnumbered by Trump supporters); the campaign’s apparent strategy was to minimize the candidate’s exposure (and let the media do the work for them) -- not only because the candidate was feeble and the campaign advocated lockdowns, but also because evidence began emerging of the Biden family’s dealings with foreign oligarchs and corrupt countries -- most importantly, Communist China.

So, as election day approached, things were looking good for the president. Indeed, as the results came in on election night, the president was headed for re-election. He was ahead in the electoral college, and had big leads in the handful of remaining states he needed to win.

Then, suddenly, the counting stopped. Late at night, five decisive states announced at the same time that they stopped counting. Has the counting of votes ever stopped on election night in any election, let alone a presidential election? It’s as if, with a couple of minutes left to play in a basketball game, one team is way ahead and “running away with it,” and the other team is down and dejected, staring defeat in the face; and all of a sudden, the referees stop the game for the first time ever, and for no stated reason. Then they send the team that’s winning, home, blindfold them, and tie their hands; leave the trailing team on the court by itself, with control of the scoreboard and the keys; and ask them to send in the final score, whenever they want. If there were fans in the stands, they’d yell, “How much they payin’ you, ref?”

* * *

In hindsight, though, maybe we should have seen this coming because a “perfect storm” of major forces and trends came together to make sure that Joe Biden and the Deep State would not lose.

The most pressing concern was the Biden family. Their pipeline to funds from around the world had been exposed, and was now threatened, and if the country’s chief law-enforcement officer (who’d already “blown the whistle” on the family’s criminal dealings) continued in that job, members of the Biden family, including “the Big Guy,” would be at risk of criminal prosecution. As far as the Bidens were concerned, and quite a few other powerful players too, that simply could not happen. Nor was it only a matter of graft. Being “on the take” from Communist China meant that Joe Biden had “sold out” the country to the ascendant global power, and was unlikely to be working solely for America’s interests; awareness of that could not be allowed to see the light of day -- such knowledge, and further probes into the family’s dealings with foreign oligarchs and corrupt countries, especially Communist China, had to be crushed. In addition to the Bidens, there were other crime families, and countless crooked “politicians,” at risk of being exposed, of having their livelihoods threatened, and of being criminally prosecuted. Nobody wants that.

A more significant factor at play was the Deep State. The Swamp rats had been drawn out of the sewers, for all to see. Their unchecked leeching off the country, and their growing grip on society, were being questioned, and might even be checked. The rats wanted to get back to chomping as before, and they were supremely confident they could do it; for, even after the lights were turned on, they still got away with success after success -- with almost no legal, financial, professional, or political consequences. And it’s an impressive roll call of accomplishments: spying on domestic presidential campaigns (not only Donald Trump’s, but Ted Cruz’s and Ben Carson’s too); sabotaging a presidential transition and administration; fabricating tales of treason and foreign control of the president (and, with the media in tow, having half the country believe it, and believing so much more); an endless string of preposterous and farcical charges and investigations (on the public’s dime); and attempting to cripple the country -- all of which profoundly affected the political process and the country’s elections. And all of that, after eight years of politicizing and corrupting the I.R.S., the Drug Enforcement Administration, the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the judiciary, the intelligence services, and the military -- with a corrupt and fawning press, covering everything up, instead of shining a light.

Joining the Deep State were the media, Big Tech, schools, and entertainment -- most of them, in bed with Communist China, and wanting to maintain the marriage of convenience, undisturbed. So, when the president drew attention to the doings of the Swamp and China, they all turned their guns on the only thing that stood in their way; and they proceeded to thoroughly malign and demonize the president, members of his family, his associates, and half of the country -- with the other half, lapping it up. And having recently succeeded in other demonization campaigns, and passing off an America-hating Marxist on the country, the Democrats and their allies knew they were dealing with a politically illiterate and naive nation, which meant they could pull off anything they wanted, with no risk to themselves and the rest of the Swamp -- they were invincible.

With all of that in mind, why should the Swamp rats “stay in the closet” and operate in the dark -- far easier, quicker, and cheaper to be direct and up-front, and the effect on the citizenry would be more powerful and long-lasting. Why play “cloak and dagger,” when you can hit them with a sledgehammer, and pound them into submission. For the Democrats and the Deep State, drunk on victory and confidence, and bolstered by a sense of moral superiority and entitlement, a little election tomfoolery was a necessary and logical next step -- everything else had succeeded (“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”) -- just another coup attempt -- and one that would finally finish off the job. Nothing’s going to happen to them — nothing ever does. So they were going to dare the country -- “Prove it!” -- and they may not even have feared being taken up on the dare. They would show what they can do, who’s really in charge, with a demonstration of power politics at its rawest -- and “You will like it!” As every dictator knows, the ultimate goal is for people to believe the lie; and to make that happen, the propaganda organs have to repeat the lie enough times, until the public doesn’t know any better. Which brings to mind Groucho Marx’s line “Who you gonna believe — me, or your lying eyes?,” and the media’s polar-opposite depictions of the support for Trump and Biden.

In addition, the public had become a bit of a nuisance.

...the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government

And could only win it back

By increased work quotas. Would it not in that case be simpler for the government

To dissolve the people

And elect another?

-- Bertolt Brecht, “The Solution”

So, the people needed to be taught a lesson -- for good. Our Deep State had simply lost its patience with the electorate -- you’ve had your bit of fun (as Mark Steyn puts it) -- never again! Don’t you know, “You can’t fight City Hall” -- don’t even think about it. Just leave us alone, to go about our merry ways, and resume our Marxist revolution and the march towards government as the ultimate arbiter of all things. Why, it may not even be necessary for the people to “get” the lesson -- just take the choice out of their hands. Joseph Stalin reputedly said, “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

And with big-city machines ready to do what they do best (maybe the best part of the Democrats’ game, since at least the 1860s -- aided, now, by the mail-in games), the Democrats and the Deep State knew exactly what had to be done; the way to safety, and possibly a final solution, was in plain sight -- simple and assured -- irresistible -- and, again, with no likely consequences. They’d gotten away with so much worse -- what’s a little manipulation of the votes.

Finally, as Scott Adams points out, in addition to opportunity, true believers had motive on their side -- and what a motive: to remove the equivalent of Hitler from power. And there were certainly enough people willing to commit crimes to make that happen, and confident they could get away with it -- they’d done it before.

