Tag Archives: 2020 election

Election Watchdog Finds 137,500 Ballots Unlawfully Trafficked In Wisconsin, by Steven Kovac

Like the Hunter Biden laptop story, 2020’s election fraud is starting to surface. Whether anything will come of either story in our corruption-riddled society, no one can say. Don’t hold your breath. From Steven Kovac at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

At least 137,500 absentee ballots were cast through unlawful vote trafficking throughout several of Wisconsin’s largest cities in the 2020 election, according to research presented last week to the state Assembly’s Committee on Campaigns and Elections by the public interest organization True the Vote (TTV).

Residents place mail-in ballots in a ballot box outside of the Tippecanoe branch library in Milwaukee, on Oct. 20, 2020. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Ballot trafficking is an activity in which absentee ballots and votes are solicited, sometimes in exchange for money or other valuables. They are then collected through a process called “harvesting” and delivered to drop boxes by intermediaries (someone other than the voter), who are often paid a per-ballot fee by partisan actors.

“An organized crime against Americans” is how TTV cyber expert Gregg Phillips described to the committee what happened in Wisconsin and elsewhere during the 2020 election.

Supporters of President Donald Trump protest outside State Farm Arena as ballots continue to be counted inside in Atlanta, on Nov. 5, 2020. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

Based on his 15-month study of election practices in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Michigan, Phillips estimates that at least 4.8 million votes were trafficked nationally.

Continue reading→

How Bill Barr’s Silence Impacted The Outcome Of An Election, by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke

From the time Trump appointed Bill Barr SLL said he was 100 percent Deep State. He did nothing during his time as Attorney General to change that assessment. From Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke at The Epoch Times via zerohedge.com:

On May 18, 2020, then-Attorney General Bill Barr made a statement to the media, declaring that special counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russiagate hoax wasn’t focused on either former President Barack Obama or former Vice President Joe Biden, stating that “I don’t expect Mr. Durham’s work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man.”

In his new book, Barr has revealed that he made that statement in response to a series of tweets by then-President Donald Trump. A week earlier, Trump had started using the term “Obamagate” on Twitter, alleging that both Obama and Biden had “led the charge” on the FBI’s phony Russiagate investigation.

Barr recounts in his book that he felt it was unacceptable for Trump to attempt to drag his presidential election opponent into the Russiagate scandal and that Barr felt that it was incumbent upon him to make a public statement.

Continue reading→

Americans Need a Conspiracy Theory They Can All Agree on, by Patrick Armstrong

You can tell a lot about people by the conspiracy theories they subscribe to. From Patrick Armstrong at strategic-culture.org:

A deeply divided country: there is no common conversation in the United States today – one person’s conspiracy theory is another’s truth.

No subtlety of thought survives in the culture of unreason. Public space is populated with poseurs, cutouts, and imposters. Public discourse, with some exceptions, is much of the time not worth bothering with.

Patrick Lawrence: Obituary for Russiagate.

There is a conspiracy theory that the CIA put the very expression into general use to discredit alternate theories about the murder of President Kennedy. Perhaps that’s true – there is a CIA document – but the expression has been around for a long time. At any event it has become a slur to discredit political opponents. The accusation replaces rational discussion.

There have been actual conspiracies in history. There was a conspiracy to murder Caesar. And to murder Anwar Sadat. The Bolsheviks did conspire to take power and so did Guy Fawkes. Sometimes they succeeded – often surprising the conspirators – and sometimes they didn’t. Many times the conspirators thought the deed itself was all that needed to be done but Caesar was succeeded by Caesar and Sadat by his chosen successor. There are probably fewer conspiracies than people imagine but they do exist.

Conspiracy theories abound in the USA today. But, it should be made clear from the outset of this discussion that there are two different kinds of conspiracy theories – unacceptable ones and acceptable ones. An example of the first kind is the assertion that Trump was cheated of victory by vote-faking in key areas. The assertion is “baseless”, pushed by the “far-right-wing” and the “deluded“; has been “debunked” in detail; its so-called arguments are “bogus, none credible“; there is “no evidence” and so on. The full weight of the corporate media stands against this idea and it flourishes only in the undergrowth. Nonetheless, 29% of Americans in a March survey “completely” or “mostly” agreed that the election had been stolen from Trump (66% of Republicans, 27% of independents and 4% (!) of Democrats). So that particular conspiracy theory has significant support.

Continue reading→

Just 10,000 Tune In To Biden 4th July Live Stream, by Steve Watson

Just as in the election campaign, Biden draws nobody, Trump draws huge crowds, but somehow Biden won. Sure he did. From Steve Watson at summitnews.com:

That equates to around 0.003% of the population

The numbers are in. Joe Biden struggled to engage any Americans on the Fourth of July as he ordered them to get vaccinated, calling it the most patriotic thing anyone can do for their country.

