Tag Archives: 2020 election

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

Did Jews Fail to Deliver? by Israel Shamir

No president has kowtowed to Israel quite as blatantly as Donald Trump. A fat lot of good it did him in the election. From Israel Shamir at unz.com:

President Trump gave to Israel all she could wish for; he hoped that in return, the Jews would give him America to rule another term. A simple give-and-take, but it didn’t work out as intended. If he were to run for the presidency of Israel, he would have it. If Brooklyn were to decide who’d inhabit the White House, he would be the Chosen one. But Trump’s plan to bribe US Jews by bearing gifts to Israel failed completely.

East Europeans define the difference between Jews and Hungarians (or Poles) as follows. All of these would sell their grandmother for a fistful of coins; but only a Jew would deliver. This non-delivery of America will be remembered by future US presidents. Perhaps we witness a defining moment for the downturn in American support of Israel, in direct contradiction to the main thesis of our colleague Philip Giraldi who said this week that “Israel’s Power Is Unlimited”. Why did it happen? The US Jews didn’t take the bait. And now for details.

“Zionist” is a euphemism for “Jew”, isn’t it? Up to a point. Zionists, that is Jews (and others) who care and work for Israel, are strongly supportive of the US President, but Jews that matter, that is elite liberal progressive US Jews, won’t support Trump even if he were to pave Tel Aviv with golden bricks. Three out of four US Jews voted for Joe Biden, about the same proportion of Jews who voted for Barack Obama, though Obama was quite critical towards Israel, while Trump did all the Israelis could wish for.

Continue reading

Chaotic Considerations, an Empty Space, a Thanksgiving Prayer, and the Dreams of America as Founded, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Doug “Uncola” Lynn explores the permutations of possible stories behind the election story, and wonders if the America we once knew is gone for good. From Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

The fate of the United States hangs in the balance. If the 2020 Presidential Election has proven anything, it has shown America as irreconcilably divided: between those dreaming of a constitutional republic against others intoxicated with Nietzsche’s Will to Power fueled by delusion, emotionalism, and materialism.

For conservatives, it is Trump or tyranny. For progressives, it is Biden or oblivion. Of course, these choices are fraught with danger and, even if true, have a “scripted” appearance to them; as if the divide had manifested on purpose.

Given the One World Government’s foothold in American cities, it stands to reason this is where the republic would be undermined. To urban progressives, the 2020 election is considered in relation to their actual survival.  Yet, the U.S. Constitution and the legal systems of individual states will either prevail as it has (mostly) throughout history – or American conservatives will declare the social contract null and void with terminal finality.

It could go either way.

A Biden Presidency Would Be A Dream Scenario For Our Corporate Overlords, by Michael Snyder

Corporations donated millions to the Democrats and they’ll get the expected payoff. From Michael Snyder at themostimportantnews.com:

One of the biggest reasons why the elite hate Donald Trump so much is because they can’t control him. But if Joe Biden ends up in the White House, that won’t be a problem. Our corporate overlords know exactly what they are getting with Biden, and that is why they backed him so strongly during the campaign. In fact, if our corporate overlords could create a perfect president from scratch, they would end up with someone that looks very similar to Joe Biden.

Let me explain what I mean. One thing that the elite value in any politician is weakness, and today Joe Biden is very weak. At one time he had a little bit more of a backbone, but at this point he has deteriorated very badly and his physical, mental and emotional weaknesses are apparent to everyone.

But a president can’t afford to be weak, because pressure is put on the White House from a thousand different directions on a daily basis. Any sign of weakness from a president is like blood in the water, and the political sharks are going to be all over him.

Ultimately, Biden will be exceptionally easy for the elite to manipulate because of how weak he has become, but the downside for the elite is that Biden may not last that long in the White House because of how rapidly he is physically and mentally falling apart.

If our corporate overlords were creating a perfect president from scratch, they would also want someone that owes them favors, and Joe Biden owes them big time.

Continue reading→

 

Donald Trump’s Stealthy Road to Victory, by Graham Allison

This election may lead to some seldom used and convoluted procedures, and Trump would have the advantage. From Graham Allison at nationalinterest.org:

As the counting of votes in Arizona, Georgia, and especially Pennsylvania continues, most of the press and punditry have concluded that Vice President Biden has won the 2020 election. Certainly, a substantial majority of the rest of us are suffering from “election fatigue” and eager for this drama to be over. Without disagreeing with the conventional wisdom about the final tally when all the legal votes are counted, I believe the current consensus is missing the fact that Trump has a second, viable stealthy road to victory. I’m reluctantly betting that the debate about who won will continue until at least January 6 when slates of electoral college members are opened in Washington, and most likely beyond that as whatever is decided then is appealed by the loser to the Supreme Court. My conclusion reflects the analysis of my colleague in the Applied History Network at the Belfer Center which is below.
As he notes, this stealthy road follows in the footsteps of a number of previous contested American elections, especially the 1876 election that pitted Tilden v. Hayes. Then as now, each state must decide on a group of electors to meet with a joint session of Congress on January 6 where the winner of the presidential election is declared. The normal practice in a state where Biden won the popular-vote total would be for state election officials to certify the results and send a slate of electors to Congress. But state legislatures have the constitutional authority to conclude that the popular vote has been corrupted and thus send a competing slate of electors on behalf of their state. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the “President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” That means that in the case of disputes about competing electoral slates, the President of the Senate—Vice President Pence—would appear to have the ultimate authority to decide which to accept and which to reject. Pence would choose Trump. Democrats would appeal to the Supreme Court.