And, now, for the coup de grace, the Democrats have Georgia on their mind -- with two Senate seats to be had. And with control of the Senate, come two new states, a few more Supreme Court seats, and…“Good night, Irene!” As Chuck Schumer, the potential leader of the Senate, put it, "Now we take Georgia, and then we change the world" -- which makes Atlanta the next stop on the Great Heist Train.

So, this year, the Democrats would take no chances -- they wouldn’t make the same mistake the stunned Hillary camp made to the shocking results on election night, four years ago. This time, they were ready -- because there was just too much at stake.


Ayad Rahim is a bookseller and former journalist.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

I'm a Legislator in Pennsylvania, and I'm Suing the Governor for Election Fraud - Frank Ryan


​ by Frank Ryan

Moreover, many of my colleagues and I have petitioned the Congress of the United States to select Pennsylvania's electors for the 2020 general election.

Actions by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and secretary of state in the 2020 general election were so fraught with inconsistencies, documented irregularities, and improprieties (see filing below) that the election results for the office of president of the United States cannot be determined.  The actions were so flagrant and egregious that I am a plaintiff in a case in the Commonwealth Court against Gov. Tom Wolf, et al. to seek relief.

The flawed processes associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing have so undermined the election that only the in-person Election Day results have any semblance of validity.  Because the mail-in process was so fatally flawed, the results cannot be audited, which may have been the governor's objective when he acted unilaterally to replace voting machines last year and demanded certain election reforms.

In any business or organization, internal controls are designed to deter wrongdoing.  Likewise, elections require reasonable controls to ensure that the results accurately reflect the will of the voters.  The system of controls over voting in Pennsylvania's 2020 General Election were so deficient as to render the results of the mail-in ballot process incapable of being relied upon.  Therefore, the Legislature, of which I am a member, introduced a resolution declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 general election in dispute.

Several actions led up to this.  In September, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overreached by extending the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received and mandating that ballots mailed without a postmark would be presumed to be received on time and could be accepted without a verified voter signature.

On Oct. 23, less than two weeks before the Nov. 3 general election, and at the request of the secretary of the commonwealth, the state Supreme Court ruled that signatures for mail-in ballots need not be authenticated, thereby treating in-person and mail-in voters dissimilarly and eliminating a critical safeguard against election crime.  In the same order, the court authorized the use of drop boxes for the collection of ballots, leaving them vulnerable to ballot-harvesting.

Other actions by the secretary of state undermined the consistency and controls of the election by permitting voters in heavily Democrat counties to fix defects on their mail-in ballots while heavily Republican counties followed the law and invalidated defective ballots.  The secretary has shown bias in get-out-the-vote efforts by focusing largely on counties and localities controlled by Democrats.  In certain counties, watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the pre-canvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in ballots.  Also, some poll-watchers observed irregularities concerning the pre-canvassing and canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots.

Many members of the General Assembly, of which I am a member recently re-elected in a landslide, believe that the mail-in ballot process in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 2020 general election to be so defective as to declare the selection of presidential electors in this commonwealth to be in dispute.  To this end, many of my colleagues and I have petitioned the Congress of the United States to declare the process of mail-in ballots so flawed that the Congress of the United States, as prescribed by the U. S. Constitution, should select Pennsylvania's electors for the 2020 general election.

Further, we believe that a special prosecutor must be appointed to ensure that this conduct is dealt with legally and all nefarious behavior condemned.  Going forward, it is clear that election reforms are needed, voter ID is essential, and mail-in ballot security must be an essential element of any election reform to ensure we do not have a repeat of 2020.

The liberties of our citizens cannot be squandered to incompetence, fraud, or tyranny to satisfy an artificial timeline.  Liberty is timeless.

Frank Ryan, CPA, colonel, USMCR (ret.) represents the 101st District in the PA House of Representatives.  He specializes in corporate restructuring.  He has served on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations.  He is an author and frequent lecturer to CPAs on ethics and governance.  He can be reached at

Image: Rlibrandi via Wikimedia Commons (cropped), CC BY-SA 3.0.

The general election of 2020 in Pennsylvania was fraught with inconsistencies, documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing that the reliability of the mail-in votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is impossible to rely upon.

The above factors, when combined with the lack of the required associated internal control mechanisms to ensure legality, accountability, accuracy, and the trustworthiness of the results, effectively undermine the trustworthiness of the entire election process.

The House of Representatives of Pennsylvania determined, as a result, that the process by which the President of the United States was determined was so fraught with errors that the legislature introduced House Resolutions 1094 on November 30, 2020 to contest the selection of electors.  

The analysis below substantially confirms that the mail-in ballot process in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 2020 General Election was so defective that it is essential to declare the selection of presidential electors for the Commonwealth to be in dispute.  The United States Congress is asked to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute and to intervene in the selection of the electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the 2020 General Election.

In any process control environment, the system of internal controls is designed to reasonably deter wrongdoing.

In the Sarbanes-Oxley type environment and the Committee on Sponsoring organizations process control environment, the control environment surrounding an election require that the processes utilized be capable of providing reasonable controls to ensure that the election results reflect the will of the voters.

In that regard, the COSO standards (Committee on Sponsoring Organizations) prescribes processes of controls to ensure internal controls are adhered to, for instance, in this case, the accuracy of the election results.  COSO and SOX are built on the same model of the system of internal controls

The control environment includes:

  1. Control Environment
  • Exercise integrity and ethical values.
  • Make a commitment to competence.
  • Use the board of directors and audit committee.
  • Facilitate management’s philosophy and operating style.
  • Create organizational structure.
  • Issue assignment of authority and responsibility.
  • Utilize human resources policies and procedures.
  1. Risk Assessment
  • Create companywide objectives.
  • Incorporate process-level objectives.
  • Perform risk identification and analysis.
  • Manage change.
  1. Control Activities
  • Follow policies and procedures.
  • Improve security (application and network).
  • Conduct application change management.
  • Plan business continuity/backups.
  • Perform outsourcing.
  1. Information and Communication
  • Measure quality of information.
  • Measure effectiveness of communication.
  1. Monitoring
  • Perform ongoing monitoring.
  • Conduct separate evaluations.