As he squinted and stumbled through a 15 minute speech on the White House lawn that was solely devoted to fear mongering about COVID, fewer than 10,000 people joined the YouTube livestream.

That equates to around 0.003% of the population.

Yet he received a record 81 million votes in the election, apparently.

The figure is also four times less than the number of people who attended President Trump’s huge Independence Day rally in Florida on Saturday.

In addition, a whopping 375,000 tuned in live to watch Trump’s event.

Continue reading→

There Were No Calls for Censorship Against Democrats For Their False Claims About the 2016 Election, by Joe Lauria

You can toss out whatever conspiracy theory you want about an election, as long as the alleged conspirator or conspirators are not Democrats. From Joe Lauria at consortiumnews.com:

Democrats have pressured social media to take down posts that question the 2020 election, but no such pressure was exerted on Democrats who questioned the 2016 election, writes Joe Lauria.

Sundar Pichai, Google CEO (Wikimedia Commons)

he Democratic Party has pressured social media companies to enter into a highly risky endeavor that is bound to reverberate against the party’s interests.

With the leverage of regulating the social media giants, Democrats have browbeaten the chief executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google (which owns YouTube) to remove any post that questions the legitimacy of the 2020 election. As journalist Glenn Greenwald has shown, the pressure goes beyond getting private sector proxies to do what the government is forbidden to do:  censor communications.

Greenwald cited case law to bolster the argument that Democratic members of Congress are actually violating the First Amendment by doing so. Democrats have grown so bold as to maneuver to get cable television providers to remove Fox News from their channels, the way social media has already banned masses of people.

Consortium News became embroiled in this controversy when Google’s YouTube deleted an episode of CN Live! last week for supposedly breaching YouTube’s policy against “scam, deception and spam.”  The policy reads:

“Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.”

But the banned CN Live! episode was about the Jan. 5 Georgia election runoffs, not the Nov. 3 presidential election. It was also about voter suppression not election fraud, errors or glitches, which YouTube may or may not have understood.

YouTube gave Consortium News a “warning” about this video on Feb. 21 and said if we violated the policy again it would cast a strike against us. Three days later, during which Consortium News posted no new videos to its YouTube Channel, the warning was inexplicably turned into a strike. With three strikes CN Live! could be kicked off YouTube, with its massive reach. After YouTube rejected CN‘s 800-character limited appeal, there is no longer any way to communicate directly with them.

Continue reading→

Opinion: Time Magazine Details the ‘Shadow Campaign’ Against Trump, by Jeff Carlson

It’s a good thing a cabal of wealthy and influential people, united by their loathing for Trump, saved us from the orange man. From Jeff Carlson at theepochtimes.com:

“They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it,” Time magazine says

In a surprisingly brazen article, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” Time magazine chronicles a myriad of pre- and post-election actions taken by a loose coalition of Democratic operatives, grassroots activists, mainstream media, tech companies, and corporate CEOs before and after the 2020 presidential election.

According to the article, the effort consisted of “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.”

In the post-election days, the author refers to this disparate grouping of players as a “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs” resulting in an “informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.”

Although the words “cabal” and “conspiracy” are used to describe the sweeping activities of these groups, collectively referred to as the Shadow Campaign, the article’s author takes pains to note that these efforts weren’t aimed at “rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”

Continue reading

There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – and its architects now BOAST of how they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election, by Nebojsa Malic

One man’s “fixed” election is another man’s “fortified” election. From Nebojsa Malic at rt.com:

There WAS a color revolution in the US after all – and its architects now BOAST of how they ‘fortified’ the 2020 election
The 2020 US presidential elections wasn’t “rigged,” oh no, but “fortified” by a conspiracy of activists united in saving “Our Democracy” from the Bad Orange Man, now proud to share their story in a friendly tell-all piece in TIME.

“There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes,” writes Molly Ball – a biographer of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by the way – in TIME magazine this week, describing it as a “vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election – an extraordinary shadow effort.”

Ball’s article reveals a lot, from why there were no street riots by Democrats either on November 4 or on January 6 – the organizers of this “conspiracy” stopped them – to who was behind the push to alter election rules in key states and set up mail-in voting, who organized “information” campaigns about the results of the election, and who even threatened election officials into making the “right” decision to certify the vote.

While everyone – myself included – was focused on the summer riots as a possible “color revolution,” they turned out to be misdirection. According to TIME, the real action was taking place behind the scenes, as Democrat activists and unions joined forces with NeverTrump Republicans, Chamber of Commerce, corporations, and Big Tech to make sure the 2020 election turns out the way they wanted. They call this a victory of democracy and the will of the people, of course, for no one is ever a villain in their own story.