In any system of internal controls, there are audits which would identify control deficiencies, significant deficiencies, and material weaknesses of the system of internal controls.  When there are such deficiencies of internal controls of the material weakness nature and/or significant deficiency nature than standards require that the results cannot be relied upon.  The accounting profession has specific guidance on such control environment in AU-314, Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement.

In 2019, Rep Ryan identified such concerns about the control environment in the Commonwealth and introduced House Bill 1053, Lean Government Operations, to uniformly implement lean operations and an effective system of internal controls.  The Governor indicated opposition to the bill and threatened to veto the bill.  In the State Government Committee the bill passed 20-5 when the Democrat members placed such significant amendments and opposition from the executive branch to preclude the bill from moving.

This pattern of obstruction to systems of internal controls reinforces the concerns that the control environment did not exist in Pennsylvania’s executive branch to warrant confidence that there was any intent to establish an effective system of internal controls over the mail-in ballots in the Commonwealth.

In any audit committee the Audit Committee and with auditing standards, the question is always asked in the management representation letters: “Was management (read Executive Branch) able to override the system of internal controls?”  Should the answer to that question be YES, which in the instant case, it was, the CPA audit would immediately stop with NO audit opinion issued.  Nothing less can should be expected of our election process.

For the reasons below, it is believed that the system of controls over voting within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 2020 General Election were so flawed as to render the results of the mail-in ballot process incapable of being relied upon.  Specific potential remedies are available to include:

  1. Revote of the mail in ballots in time to certify the electors for the presidential election
  2. Declare the process of mail in ballots so flawed that the Congress of the United States, as prescribed by the U. S. Constitution would select the PA electors for President.

The evidence of resistance to the implementation to election security safeguards, process flaws, inconsistencies, violations of PA election laws as written, include:

1. Documented objection by leaders of the Democrat Party to object to a study of the election process to preclude the problems that in fact did occur in the 2020 general election.  The study was proposed as House Resolution 1032 of 2020 and was abandoned after gross public misrepresentations were made about the true nature of the intent of the resolution. due to public backlash due to the comments (An example of this can be found in the comments of Representative Malcolm Kenyatta.)

2. Actions from the PA Supreme Court which undermined the controls inherent in Act 77 of 2019.  The “legislative” overreach by the Supreme Court is the basis of the impeachment articles against Justice Wecht.  The controls which were undermined include:

a. On September 17, 2020, less than seven weeks before the November 3, 2020 election, the partisan majority on the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania unlawfully and unilaterally extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received, mandated that ballots mailed without a postmark would be presumed to be received timely, and could be accepted without a verified voter signature.

b. On October 23, 2020, less than two weeks before the November 3, 2020 election and upon a petition from the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ruled that mail-in ballots need not authenticate signatures for mail-in ballots, thereby treating in-person and mail-in voters dissimilarly and eliminating a critical safeguard against potential election crime.

c. Authorized the use of drop boxes for collecting votes with little to no controls proscribed to prevent ballot harvesting.

3.Actions by the Secretary of State which undermined the consistency and controls of the election process during the weeks preceding the General Election of November 3, 2020.  The actions by the Secretary led to a House Resolution to prohibit object to the seating of electors calling the election to be in dispute.  These include:

a. On November 2, 2020, the night before the November 3, 2020 election and prior to the prescribed time for pre-canvassing mail-in ballots, the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth encouraged certain counties to notify party and candidate representatives of mail-in voters whose ballots contained defects; 

b. Heavily Democrat counties permitted mail-in voters to cure ballot defects while heavily Republican counties followed the law and invalidated defective ballots; 

c. In certain counties in the Commonwealth, watchers were not allowed to meaningfully observe the pre-canvassing and canvassing activities relating to absentee and mail-in ballots

d. In other parts of the Commonwealth, watchers observed irregularities concerning the pre-canvassing and canvassing of absentee and mail-in ballots.

4. House Bill 2626

5. Permitted inconsistent drop box processes by counties with little to no controls or audits processes which essentially gave way to substantial opportunities for ballot harvesting.

6. The Secretary of State has shown bias in get-out-the-vote efforts due to the Secretary’s coordination efforts for get out the vote efforts only in Democrat party controlled counties and localities.

In addition to the concerns of the actions of the Secretary of State and the legislative overreach by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the inaccuracies of the actual results themselves call into question the accuracy of the SURE system, the consistency of the application of voting laws throughout the counties. Certain inconsistencies stand out to include:

At the county level the pattern of inconsistencies is easily seen.  For instance, Over-vote in Philadelphia County -- 

Information Sharing -- Members of the legislature or any oversight body of election inspectors, were not provided access to any data that was not available to the general public in open source records.  There are many other anomalies that one could not include in the letter because we have not been provided with the information you need to evaluate.  We have had to file right to know Right-to-Know requests to access the data.  Whenever the systems lack transparency it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to contend that fraud did not occur.

Mail Date

  • Ballots Mailed on or BEFORE 9-11-2020.  That total is 27995.
  • Ballots Mailed on November 1, 2 or 3.  That total is 8163.
  • Ballots with NO MAILED date. That total is 9005
  • Ballots Returned on or BEFORE the Mailed Date.  That total is 58221
  • Ballots Returned one day after Mailed Date.  That total is 51200.

Voter Date of Birth

  • Mail Votes cast by voters over the age of 100.  That total is 1532.
  • In Allegheny County, there were 41 ballots mailed to people born on 01/01/1800- making them all 220 years old.
  • Mail Votes by voters with NO Date of Birth.  That total is 245.

Additionally, in a data file received on November 4, 2020, the Commonwealth’s PA Open Data sites reported over 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out.  The CSV file from the state on November 4 depicts 3.1 million mail in ballots sent out but on November 2, the information was provided that only 2.7 million ballots had been sent out.  This discrepancy of approximately 400,000 ballots from November 2 to November 4 has not been explained.

This apparent discrepancy can only be evaluated by reviewing all transaction logs into the SURE system to determine the access, authority for the entry, the verification of the data entered as well as the authentication of the security certificates of the sites from which the data had been entered.

It is also important to note that the Department of State removed all election data from the PA Open Data platform in Mid-November 2020.  They provided no explanation for removing the data.  That is part of the issue—the data changed over time despite the fact that the number of ballots mailed should not have changed after November 2nd and the number of mail ballots received/cast should not have changed after November 3rd

In light of the above, the mail-in ballot process in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the 2020 General Election was so defective that it is essential to declare the selection of presidential electors for the Commonwealth to be in dispute.  The United States Congress is asked to declare the selection of presidential electors in this Commonwealth to be in dispute and to intervene in the selection of the electors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the 2020 General Election.

Respectfully Submitted,

Francis X. Ryan


101st Legislative District, PA


Frank Ryan  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

John Brennan: Killing of Fakhrizadeh ‘An Act of State-Sponsored Terrorism’ - Hugh Fitzgerald


​ by Hugh Fitzgerald

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-charles Bensoussan 

“Reckless” the attack on Fakhrizadeh was not. “Bold,” “intrepid,” “meticulously planned” – these are fitter adjectives.


While many will agree that the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the “mastermind” of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, has made the world a safer place, and that we owe a debt a gratitude to the Israelis for this latest act of derring-do, designed to further slow Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, John Brennan – who was head of the C.I.A. under Barack Obama – was enraged by Israel’s action. His view was reported here at Jihad Watch yesterday. This report has more: “US, world leaders mum on Fakhrizadeh killing; ex-CIA chief calls hit ‘reckless,’” Times of Israel, November 28, 2020:

United States officials and world leaders remained mum on the killing of Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as of Friday night [Nov, 27], while the UN called for restraint and a former head of the CIA said the assassination was “highly reckless.”

Was the targeted assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist any more “reckless” than the American killing of the head of Iran’s Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, at the beginning of this year? Or was this killing any more “reckless” than the killing of Osama bin Laden by Seal Team Six, in 2011, when Brennan was high up in the C.I.A. (he became the Director in 2013)? The Israelis have surely calculated the likelihood of Iranian retaliation, factoring in Tehran’s desire to avoid doing anything until after Trump leaves office. And when that retaliation does come, surely Jerusalem has already prepared a far more devastating response. “Reckless” the attack on Fakhrizadeh was not. “Bold,” “intrepid,” “meticulously planned” – these are fitter adjectives.

When Soleimani was killed, the Americans had no idea what Iran would do; in the end, it sent missiles into two airbases in Iraq that were used by American troops, wounding 100 soldiers, but there were no deaths. Nor did the Americans know how Al Qaeda might respond to the killing of Bin Laden in Abbotabad. Israel’s killing of Fakhrizadeh was less “reckless” than the American killings of Soleimani and bin Laden; the Israelis were able to factor into their decision what they knew about Iran’s likely response, or rather likely lack of it, until after January 20.

There were no immediate comments from the White House, Pentagon, US State Department, CIA or US President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team.

The leaders of other countries were similarly silent. Israel has not commented on the killing and no group has claimed responsibility.

The former head of the CIA, John Brennan, called the assassination a crime that risked inflaming conflict in the region.

This was a criminal act & highly reckless. It risks lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict,” Brennan said in a series of tweets.

Fakhrizadeh’s assassination was no more a “criminal act” than the killings, by American forces, of Soleimani and bin Laden, both of which “risked lethal retaliation and a new round of regional conflict.” Fakhrizadeh was a Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which the American government has designated to be a terrorist group. As the “mastermind” of the nuclear program, he was possibly the most dangerous man in Iran. He didn’t wear a uniform, but he was no civilian. By killing him, and thus delaying still further Iran’s nuclear program, Israel made the world a safer place.

“I do not know whether a foreign government authorized or carried out the murder of Fakhrizadeh,” he said. “Such an act of state-sponsored terrorism would be a flagrant violation of international law & encourage more governments to carry out lethal attacks against foreign officials.”

Of course Brennan knows perfectly well that Israel, a country for which he has exhibited a palpable want of sympathy in the past, was responsible for the assassination of Fakhrizadeh. He pretends “not to know” so that his extraordinary condemnation of what he calls this “act of state-sponsored terrorism,” this “criminal act,” will not be attributed to his anti-Israel bias.

Brennan has repeatedly defined “Jihad” as a non-violent struggle by Muslims to “purify themselves” or for “a moral goal.” In 2009, Brennan said: “Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” And in 2010, he said: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

Just think: at a time when Jihadists are active all over the world, and threaten America and American interests, the C.I.A. recently had as its director John Brennan, who believes that “Jihad” means a “holy struggle…to purify oneself or one’s community”; that there is nothing “holy or legitimate or Islamic” about those who kill innocent civilians; therefore, everyone must stop calling them (that is, these fanatics who misunderstand the real Islam) Jihadists. There is nothing violent about the “Jihad,” rightly understood. That’s Islam according to the fatuous John Brennan.

In May 2010, Brennan called for building up the “moderate” elements of Hezbollah: “There is [sic] certainly the elements of Hizballah that are truly a concern to us what they’re doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements.”

What can he have been thinking? By 2010, Brennan was very high up in the C.I.A., and surely knew all about Hezbollah’s activities in Lebanon and Syria, as an ally and proxy of the Islamic Republic. He knew about their more than 100,000 rockets and missiles, their attempts to build terror tunnels, their cross-border killings and kidnappings that led to the 2006 Hezbollah-Iran War. What “moderate elements” of Hezbollah is he talking about? Are there any Hezbollah members who do not believe in killing Israelis?

In an address to a meeting at New York University School of Law, sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America, Brennan said in February 2010: “As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy — bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said. “We’re trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance. It’s the reason why I don’t use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain’t gonna give it to them.”

What do you think of John Brennan’s confident reassuring words to a Muslim audience – they must have been delighted at his display of such ignorance — about those “fanatics…who try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam”? Isn’t he describing himself? And what should we make of his insistence that “jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose”? Remember, this is not a man on the street, for whom such ignorance may be forgiven. This is someone who spent more than three decades in the C.I.A., and who headed our chief intelligence agency from 2013 to Jan. 20, 2017.

At the NYU meeting where Brennan spoke, he was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made the writings of Sayyid Qutb, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s, required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has long inveighed against using terms like “Islamic terrorism,” since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”

Yes, Ingrid Mattson, a deep admirer of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fanatical Qutb, is for John Brennan “a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.” And Brennan, who delivered this utter nonsense, was for four years the man in charge of dealing mortal threats to American well-being from Jihadi terrorists worldwide.