Continue reading→

Our Oligarchs’ Crisis of Confidence, by Declan Leary

Are the oligarch’s omnipotent masters of the universe or are they insecure, arrogant hacks? The truth may well be closer to the latter than the former. From Declan Leary at theamericanconservative.com:

Let’s not attribute to malice that which can be explained by an insecure elite stumbling back into a tenuous grasp on power.

Nov. 7 – Many took to the streets in celebration when it became apparent that Joe Biden had scraped out a victory against Donald Trump in the election held earlier that week. (By Johnny Silvercloud/Shutterstock)
On November 9, as the first week of election disputes started to wind down, Big Pharma giant Pfizer Inc. announced that its COVID vaccine had been tested and shown to be 90 percent effective. The timing was…fortuitous; cue the crazies.

Donald Trump, Jr. took to Twitter with the kind of vague suggestiveness that usually only works if you have something to suggest: “The timing of this is pretty amazing. Nothing nefarious about the timing of this at all right?” Charlie Kirk, a young conservative intellectual renowned for subtlety and nuance, took a similar tack in a Facebook video: “The reason is Pfizer wanted to wait until Joe Biden was coronated as president, so that Joe Biden could get the credit for this.” (Props to Charlie for the choice of “coronation” there, though his timing was off by a couple months.)

History repeats itself—and since 2020 took all the good material, in 2021 we’ve already hit the reruns. On January 24, word got out that California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom planned to lift his Regional Stay Home Order, one of the strictest anti-COVID measures in the country. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, another pandemic hardliner whose iron fist inspired a hilariously ineffective kidnapping plot last year, likewise announced suspiciously close to the inauguration that her loyal subjects would be allowed to dine indoors beginning on February 2.

Continue reading→

‘Civil War Without the Grapeshot’: Texas Launches SCOTUS Bid to Save Trump, and Maybe Even the Republic, by Robert Bridge

This article was published before the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas election suit, but it makes salient points about the obvious election frauds and the consequences of a Biden victory. From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:

In a dramatic and unprecedented turn of events amid the 2020 presidential election fiasco, the Lone Star State is leading the charge to overturn results in four swing states where multiple irregularities were alleged to have occurred in delivering the presidency to the Democrat Joe Biden. Nothing less than the survival of the Republic as we know it hangs in the balance.

President Donald Trump and 17 Republican-ruled states filed motions this week in support of the Texas’ ‘Hail Mary’ effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn results in four major swing states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – where alleged fraud and irregularities catapulted Biden into the White House. The legal challenge comes just days before the Electoral College is scheduled to formally pronounce on the outcome.

Trump’s legal team has experienced multiple setbacks in its efforts to present its case at the state level. Those failures were not wholly unexpected considering that three of the states being sued are Democrat-run; not exactly places where the scales of justice would tip in Trump’s favor. As for Georgia, Republican Governor Brian Kemp, proving his credentials in the RINO club (‘Republican In Name Only’) has impeded efforts for a recount every step of the way.

Continue reading→

Will the Supreme Court’s Conservatives Extinct Themselves? by Robert Gore

Trump, or extinction by irrelevance?

Update: The Supreme Court declined to hear the Texas suit late Friday afternoon.

The state of Texas has filed suit against four states where the presidential election results are in dispute: Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction for suits between states (Article III, Section 2). The court ordered the four states to submit their responses yesterday. A number of states have filed amicus, or friend of the court, briefs both in support of and in opposition to Texas.

Suppose the court either refuses to take the case or it rules against Texas. Suppose also that the Democrats win the two contested Georgia Senate races January 5. With the apparent cheating demonstrated in the presidential election and Georgia’s RINO governor and secretary of state, nobody should assume the runoffs will be fair or that challenges to an unfair election will have any chance of success.

Biden would be president and Democrats would control the House of Representatives and the Senate (it would be 50-50, but vice president Harris would break ties). They could and probably would carry out their plans to expand the Supreme Court and “pack” it with a unstoppable liberal majority. In either refusing to hear the Texas suit or accepting the suit but ruling against Texas, the Supreme Court’s five conservative justices will have contributed to their own demises as consequential jurists—collective judicial suicide.

On the other hand, the court could take the case and rule in favor of Texas. It helps that Texas has a strong legal case. Article I, Section 4 states: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be proscribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress at any time may at any time by Law make or alter such regulations, except to the Places of chusing Senators. This clause apparently has been extended to presidential elections, which are held concurrently with Congressional elections.

Amazon Paperback Link

Kindle Ebook Lin

Continue reading