Don’t you think that John Brennan, as part of his duties as head of the C.I.A., should have read and studied the Qur’an? (Shouldn’t it, in fact, now be required reading of everyone now in the C.I.A.?) Of course he should have, and of course he did not. He has no idea, even now, that the Qur’an commands all Muslims to fight, to kill, to smite at the necks of, to strike terror in the hearts of, the Infidels. He doesn’t know, either, that Muslims are told that they are the “best of peoples,” while non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.” That just might bring him up short.

At the very least, Brennan ought to have read a baker’s dozen of Qur’anic verses: 2:191-193, 3:151, 4:89, 5:33, 8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 98:6. A starter kit. But he never mentions the Qur’an, without a knowledge of which no one should presume to pontificate, as he has so often, on the essence of Islam. He’s been retired from the C.I.A. since January 2017, but still John Brennan has not managed to find time to read, and study, the Qur’an. He should accompany that study by reading Robert Spencer’s The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran. Having that under his belt, he could then read several dozen of the most important Hadith (including “War is deceit” and “I have been made victorious through terror”), and parts of the Sira (the biography of Muhammad). He could complete his cursus studiorum by reading Spencer’s The History of Jihad: From Muhammad To ISIS. If he does all that, he’d be able to understand what was so absurd about his definition of Jihad as a “moral struggle to purify oneself or one’s community” that had nothing to do with violence, and his praise of “the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.” He doesn’t strike me as someone who would ever own up to his intellectual failures, especially as colossal as his complete failure to understand Islam, but one never knows. Miracles do happen; hope springs eternal.

Brennan’s furious reaction to the assassination of Fakhrizadeh included his charge that this was a “criminal act,” because Fakhrizadeh was not himself a terrorist. But he was. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was a Brigadier General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which the American government has designated as a terrorist organization. Brennan has it wrong: Fakhrizadeh was indeed a member – a very high-ranking member – of a terrorist group and hence, a legal target.

A strong critic of US President Donald Trump, Brennan urged Tehran to “resist the urge” to retaliate and “wait for the return of responsible American leadership on the global stage,” referring to Biden, who will replace Trump in the White House on January 20.

Reading between the lines, Brennan is advising Iran to wait until a much more pliant President Biden is in office, ready to return the U.S. to the disastrous 2015 Iran deal, and unlikely to be on board with Israel’s efforts to protect itself, its Sunni allies, and America itself, by continuing its relentless campaign to ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons. Brennan is not advising Iran to refrain from retaliating, but only urging it to wait for a more propitious time, when Biden in in the Oval Office.

John Brennan for more than a decade has been a defender of the faith of Islam, insisting that Jihad refers to a “moral struggle,” never to violence against Infidels. He praises Islam for the “tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.” He describes the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, that has set back the genocidal plans of a criminal regime that regards the U.S. as the “Great Satan,” as a “criminal act,” “an act of state-sponsored terrorism.” It was no more a “criminal act” or “state-sponsored terrorism” than were the killings of Osama bin Laden and Qassem Soleimani. We should be celebrating, for the world is, as an unnamed Israeli official told The New York Times, a “safer place” because of the death of Fakhrizadeh.

Brennan’s over-the-top reaction to the assassination is useful: We already have his scandalous record of empty-headed fatuities about Islam. Now he’s revealed his anti-Israel animus as never before. It’s flabbergasting that this was the man who for four years headed the C.I.A. Or perhaps not, since at the time Barack Obama was president. Could Biden, try as he might, possibly appoint someone worse?


Hugh Fitzgerald  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Arabs: Why Is the EU Mourning This Iranian Scientist? - Khaled Abu Toameh


​ by Khaled Abu Toameh

"[D]isrupting the Iranian regime's access to nuclear weapons is a long-term service to humanity." Iran... sees nuclear weapons as a tool "that enables it to occupy the rest of the world...." — Mohammed Al-Saaed, Saudi political analyst, Okaz, November 30, 2020.

  • "There is no gloating about death, but the Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.... was not the scientist who discovered the anti-coronavirus vaccine, but the scientist called the father of the Iranian nuclear bomb..." — Tareq Al-Hameed, Saudi author, Okaz, November 30, 2020.

  • "[H]ow can they condemn the killing of a man who devoted his life to making a sinister bomb for an evil regime, but they do not condemn Iran's killing of innocent people in the region. Iran kills Syrians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and destroys Yemen, and sponsors all terrorist groups..." — Al-Hameed, Saudi author Okaz, November 30, 2020.

  • "[D]isrupting the Iranian regime's access to nuclear weapons is a long-term service to humanity." Iran... sees nuclear weapons as a tool "that enables it to occupy the rest of the world...." — Mohammed Al-Saaed, Saudi political analyst, Okaz, November 30, 2020.

  • "We are talking about a gang that hijacked Iran, and its defeated people became its captive. It seeks to hijack the entire region, fueled by intense hatred for the Arab. Is it acceptable to allow it to produce nuclear weapons and use them to kill millions of people?" — Mohammed Al-Saaed, Saudi political analyst, Okaz, November 30, 2020.

By condemning the killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the father of Iran's modern nuclear program, the European Union has found itself on the side of terror groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Pictured: Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif meets with Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in Tehran on February 3, 2020. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)

While the European Union has condemned the killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the father of Iran's modern nuclear program, many Arabs and Muslims expressed relief over the assassination.

By condemning the killing of Fakhrizadeh, the EU has found itself on the side of Palestinian terror groups such as the Iran-backed Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. These factions, together with Lebanon's Hezbollah terror group, another Iran proxy, and the Muslim Brotherhood, have also voiced outrage over the killing of the scientist.

Iran's proxies are upset , apparently, because they view the killing of the scientist as an obstacle to achieving Tehran's goal of eliminating the "Zionist entity."

The Iranians must be very satisfied with the EU for expressing its condolences to the family of Fakhrizadeh and others who may have been killed in the attack on his convoy.

Iran-backed terror groups and their leaders also offered their condolences over the killing of the scientist. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, in a phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, offered his condolences "on behalf of the Palestinian leadership and Hamas."

Other Arabs and Muslims, however, said this week that they cannot understand those who are mourning the death of a dangerous man whose main job was to manufacture nuclear weapons.

The words of these Arabs and Muslims, of course, are also directed to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, whose spokesperson issued a statement on November 28, 2020, denouncing the assassination of Fakhrizadeh as a "criminal act," and saying it "runs counter to the principle of respect for human rights the EU stands for." The statement read:

"The High Representative expresses his condolences to the family members of the individuals who were killed, while wishing a prompt recovery to any other individuals who may have been injured."

Saudi writer Tareq Al-Hameed reminded the EU and Iran's proxies that Fakhrizadeh was not just some an innocent, well-meaning scientist.

"There is no gloating about death, but the Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a commander in the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard, was not the scientist who discovered the anti-coronavirus vaccine, but the scientist called the father of the Iranian nuclear bomb," Al-Hameed wrote.

"Rather, this Iranian scientist's project is an evil project and an evil scheme for the region as a whole. It is important to shed light on those who hastened to express condolences to the Iranians. The first mourners, of course, who considered the killing of the Iranian scientist a terrorist act were Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Turkey, Qatar and the Assad regime in Syria. The condemnation of the killing of the Iranian scientist by these terrorist parties, or states that support terrorism, such as Turkey and Qatar, is an indication of the identification between these countries and Iran."

Hameed went on to say that those who condemned the killing of the scientist are "symbols of hypocrisy in our region." Otherwise, he added, "how can they condemn the killing of a man who devoted his life to making a sinister bomb for an evil regime, but they do not condemn Iran's killing of innocent people in the region. Iran kills Syrians, Iraqis, and Lebanese, and destroys Yemen, and sponsors all terrorist groups in our region."

Hameed called for "denouncing and shaming" those who are mourning Fakhrizadeh and condemning his assassination.

Saudi political analyst Mohammed Al-Saaed wrote that "disrupting the Iranian regime's access to nuclear weapons is a long-term service to humanity." He said that it was "not reasonable for a backward, repressive terrorist regime to obtain a nuclear weapon." Iran, Al-Saeed pointed out, sees nuclear weapons as a tool "that enables it to occupy the rest of the world."

Al-Saeed said that the mullahs of Tehran "do not possess the minimum of Islamic morals that prevent them from committing atrocities, and their record is rife with crimes. Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon are examples."

Referring to the rulers of Iran, Al-Saeed remarked:

"We are talking about a gang that hijacked Iran, and its defeated people became its captive. It seeks to hijack the entire region, fueled by intense hatred for the Arab. Is it acceptable to allow it to produce nuclear weapons and use them to kill millions of people?"

Emirati writer Muhammad Nafe pointed out that those who are shedding tears over the killing of the Iranian scientist "forgot that he is responsible for the most dangerous program for Iran's manufacture of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles which threaten the security and safety of the entire region."

Nafe wondered why those who were mourning the killing of Fakhrizadeh have been silent about the chaos and instability the Iranian regime has instigated in several Arab countries, including Iraq, Syria and Yemen, as well as the persecution of thousands of Iranians at home.

He said that the "dangerous alliance" between the Islamists and the Iranian regime has wreaked havoc on the Arab world. The Arabs, he added, "have now become more aware of the seriousness of this alliance."

Unlike the EU, Saudi political analyst Abdullah Otaibi is also not mourning the killing of the Iranian scientist. In fact, Otaibi reminded the Europeans and the rest of the world that the Iranian regime "did not hesitate to use the weapon of assassinations" in the past four decades against its political opponents.

"The Iranian regime has chosen assassinations too as one of its weapons... All branches of the Iranian regime in the region use the same method in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, where Hezbollah carried out assassinations over a long period of time. These crimes are one of the Iranian regime's favorite weapons."

Otaibi, expressing support for the killing of Fakhrizadeh, issued a warning. He cautioned that the Iranian regime was now hoping that Joe Biden would restore Barack Obama's "record of submission to and fear of Iran," paving the way for a return to the "flawed" nuclear deal between the superpowers and Iran.

Judging from the reactions of these and other Arabs and Muslims, it seems they understand that the Iranian regime is always on the lookout to subvert security and stability in the Middle East. They are frankly disgusted by the EU and other hypocrites who have condemned the killing of Fakhrizadeh. Moreover, these Arabs and Muslims are sending an emphatic message to Biden: The Iranian regime remains a mortal threat, and a return to the nuclear deal reached under the Obama administration would be seen by many Arabs and Muslims as a calamitous betrayal and a deadly threat to their countries, as well as to Israel.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter


Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute. 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Declass of 2020 - Lloyd Billingsley


​ by Lloyd Billingsley

What President Trump should lay bare for all the world to see.


While Joe Biden holds forth from the newly created “Office of the President Elect,” Donald Trump remains president of the United States. The most powerful man in the world commands extensive powers of declassification, and President Trump has good reason to get busy, starting with the Central Intelligence Agency. An unclassified CIA report on the Hiss case provides helpful background.

After CIA director John Deutch resigned in 1996, President Clinton nominated his former national security advisor Anthony Lake for the post. On “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert asked Lake, “Do you believe Alger Hiss was a spy?” Lake said he had read a couple of books on the Hiss case but “I don’t think it’s conclusive.” In due course, Lake withdrew his nomination and his doubts on Hiss, who was a Communist spy, were a factor. That makes a strong case that anybody who voted for a candidate of the Communist Party USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, should not even get near the CIA door.

In 1976, the CPUSA candidate for president of the United States was the Stalinist Gus Hall, and John Brennan (pictured above) voted for him, choosing the Communist Hall over Democrat Jimmy Carter, Republican Gerald Ford, Libertarian Roger MacBride, independent Eugene McCarthy, prohibition Ben Bubar, and socialist Frank Zeidler. Four years later in 1980, Hall was again the Communist candidate and his running mate was Angela Davis, winner of the Lenin Peace Prize. That year Brennan got a job with the CIA, rose through the ranks, and in 2013 President Obama tapped Brennan to run the place. After leaving in 2017, Brennan moved to cable television and became a bullhorn for the Russia hoax.

President Trump should reveal the identity of the CIA officials who made the call to hire Brennan. The president should also declassify the bulk of Brennan’s communications, especially those made before President Trump suspended his security clearance, which no CIA boss should retain after leaving the agency. For example, in 1999, CIA director George Tenet suspended the security clearance of John Deutch for working with classified material on an unsecured computer at his home. President Trump might reveal what that was all about, then move on to the nation’s “medical CIA.”

That was the term UC Berkeley molecular biology professor Peter Duesberg used in his masterful Inventing the AIDS Virus. The reference is to the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), part of the Centers for Disease Control and tasked with preventing viruses from arriving on American soil. Since the EIS failed to prevent the Wuhan coronavirus from arriving in America, the president should publicly identify the EIS agents who failed and why that failure happened.

One high-profile EIS veteran is Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the CDC official who readily defers to the World Health Organization (WHO) in questions about Communist China’s role with the coronavirus. President Trump should expose everything about the EIS and reveal a list of all its current and former members. Since the pandemic is still a factor, the president should also look into the mighty National Institutes of Health, which “invests about $41.7 billion in annual medical research for the American people.”

For their part, the American people might find it strange that NIH shipped American dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, controlled by China’s Communist government and not accountable to American officials. The WIV conducts dangerous “gain of function” virus research the NIH banned in 2014 and allowed to continue in 2017.  As Sara Reardon noted in Nature, “the US government has lifted its controversial ban on funding experiments that make certain pathogens more deadly or transmissible.”

The NIH agency handling the transfer of U.S funds to the Chinese WIV was National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) whose budget of $5.89 billion is up 6.6 percent from 2019. At the helm of NIAID since 1984 is Dr. Anthony Fauci, a “Deep State Fraud” according to intelligence veteran Angelo Codevilla.

President Trump should expose all US communications with the WIV and demand a full accounting of every taxpayer dollar. All Dr. Fauci’s communications with WIR and the World Health Organization, of which he is also a big fan, need to be exposed in the same detail as the texts of corrupt FBI operators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Likewise, NIH-NIAID-CDC deference to China invites another declassification matter.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Democrat, opposes U.S. lawsuits against China, which she hails as an heroic alleviator of poverty. For 20 years, Sen. Feinstein harbored a Chinese spy on her staff. More than a driver, this Communist spy even attended consular functions on the senator’s behalf. This is a serious matter and President Trump should declassify all relevant materials. As he does so, the vaunted FBI should not escape attention.

The newly released A Promised Land explains that Maj. Nidal Hasan’s 2009 massacre of 13 Americans at Ford Hood was due to:  “interagency information sharing systems had failed to connect the dots in a way that might have headed off the tragedy.” As we know from Lessons from Fort Hood, someone in the Washington office of the FBI deliberately dropped the case.

President Trump should reveal the name of the FBI agent or agents who chose to look the other way. Did any suffer any discipline or demotion? Are any still in the FBI, and if so, what have they been up to for the last four years? For its part, the National Security Agency invites other revelations.

Since it can eavesdrop on the communications of ordinary Americans, they might like to know what the NSA has on the Benghazi matter from 2012. Terrorists killed four Americans, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and national security advisor Susan Rice all claimed it was over an internet video.

President Trump can settle it forever by declassifying all NSA materials on the incident, along with anything the CIA and FBI have in hand. Contrary to former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it matters very much indeed.

“The struggle of man against power,” Milan Kundera explains, “is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” With that reality in mind, President Trump should declassify everything possible, at the earliest opportunity, by any means necessary. The people have a right to know, and what the people don’t know can indeed hurt them.


Lloyd Billingsley  


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden and Israel's Unsteady Right - Caroline Click


​ by Caroline Click

Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s Blue and White government doesn’t understand the danger.

In an interview with the New York Times Tuesday, presumptive President-elect Joe Biden reaffirmed his plan to return the US to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. The US will rescind its economic sanctions on Iran if it complies with the nuclear deal’s limitations on its nuclear activities. Once this happens, Biden said he will seek to negotiate a new, longer-term nuclear deal with Iran’s ayatollahs. The current deal expires in five years.

Biden insisted the goal of his policy is to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But practically speaking, Biden’s policy guarantees Iran will develop a nuclear arsenal and the missiles to deliver them. This is true both because the nuclear deal will expire, and Iran will be free to build nuclear bombs as it likes in 2025, and because the 2015 nuclear deal has no effective enforcement mechanism.

The UN inspectors tasked with ensuring Iranian compliance are only permitted to enter civilian nuclear sites. Since Iran has sole authority to determine if a site is civilian or military, it can and has rendered the deal’s inspection regime a pathetic joke.

It goes without saying that Israel cannot accept this state of affairs. Just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was compelled to oppose Barack Obama’s nuclear deal, so Israel has no choice but to strongly oppose Biden’s plans.

Unfortunately, Israel is currently incapable of clearly opposing Biden’s plan that will give the mullahs the means to carry out their plan to destroy the Jewish state. That is because currently, Israel doesn’t have one government. It has two governments pretending to be a unity government. But in practice, they disagree on everything, including how to handle Biden’s Iran policy and they pursue contrary policies on all issues.

Netanyahu’s Likud government recognizes the danger posed by Biden’s Iran policy. Last week, Netanyahu loyalist Ambassador Ron Dermer said flat out that it would be “a mistake” for a Biden administration to return to the nuclear deal.

Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s Blue and White government doesn’t understand the danger.

Two weeks ago, Gantz’s partner Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazy told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Netanyahu’s uncompromising position is wrong. According to media reports, Ashkenazy said Israel can develop common ground with a Biden administration on Iran.

Biden’s advisers, he claimed recognize the problems with the 2015 deal and are open to suggestions regarding its improvement. Ashkenazy wants to persuade the members of Biden’s Iran team to link Iran’s nuclear program to its ballistic missile program and its regional aggression.

On paper, Ashkenazy’s position seems reasonable, but in the real world, it is fanciful. Biden’s determination to return to the nuclear deal without conditions except an unenforceable Iranian commitment to limit its nuclear activities makes clear that there will be no reconsideration of anything. As to his plan to negotiate a new deal, Iran will have little reason to do so. By ending Trump’s sanctions, Biden will lose all leverage.

The Blue and White-Likud clash over Iran policy, like their clash over Israel’s national and strategic interests in Judea and Samaria make clear that the farcical unity government has run its course. Facing an administration dead set on giving Iran the bomb and openly hostile to Israel’s rights and interests in Judea and Samaria and unified Jerusalem, Israel cannot afford to be governed by a two-headed government.

For Israelis convinced the country needs to defend its national interests even in the face of US opposition, the only type of government that will do is a coalition of right wing and Haredi parties. According to the polls, this is just the sort of coalition government Israelis are planning to elect. For several months, the Right-Haredi bloc has been polling 65-70 seats, giving it a comfortable majority in the 120-seat Knesset.

Unfortunately, the polls may not be telling the full story. A core member of the Right-Haredi bloc is Yamina, (“To the Right”). And it is far from clear that Yamina is a right-wing party in any meaningful sense today.

Ostensibly, the notion that Yamina may not be a right-wing party seems absurd. Yamina is a coalition of three parties to the right of Likud – the New Right, the National Union and Habayit Hayehudi (“Jewish Home”). Habayit Hayehudi party bolted Yamina to join the current government when it took office in May.

Today, Yamina is dominated by the New Right.

In late 2018, then-Education Minister Bennett and then-Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked abandoned the national-religious Habayit Hayehudi party to form the New Right. The day after their break, they asked me to be the first to join them in their run for Knesset in the elections that took place in April 2019.

I happily accepted their offer. As I saw it, the New Right was an ideologically driven right-wing party dedicated to advancing the causes most important to me – reform of Israel’s hyper-activist legal fraternity and applying Israel’s sovereignty to wide swathes of Judea and Samaria.

Oddly, rather than tailoring the campaign to rally like-minded voters, Bennett and Shaked focused on non-ideological and even non-rightist voters. Unsurprisingly, by ignoring their natural supporters and courting voters who didn’t care about their issues, the New Right came up 1,500 votes shy of the four-seat threshold to enter the Knesset.

In the following two elections, Bennett and Shaked played it safe. They formed Yamina and ran with Habayit Hayehudi and National Union. But they didn’t rethink their electoral strategy. In both the September 2019 and March 2020 elections, they doubled down on their courtship of the center-left and continued to tank at the ballot box.

In the April 2019 election, the New Right was just shy of four seats. Habayit Hayehudi/National Union faction won five. At the time, still in chaos following Bennett and Shaked’s abandonment, those five seats represented the rock bottom core of the national-religious sectoral vote.

In the second round, Yamina won just seven seats and this past March it netted a mere six seats. If the five mandates to the Habayit Hayehudi/National Union stayed loyal throughout, then by last March, the New Right was worth only one seat in the Knesset.

Since the current government was formed, the ground has shifted. Polls have Yamina consistently winning more than 20 seats and running second only to Likud. The pollsters claim that around half of the support for Yamina comes from the center-left, particularly from disgruntled Blue and White supporters. The other half comes from the right.

There are three sources of leftist support for Yamina. First, for the past several months, Bennett has been scope-locked on the coronavirus, insisting that it is the only issue that by rights ought to be on the public agenda. His all-consuming focus on the pandemic and the economic damage it has wrought, has brought Bennett supporters among Israelis hurt by the virus and impatient with the government’s efforts to mitigate it.

Second, and importantly for centrist and left-leaning voters, by staying out of the government, Yamina has managed to capture some voters motivated by hatred for Netanyahu.

Finally, Yamina is picking up support from leftists because over the past three months, Bennett has shed his loyalty to the right both politically and ideologically.

Politically, Bennett cut Yamina off from its core voters – the national religious community in September. At a toast for Rosh Hashana, Bennett said, “I don’t view Yamina as a sectoral party.”

Having abandoned Yamina’s political base, Bennett proceeded to abandon its ideological foundations: sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and legal reform.

In an interview last month with Army Radio, Bennett said, “In the coming years, I would put politics aside, including important things like annexation and a Palestinian state.”

Arguably the weirdest aspect to Bennett’s decision to desert the right’s core ideological cause is that it makes no political sense. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s peace plan’s call for Israeli sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria, the prospect of applying Israel’s sovereignty to large parts of Judea and Samaria has become a viable option. It is supported in various forms by a large majority of the public. So unless Bennett is specifically interested in courting the hard left, his move makes no sense.

Given the large majority of Israelis who support extending sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, legal reform has become the main wedge issue dividing the Left and Right in Israel today.

The only way Israel can apply its sovereign rights to Judea and Samaria, and indeed, the only way a rightist government will be able to implement any of its policies is if the Knesset undertakes significant reform to limit the currently unchecked powers of the radicalized legal fraternity including the Supreme Court, the attorney general and the state prosecution. During her tenure as justice minister, Shaked presented herself – and her party – as the leaders in the field.

But in a shocking reversal, in an interview with Army Radio last month, Bennett’s right-hand man MK Matan Kahana said Yamina is no longer interested legal reform. “We’ve lowered the flag to two-thirds mast,” he said.

Earlier this week, Bennett balled up the flag and shoved it in the closet when he absented himself from the Knesset during a vote on his party colleague MK Betzalel Smotrich’s bill that would require senior prosecutors and the Attorney General to wait a decade before being eligible to serve in the Supreme Court.

If this weren’t enough to spark concern, Bennett announced he plans to select non-rightists to run on Yamina’s Knesset slate and he refuses to rule out forming a center-left coalition with Yesh Atid, Meretz and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu party.

Bennett and Shaked’s associates insist that their partnership with Smotrich is proof they are still on the right. Smotrich, the fiery head of the National Union is certainly driven by ideology. But every statement Smotrich makes indicating Yamina will never form a center-left government is denied by Bennett and Kahana. Wednesday for instance, Kahana told Army Radio, “We don’t rule out cooperating with Lapid and Meretz in a government we will form and put aside all of our disagreements. No matter what, in the next four years there’s no chance of realizing the right’s diplomatic vision.”

So depending on how many seats Yamina wins from right wing voters, the Right-Haredi majority may lack the power to govern as a Right-Haredi government. Indeed, a coalition with them, (assuming Bennett agrees to enter one), may be reduced to the same incoherence that plagues the current two-headed “unity” government.

The light at the end of the coronavirus tunnel is coming into view with Britain and the US now beginning to vaccinate their publics. But as the pandemic comes under control, we are swiftly approaching the dark four-year tunnel of the Biden administration. For Israel to successfully contend with its twists and turns, it will need a strong, and sturdy Right-Haredi government capable of coherent and forthright action.

Originally published in Israel Hayom.


Caroline Click  


 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter