The Truth Is Out There

The Colorado Voting Machine Fiasco: A Case For Paper Ballots and Same-Day Voting

9.November.2024.

The Colorado voting machine security breach under Secretary of State Jena Griswold‘s watch is an epic in incompetence and deceit, a calamity born not out of malice but sheer, unchecked ineptitude. This debacle is yet another compelling reason for the United States to move to paper ballots and same-day voting, at least for federal elections, to ensure the integrity and security of our electoral process. Four months. Four full months of a ticking time bomb, and yet no one seemed to notice the system BIOS passwords posted online for all to see. It was like a “Help Yourself” buffet for anyone with an internet connection.

This isn’t merely a local administrative error. It is a significant threat to the very foundation of electoral integrity—a threat fostered by a combination of bureaucratic negligence, lax security protocols and Griswold’s dogged refusal to take meaningful action. Not only was the BIOS password exposed, but it was maintained unencrypted, sitting vulnerably in an Excel spreadsheet stored on state network drives. One might think these officials were desperate to be hacked. And when it comes to passwords—let’s just say their approach violated even the most basic CISA guidelines, rules that have been around for more than fifteen years. Apparently, securing voting systems is a task too advanced for those in charge.

Contrary to Griswold’s initial reassurances that this was a minor, isolated error, it later emerged—through the admissions of Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Beall—that more than half of Colorado’s counties were affected. One cannot help but marvel at the level of ineptitude required to let a disaster like this go unnoticed for so long. If you leave your house door wide open for a few minutes, you should assume that something may have happened inside. Griswold and her merry band of public servants managed to leave the door open for four months and then acted surprised when people noticed.

If there is one thing clear about basic cybersecurity, it is that you cannot be this reckless without consequences. Any compromise of BIOS passwords in a critical infrastructure computer requires assuming that the entire system has been compromised unless proven otherwise. We are talking about passwords that give direct access to the foundational layer of a voting machine—and by extension, the very process by which we select our representatives. If that isn’t the definition of critical infrastructure, then what is?

And it wasn’t just the BIOS passwords. Once one voting system component is compromised, anything connected to it—LAN cables, HDMI cables, even air-gapped systems using removable media—must be assumed compromised as well. It’s Cybersecurity 101. CISA, the lead federal agency for election infrastructure security, lays out clear standards and procedures for handling such incidents. The very least Colorado could have done is follow them. Instead, they opted for a comedic routine of denial, delay, and deception.

The immediate actions taken by Griswold’s office can best be described as an exercise in performative futility. Day 1: they found out (through their vendor, no less), scrambled to remove the .xlsx file from the web after a leisurely four-month gap, and reported it—to CISA, naturally. Did they bother telling Colorado election officials or the public? Of course not. Why trouble the plebeians with such trivialities?

Days passed, and when the state GOP learned of the breach and the media caught wind, Griswold finally came out of her bunker. Her strategy? A classic: evade, obfuscate and pretend everything was under control. Griswold claimed that each voting machine required two separate passwords, with different people or groups entrusted with only one password each, making it supposedly impossible for the machines to be compromised. This claim was false. Even if it were true, the group not supposed to have the BIOS passwords could have simply downloaded them from the internet, meaning that multiple individuals certainly had complete and unfettered access to the machines. They dispatched people to change a handful of passwords, and Griswold went on a media blitz, making a futile attempt to gloss over the enormity of the breach. Day 9 saw Governor Jared Polis attempt his own desperate act of damage control, ordering a broader, albeit equally ineffective, response to ensure password changes. Apparently, it takes helicopters to change passwords in Colorado.

But what Griswold and Polis both failed to do was address the real danger: the integrity of the voting systems themselves. The affected machines were still in use, election officials continued to tabulate votes with them, and—most damningly—no real forensic analysis was ever conducted to determine the scope and impact of the compromise. At no point did anyone pause and take a breath to say, “Maybe we should actually stop using these machines until we’re absolutely sure they’re safe.”

A proper response would have been as follows: first, halt the use of all affected systems; second, image the compromised machines to preserve the evidence; third, bring in qualified cyber forensic experts to determine if, when, and how the systems were breached; fourth, address the timing and impact of any compromise, especially since this breach was active during the Colorado primary election. And fifth—and only after all other steps were satisfactorily completed—remove any malicious influence, if possible, and restore functionality. None of this happened.

White House

What did happen, instead, was a spectacle of bureaucratic incompetence that would be almost humorous if it weren’t undermining the sanctity of Colorado’s elections. The public was told, “Nothing to see here, folks, move along,” as if we’re all too stupid to understand the ramifications of a four-month breach that affected a majority of the state’s counties. Anyone insisting today that Colorado’s voting systems are secure, or that citizens can rest assured their votes have been accurately counted, is either woefully ignorant or has a vested interest in upholding the false narrative of a “swift response.”

Consider, for comparison, the case of Tina Peters. The former Mesa County Clerk, convicted in October 2024 for allowing access to her county’s voting systems to a security consultant in 2021, received a nine-year prison sentence. Nine years for trying to determine if voting machines were secure—yet Griswold’s office escapes unscathed after spilling the keys to half the state for four months. How is it that Peters is demonized while Griswold and her team, despite being blatantly negligent, get a pass? It seems there are different rules for those in power, especially if they have the right political connections.

In the wake of the breach, the Libertarian Party of Colorado filed a lawsuit against Griswold, demanding she step aside from her election responsibilities, remove compromised devices from service and order ballots to be hand-counted in affected counties. Yet Griswold’s lawyers, in a performance of unrepentant arrogance, argued that such actions would create “chaos” with Election Day looming. It’s always chaos that’s to be avoided, never accountability.

During the subsequent court hearing, it became clear just how deep the rot went: 46 counties had systems with the passwords exposed, and 34 of those still had active passwords. The court dismissed the testimony of expert Clay Parikh, an election systems analyst for nearly a decade, because—wait for it—he supposedly wasn’t qualified to discuss Colorado’s specific voting systems. The absurdity of the objection would be laughable if it didn’t have real-world consequences. It’s akin to saying an automotive engineer couldn’t testify about a car because it was built in a different state. Yet this is where we are: justice obstructed, integrity compromised and those responsible for safeguarding democracy performing nothing but a hollow pantomime of action.

The Colorado voting machine breach reveals a deeper problem than just passwords. It is a vivid illustration of an administration that is either grossly incompetent or willfully misleading—a regime more concerned with optics and PR than with the actual mechanics of secure elections. It is an indictment of a system where a blatant error can go ignored, where citizens are left in the dark, and where those tasked with protecting democracy seem more interested in protecting themselves.

Griswold and Polis’ swift action? Hardly. This was no more a “swift response” than a glacier moving to the sea. It was, at its heart, a lesson in deception, designed to mask the fact that those entrusted to secure our democracy were asleep at the wheel, dreaming of positive headlines, while anyone with half a brain could see the road to disaster unfolding right in front of them. And disaster it was—for the integrity of Colorado’s election system, for the voters who depend on it, and for anyone who still believes in a modicum of accountability in government. This entire failure underscores the necessity of adopting paper ballots and same-day voting for federal elections, eliminating the vulnerabilities inherent in electronic voting systems and restoring confidence in our democratic processes.

*Thanks given to Amuse and Shawn Smith @ShawnSmith1776 on X as sources

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Explaining Trump’s Victory To Europe: The Values That Defined The Election

8.November.2024.

For Europeans who find themselves “shocked” and “surprised” by President-elect Donald Trump‘s sweeping victory alongside Republican gains, allow me to explain. Much of this reaction stems from European media coverage, which has often painted Trump as unelectable and his policies as extreme. Political attitudes in Europe, shaped by a preference for consensus politics and a skepticism towards populism, further contributed to the surprise at his success. My explanation draws from both personal observation and the raw truth of hard data. This analysis is inspired by Konstantin Kisin’s insightful ten-point summary of the current American political landscape—a summary I find not only persuasive but foundational. With his structure as a starting point, I will provide expanded commentary enriched with the viewpoint of a Trump-supporting Texan.

The American Love for Strength and Winning

Konstantin rightly emphasizes that Americans love their country with a fervor that defies cynicism. This love is deeply rooted in the nation’s history. In contrast, European national sentiment often emphasizes a cautious pride shaped by historical challenges and a preference for collective unity. Leaders like Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, for example, have often spoken of European strength in terms of unity and reconciliation rather than triumphalism, reflecting a different approach to national identity that is less about conquest and more about managing the legacy of past conflicts. From the pioneers moving westward during the era of Manifest Destiny, to the Apollo missions that extended American ingenuity beyond Earth’s confines, there exists an innate drive to conquer and excel. Unlike the often self-effacing tone of many European leaders, American leaders like Trump, who exude confidence and speak in triumphalist terms, find a ready audience. When Trump speaks of “Making America Great Again,” he taps into an elemental instinct—the rejection of decline and a yearning for resurgence. This spirit of innovation is reflected in America’s unmatched investment in startups and technology. In 2023 alone, the United States saw over 72,000 early-stage startups founded, while Europe lagged behind with only about 27,000, primarily concentrated in countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Investors in the U.S. poured more than $330 billion into these startups, compared to Europe’s $80 billion. The wealth generated by American innovation dwarfs that of Europe—with companies like Apple, Amazon and Google leading global markets. Furthermore, the U.S. consistently welcomes more legal immigrants than any European nation, admitting over one million legal immigrants annually, compared to Germany, the largest recipient in Europe, which accepted roughly 300,000 in 2023. This combination of robust innovation, investment and an open approach to legal immigration has allowed the United States to maintain its dynamism and national pride while Europe contends with post-national ideologies that have left many feeling detached and disempowered. America’s enduring national pride refuses to let such sentiments prevail.

Rejecting Managed Decline and Embracing Energy Independence

Europe has adopted a policy of “managed decline,” a notion embodied in their relentless pursuit of Net Zero policies, often at odds with economic survival. Meanwhile, Americans—led by Trump—rebuffed this notion in favor of energy independence. Under Trump’s leadership, America became a net energy exporter for the first time in over sixty years. The U.S. produces vastly more natural resources than Europe, including oil, natural gas and coal, with significant contrasts between the U.S. and specific European countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, which rely heavily on imports for their energy needs. In 2023, the United States produced approximately 18.9 million barrels of oil per day, compared to Europe’s production of under 3 million barrels per day. Natural gas output also starkly contrasts, with the U.S. producing over 934 billion cubic meters annually, while Europe remains heavily dependent on imports, producing less than 300 billion cubic meters. The shale revolution, particularly driven by advancements in fracking technology, unlocked massive reserves in the U.S., such as the Permian Basin, which alone contains more recoverable oil than all of Europe. The shale boom created millions of jobs and reduced energy costs across the country. While Europe succumbed to reliance on Russian energy and was left vulnerable, Trump’s doctrine of “energy dominance” made economic growth and national security two sides of the same coin. American voters instinctively understand that prosperity and sovereignty are intertwined—a lesson Europe seems to have forgotten.

Inflation and the Price of the American Dream

Under the Biden-Harris administration, inflation surged, with basic grocery prices increasing by over 20% between 2021 and 2024. The Federal Reserve’s initial characterization of this inflation as “transitory” was a significant misjudgment. Americans witnessed their savings diminish and purchasing power decline. Trump and the Republicans, rather than merely assigning blame, acknowledged this reality—a reality many voters were experiencing firsthand. In a nation where the cost of the American Dream—the house, the car, the kids—is closely tied to economic stability, this message resonated deeply. Americans will not abide by leaders who dismiss their struggles or fail to safeguard the basic aspirations of the middle class.

A Culture of Merit, Not Envy

Elvert Barnes from Baltimore, Maryland, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0

Konstantin draws a clear distinction between American and European perspectives on wealth. Unlike Europe’s turn towards socialist ideals and the promotion of egalitarianism at any cost, America remains fundamentally a meritocracy. Americans celebrate the drive to succeed, no matter how high the ambition. In 2023, private wealth per adult in the U.S. averaged around $580,000, while in Europe, it averaged significantly less, at approximately $230,000. This disparity highlights the immense individual wealth Americans enjoy compared to Europeans. Moreover, Americans have far greater access to credit and debt markets; the total household debt in the U.S. reached over $16 trillion in 2023, indicating a robust financial system that allows for significant borrowing to fuel growth and entrepreneurship. In contrast, European households have more limited access to debt, which restricts economic mobility. Additionally, the tax burden on individuals in the U.S. is generally lower compared to most European countries. In the United States, the top marginal income tax rate stands at around 37%, whereas in many European nations like France and Germany, it exceeds 45%. The combination of greater wealth, access to credit and a relatively lower tax burden underpins a culture that not only values success but provides the means to achieve it. Trump’s own wealth served as an aspirational symbol—proof that success is within reach for anyone willing to seize it. His policies, aimed at tax reduction and deregulation, sought to preserve and enhance these opportunities for all.

Pro-Immigration, But Pro-Law

Americans are, as Konstantin points out, pro-immigration. This nation was built by immigrants who sought a better life, and its mythology is one of welcoming the “huddled masses.” From 2000 to the present, the United States consistently accepted significantly more legal immigrants than Europe. In the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, the U.S. admitted over 20 million legal immigrants, averaging about one million per year. By contrast, Europe, even including its most open countries, admitted less than half that number annually, with around 10 million immigrants in total during the same period. Economically, these legal immigrants have been instrumental in driving U.S. growth. Between 2000 and 2020, immigrants added approximately $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP, boosting entrepreneurship and filling critical roles in industries like technology, healthcare and agriculture. In Europe, while immigrants contributed to the economy, the overall economic impact was more modest—estimated at around $600 billion over the same period—due to higher unemployment rates among immigrants and more restrictive labor markets. Americans also cherish the rule of law. The chaos unleashed by the Biden-Harris regime’s open border policies, which saw over 7 million illegal crossings between 2021 and 2024, was intolerable to a populace that believes in both compassion and order. Trump’s insistence on “building the wall” was never about anti-immigrant sentiment—it was about ensuring that America remains a place of opportunity, not lawlessness. For instance, the strain on social services in border states like Texas and Arizona has been immense, with local hospitals and schools struggling to accommodate the surge of undocumented immigrants. The cost of providing emergency health care, education and law enforcement in these areas has placed a significant burden on state budgets, illustrating the economic impact of unchecked illegal immigration. Legal immigration enriches the nation; illegal immigration undermines it, threatening both security and cohesion.

Rejecting DEI as Racist, Not Progressive

Konstantin rightly identifies the discomfort many Americans feel toward DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives. The American historical narrative, with its chapters of slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, underscores the necessity of equality. But DEI—by enforcing quotas and obsessing over racial identity—is a huge step backward. Americans fought a Civil War to end race-based discrimination, and they find it difficult to accept policies that institutionalize racism. The American ethos celebrates individual merit, not group identity. Trump’s rejection of these policies spoke to a broad swath of Americans who see DEI as an ill-conceived attempt to correct past wrongs by inflicting new ones.

Evidence of the negative impact of DEI policies is apparent in recruitment struggles faced by the U.S. military. Recent reports indicate that the Army and Navy both failed to meet their recruitment goals in 2023. In fiscal year 2023, the Army achieved only 76.6% of its recruitment goal, enlisting 50,181 individuals out of a target of 65,500. Similarly, the Navy and Air Force fell short of their objectives, while the Marine Corps and Space Force met theirs. The implementation of DEI initiatives played a significant role in these recruitment challenges. According to documents obtained by The Daily Caller in 2024, the Air Force explicitly aimed to reduce the number of white male candidates joining officer ranks, instead seeking to prioritize minority and female officers. This intentional shift has made it increasingly difficult for qualified white men to be accepted into officer candidacy programs. Such directives have exacerbated the perception that the military is more concerned with meeting diversity quotas than maintaining operational excellence, leading to decreased morale and recruitment struggles.

In the corporate world, backlash against DEI policies has also gained traction. Boeing, for example, dismantled its DEI department this year, citing a desire to refocus on performance-based hiring and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Other companies, such as Disney and Netflix, have similarly scaled back their DEI initiatives in response to shareholder concerns and declining employee satisfaction. This trend illustrates a growing sentiment that DEI, rather than fostering inclusiveness, has become a divisive force within organizations. Americans value fairness and opportunity for all, but the enforcement of DEI policies is increasingly viewed as antithetical to the meritocratic principles upon which American success is built.

The Memory of 9/11 and the Rejection of Jihad

Americans are among the most pro-Israel people on Earth, and Konstantin underscores this point effectively. The events of October 7, 2023—when Hamas launched a coordinated attack on Israel involving rocket barrages and incursions into civilian areas—were a jarring reminder of the ongoing threats posed by jihadist ideologies. This attack resulted in significant loss of life and highlighted the persistent dangers faced by Israel from militant groups. For Americans who vividly recall September 11, 2001, the face of jihad is unmistakable, and there is no equivocating between aggressor and victim. Trump’s unflinching support for Israel, coupled with his willingness to call out radical Islam, resonated with voters who were tired of politically correct platitudes in the face of genuine evil. The pro-Hamas rallies that swept European capitals following the attacks left many Americans incredulous, but what was even more shocking was the apparent division within the Democrat Party itself. Roughly half of the Democratic leadership seemed to side with narratives that were sympathetic to the terrorists, which stood in stark contrast to the overwhelming condemnation from both the American right and much of the left, who united against radical Islam. This only served to make Trump’s strong stance more appealing to voters seeking unambiguous leadership in the fight against terror.

Pragmatism Over Rhetoric

As Konstantin notes, Americans are far less concerned with political niceties than their European counterparts. Trump’s rhetoric, often bombastic and blunt, lacks the polish that European voters might expect. European leaders like Emmanuel Macron, who has often presented polished but ultimately deceptive narratives around issues such as pension reform—such as his controversial handling of the 2023 pension protests, which saw widespread strikes while Macron downplayed the unrest—and Olaf Scholz, who has used vague reassurances while avoiding concrete actions on energy dependency, particularly during the 2022 energy crisis when Germany struggled to reduce reliance on Russian gas, exemplify this difference. But Americans are results-oriented. Under Trump, the economy grew, energy prices fell, and America’s adversaries knew where they stood. Voters value effectiveness over elegance. The genteel debates and theoretical musings so cherished by European intellectuals are less appealing when juxtaposed with the practical concerns of putting food on the table, securing the border, and deterring foreign adversaries. To Americans, Trump’s brand of directness signals sincerity—they would rather have an honest fighter than a well-mannered deceiver.

Conclusion

Trump’s sweeping victory and the Republican gains can largely be attributed to a resurgence of traditional American values—strength, independence and a staunch defense of meritocracy. These values were reinforced by policies promoting energy independence, economic growth, lower taxes and a strong stance on immigration control. Trump’s success is a reflection of American voters seeking leadership that emphasizes pragmatic solutions over empty promises, champions national pride and remains steadfast in defending the core tenets of opportunity and merit. Unlike Europe, America refuses to accept managed decline, focusing instead on growth, energy independence and preserving the American Dream. The failures of the Biden-Harris regime, exemplified by inflation, chaotic immigration policies and divisive DEI initiatives, created fertile ground for Trump’s return. The American people, driven by a desire for pragmatic leadership, have chosen a path that rejects empty rhetoric and demands results. This election was not merely about party loyalty; it was about a vision for America that champions opportunity, security and unapologetic national pride. The message from American voters is clear: they are ready for a leader who will stand strong for their values, protect their interests and restore their confidence in the future of the nation.

Konstantin Kisin is a British-Russian comedian, author and social commentator known for his sharp critiques of political correctness and his insightful analyses of cultural and political issues. He gained prominence as co-host of the podcast ‘TRIGGERnometry,’ where he engages in discussions on free speech, politics, and societal trends. Kisin has also authored books exploring the nuances of Western society and has become a prominent voice in debates around culture and immigration, offering perspectives that blend humor with serious commentary. His background gives him a unique vantage point to understand the cultural and political dynamics at play in both Europe and America. This essay was based on a thread he posted on X on November 6th, 2024.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Trump Just Curb-Stomped the Uniparty


Donald Trump just curb-stomped the uniparty.

Because the GOP is now on an irreversible path to populism.

Meaning the uniparty is no longer a done deal. Its schemes are now out in the open for democratic debate.

Where they will lose.

Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard actually dreamed of this 30 years ago: A pro-freedom firebrand populist who skips the elite and speaks directly to the people.

Donald Trump pulled it off.

Trump’s Revolution

Donald Trump has just pulled off one of the greatest upsets in American political history, facing an assembled army of nearly every institution, every corporation, every lever of power and public opinion from Big Tech to Hollywood to the news media.

He won because he masterfully converted an elite-dominated GOP into a grassroots populist movements that finally speaks to the American people.

In contrast, Dems stuck with the uniparty script, appealing to donors, corporations, the financial elite, and our ruling bureaucracy.

Voters were ready. Because when the pendulum swings a little bit and you’ve got controlled opposition, the reaction is regime apologists like Mitt Romney and John McCain.

But when the pendulum swings a lot and you’ve built a grassroots movement, you get Donald Trump.

Rothbard’s Grassroots Populism

My favorite economic historian Murray Rothbard actually dreamed of this 30 years ago in an essay called A Strategy for the Right.

Rothbard goes through the effete opposition of post-FDR establishment conservatives, who wasted decades doing cleanup for the left’s revolution.

As Michael Malice put it, establishment conservatives were progressives going the speed limit.

This, of course, is the famous uniparty.

According to Rothbard, instead of cleanup, we need a populist firebrand who can unite small-government economic and social conservates to hack the federal government to oblivion — what they take, what they spend, what they control.

For Rothbard, this means engagement in the culture wars, in kitchen-table economic issues, reaching out to form alliances with fellow travelers of either party.

Rothbard stressed intellectual guerilla warfare, talking directly to the people. Not using universities to influence the elite but going directly to voters on issues they actually care about, demystifying and delegitimizing state power.

Above all, talking to the working-class, who are both the most patriotic and the most skeptical of faculty-lounge leftism.

Trading the Bowtie for the McDonald’s Apron

In short, Rothbard advocated trading the pipe and bowtie of elite engagement for the McDonald’s apron.

That is Trump.

The firebrand style. The war on woke. Alliances with fellow travelers from RFK to Tulsi to former Democrats Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

Trump treated the universities — indeed, the entire left-wing intellectual elite — with utter disdain.

And they still hate him for it.

Contrast with a Mitt Romney who deeply cares about getting invited to the good cocktail parties.

Trump, instead, gave them the middle finger.

And he loved every minute of it.

Trump has converted Republicans forever into exactly what Rothbard dreamed of: A grassroots, people-first movement, not an errand-boy for the left-wing elite.

Republican *politicians, of course, are a work in progress: Congress rigs the rules so once you’re in you stay in. So it’s a slow process replacing obsolete RINO’s with America-First Republicans.

Still, politics is the art of finding a parade and getting in front of it, and 95% of Republicans just chose Trump.

So the politicians will evolve or they’ll be replaced

What’s Next

Donald Trump has vindicated Rothbard’s dream of a grassroots populist movement speaking directly to both economic and cultural conservatives.

He has forever transformed the Republican electorate into populists who will, with time, transform the entire party.

Over time, that new populist GOP will cripple the elite uniparty that’s spent a century crippling America.

This would transform our elections from uniparty play-fight into true contests of people versus elite. As they used to be before the Progressives seized both parties in the 1910’s.

Dare we dream, if the new populist GOP succeeds, even the Democrat party will question its loyalty to an elite rather than the people they serve.

That means we could be on the first steps towards liberating both parties — and therefore the nation — from the elites who have tried their best to gut this country.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Kamala Harris Admits That Everything She Said About Trump Was A Lie

7.November.2024.

Vice President Kamala Harris concedes

Failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris admitted on Wednesday that she knew every single attack she launched against President-Elect Donald Trump and his presidency was a bald-faced lie.

More than twelve hours after Trump delivered a stunning blow to the regime and swept both the popular vote and Electoral College, Harris took the stage at Howard University to begrudgingly concede. She could have conceded in the wee hours of the morning, but that would have required showing up when it mattered — something she clearly doesn’t do (see her disastrous handling of Afghanistan).

But it wasn’t her hollow speech about “unity” and “joy” that stood out. It was the moment she openly confessed to spreading egregious falsehoods about Trump for months, all in a desperate attempt to sway the election.

“To the young people that are watching, it is okay to feel sad and disappointed,” Harris said. “But please know it’s going to be okay.”

It’s going to be okay?

How can it be okay when Harris told us that her opponent is a fascist? She said a Trump victory would be “dangerous” and a “huge risk for America.” Harris claimed that Trump “wants to send the military after American citizens” and that “he is out for unchecked power.” She painted him as an existential threat to “democracy” itself.

But now it’s “going to be okay”?

The truth is, it’s easy for her to say that “it’s going to be okay” because it will be okay. And it will be okay because everything Harris said was just a lie. The attacks, the smears, the fearmongering — it was nothing more than a political stunt designed to scare voters into supporting her because her policy positions weren’t enough to drag her across the finish line.

Harris banked her entire electoral victory on her supporters being ignorant about who Trump really is and what his presidency could achieve. And now, after losing, she can admit the truth — but it’s too little too late. Her divisive rhetoric, alongside the hate-filled narrative pushed by her party and the propaganda press, did more than just tarnish Trump’s reputation — it demonized half the country. It fostered an atmosphere of hate that contributed to the first two assassination attempts against Trump.

But now she wants to say it’s “going to be okay”?

Sure, things will be okay — thanks to Trump’s leadership and America-first policies. But the damage Harris did by stoking division, fear, and hatred for political gain will never be “okay.”

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Hit the Road, Jack. But Don’t Go Too Far


After spending at least $50 million in tax dollars to bring two unprecedented indictments against Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith should get his turn under prying eyes.

Jack Smith lurched into a Washington courtroom in September, fully aware all eyes had turned to him.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Surrounded by a team of federal prosecutors and guarded by a government-paid security detail, Smith, a lanky man with a scruffy beard and ill-fitting suit, stood behind the government’s table with arms folded. He slowly turned around with a partial scowl to appraise the audience—mostly reporters and D.C. residents eager to watch the restart of his January 6-related case against Donald Trump—to make sure he was noticed. He did not speak during the proceedings.

That appearance, perhaps unbeknownst to him at the time, looks like Smith’s last time in a federal courtroom as the special counsel prosecuting Trump. Citing Department of Justice rules that prohibit the prosecution of a sitting president, Smith reportedly is working with his bosses at the DOJ to figure out how to drop both the D.C. case and the classified documents in case in Florida; Smith has appealed Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing the indictment based on the special counsel’s unconstitutional appointment.

The move represents another political fatality tied to Trump’s resounding victory on Tuesday. It also represents another humiliating defeat for the man the media portrayed as a steely war-crimes prosecutor plucked off a high profile international trial at the Hague by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022 to finally realize a longtime DOJ dream: put Donald Trump behind bars.

Stone Cold Loser Loses Again

But the hagiography about Smith—reporters swooned over the silent-type injured triathlete, even covering his stop at a DC sandwich shop in 2023 as “breaking news”—never matched his record. The Supreme Court in 2016 unanimously vacated the bribery conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a case brought by Smith when he led the DOJ’s public corruption office during the Obama administration. Following Smith’s appointment, McDonnell told Mark Levin that Smith would “rather win than get it right.”

Smith, however, usually does neither. In fact, his prosecutorial resume is a long list of courtroom losses, which makes one wonder why Garland chose him for the job. (More here).

Smith failed to win a single conviction in his prosecution of former Senator John Edwards on campaign finance charges in 2012. One DOJ watchdog group slammed Smith for using an “overly aggressive approach” in pursuing Obama’s 2008 Democratic primary rival and for relying on a “novel interpretation of campaign finance laws” to put Edwards behind bars.

It is an approach he repeated in his two unprecedented criminal indictments of Trump. The four counts in his J6-related case rely on vague conspiracy and obstruction statutes; two of the charges involve 18 USC 1512(c)(2), the post-Enron tampering with documents statute. In June, the Supreme Court reversed how the DOJ had applied that law in hundreds of January 6 cases and the court would have reached the same conclusion about Smith’s interpretation of the law if the case ever made it there.

In fact, the court this year rebuked Smith twice—by denying his highly unusual request to bypass the D.C. appellate court to immediately consider the presidential immunity question and by rendering its landmark decision in Trump v US, which largely gutted the J6 indictment.

Evidence of Misconduct in Classified Docs Case Demands Investigation

Smith’s classified documents case consisted of a hodgepodge of allegations about Trump’s possession of alleged national defense papers after he left office and accusations that he and two aides attempted to obstruct the investigation, which began in February 2022. But the DOJ’s handling of the case represents the best opportunity for a Trump DOJ to turn the tables and investigate main Justice and Special Counsel’s office for numerous offenses.

The case was tainted from the start. Although the alleged crimes occurred in Palm Beach, the DOJ conducted the entire investigation in the Trump-hating courthouse in Washington. This permitted unabashed Trump hater Chief Judge Beryl Howell to act as a rubber stamp for the DOJ’s requests including authorizing grand jury subpoenas and piercing attorney-client privilege claims between Trump and his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, under the rarely-used crime fraud exception.

Smith transferred the case to the proper jurisdiction in southern Florida at the last minute to get an indictment and then ran into a buzzsaw named Judge Aileen Cannon.

Thanks to Cannon’s fierceness—her concerns over the dirty nature of the case dates back to September 2022 when she appointed a third party to vet the items collected during the FBI’s armed raid of Mar-a-Lago the month before—the special counsel’s office was forced to disclose instances of tampering with and perhaps destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, withholding discovery, and misleading the court. 

Court proceedings also revealed egregious misconduct related to the unprecedented armed raid of Mar-a-Lago; agents working out of the Washington and Miami FBI field offices breached the broad terms of the search warrant by ransacking the bedrooms of Melania and Barron Trump. The FBI’s plan included the bureau’s use of lethal force policy, underscoring the excessiveness of the raid, which was altogether unnecessary considering Trump and his lawyers had been cooperating with authorities for months.

Prosecutors later admitted in court that some of the records seized during the raid were not properly handled by investigators; defense attorneys claimed documents were missing.

Defense attorneys also obtained communications between the DOJ, the National Archives, and the Biden White House that demonstrated a behind-the-scenes effort to concoct a documents case as early as May 2021. A Trump DOJ should haul before a grand jury everyone from Biden’s general counsel Jonathan Su to deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco and top NARA officials involved in the scheme.

Conspiracy to defraud, anyone?

Show Us the Money

A full-blown audit into the special counsel’s expenditures should be conducted by either a Trump DOJ or a Republican Congress. Smith’s prosecutors often bragged about “the permanent, indefinite appropriation for independent counsels” allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 591 note, a claim Judge Cannon also doubted.

According to required financial reports, Smith’s team spent at least $35 million in the first 14 months of his investigation, a figure that includes additional support from main Justice. But those costs only cover the period from November 2022 through March 2024; it’s likely Smith blew through another $15 million or so over the last several months, bringing the total to over $50 million.

Expenses include a protective detail for Smith; travel expenses; and millions in unspecified “contractual services.”

Time to see who and what companies profited off the special counsel grift.

Weak Republicans in Congress undoubtedly will resist efforts to investigate and audit Smith but Trump should ignore them.

The American people—as well as Trump himself and his co-defendants—deserve a full accounting of this dirty, rogue, secretive process. And Smith and his accomplices need to be held accountable.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

The gross, and I do mean gross injustice of slavery reparations

3.November.2024.

It’s absurd to hold Americans, let alone ordinary ‘Britoneons’ responsible for the slave trade.

The gross injustice of slavery reparations

Commonwealth leaders concluded last week’s summit in Samoa by announcing that Britain should commit to reparations for its role in the transatlantic slave trade.

UK prime minister Keir Starmer had tried to refocus the summit around ‘future-facing’ challenges such as climate change. His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, was more blunt. She told the BBC last week that ‘We’re not going to be paying out the reparations that some countries are speaking about’. Yet in the end, it was to no avail. A day later, the 56 heads of government, including Starmer, signed a letter agreeing that ‘the time has come’ for a ‘meaningful, truthful and respectful conversation’ about Britain paying reparations.

This outcome was hardly a surprise. Over the past few years, the demand that the UK pay vast sums to the descendants of slaves has gained momentum. In August 2023, Patrick Robinson, a judge at the UN, argued that Britain owes £18 trillion in reparations. In March this year, the Church of England announced it would raise £1 billion to address its historic links to slavery. An All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Afrikan Reparations has been launched to push the issue in Westminster. And in David Lammy, we now have a foreign secretary who has repeatedly endorsed calls for reparations.

The reparations movement has gained so much traction because of the lack of any well-articulated rebuttal, especially from Britain’s political class. This has allowed pro-reparations campaigners to shape the narrative without challenge.

The argument for reparations rests on the contention that slavery and colonialism are solely responsible for both the wealth of former colonial powers and the poverty of former colonies. As Kehinde Andrews, an academic and staunch advocate for reparations, put it recently on BBC Two’s Politics Live: ‘The wealth we have today directly comes from slavery and the former British Empire.’

This narrative is widely propagated. It is also incredibly simplistic and overlooks the complex web of factors that has influenced global economic development over the past few hundred years. As then business and trade minister Kemi Badenoch rightly pointed out earlier this year, Britain’s prosperity cannot be attributed solely to colonial exploitation – and the economic challenges facing Britain’s former colonies cannot be blamed entirely on British rule, either.

Singapore, for example, was a British colony between 1819 and 1965. Despite this legacy, it has emerged as a global economic success story, largely due to political and economic reforms under former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. At the same time, slave trading is hardly a guarantee of future wealth. Quite the opposite. The slave trade in the American South arguably stunted the region’s economic growth by creating an over-reliance on an outdated agrarian economy.

Reparations campaigners will also point to what they consider to be a monumental injustice – namely, the then British government’s decision in 1835 to take out a loan of £20million (worth over £2.5 billion today) to compensate slave-owners for their ‘loss of property’. Yet, in many ways, the nature of this payment is misunderstood. The British government was effectively paying for the slaves’ liberty, rather than ‘rewarding’ slave-owners. It was a pragmatic decision taken to overcome the resistance of slave-owners and to expedite the emancipation of their slaves.

Moreover, Britain was hardly a nation of slave-owners. In fact, only about 40,000 British individuals actually owned slaves during the abolitionist era and only 3,000 received reparations. The vast majority of British people at the time were economically marginalised themselves and did not directly benefit from the slave trade. Asking today’s working and middle classes to ‘compensate’ for the actions of a small elite from two centuries ago is wrong and historically misguided.

Here we come to the nub of the problem. Too often reparations campaigners distort the tragic and painful history of slavery to make their arguments. They overlook inconvenient historical facts, such as the role of the African rulers who actively participated in the slave trade and frequently resisted abolition. African leaders such as King Ghezo of Dahomey (modern-day Benin) directly benefitted from slavery, amassing wealth and power by selling captives from rival tribes to European traders. When the British sought to end the trade, King Ghezo reportedly resisted, declaring that, ‘The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people – it is the source and the glory of their wealth’.

I am far from opposed to reparations per se. I would support reparations for living victims of state injustices, from Holocaust survivors to Japanese Americans interned during the Second World War. If individual families wish to pay reparations for their forebears’ role in the slave trade, as the Trevelyan family has done, then that is their choice. However, it is a very different matter to make vague demands of the entire U.S. and British public for reparations for events from centuries ago.

Chattel slavery and colonialism were devastating and morally abhorrent chapters in human history. But the best path forward is to treat individuals from all backgrounds as equals, free of the reductive labels of historical victimhood and unburdened by grievance.

Rather than obsessing over the past, Britain and its former colonies should look toward opportunities for partnership, development and trade. The reparations movement risks becoming a drain on moral and political discourse in both countries and beyond, shifting responsibility from modern elites who can enact change to a defeatist focus on historical grievances.

In the U.S. and Britian, the issue of reparations only fosters division and resentment. If our leaders want to prevent the call for reparations from gathering yet more momentum, they need to come up with a clear and reasoned response – one that acknowledges the complexities of history without conceding to misguided demands for financial atonement. Instead of allowing past injustices to dictate future policy, the focus should be on building a future that upholds true equality, freedom and shared prosperity.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Government Is Hiring Thousands While Private Sector Hemorrhages Jobs Left & Right. Know the dangers of governments having a higher percentage of workers than the private sector. You have now been warned!


A recent analysis reveals a troubling trend in the U.S. labor market: while private sector jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate, the federal government continues to expand its workforce. This discrepancy has raised concerns among economists and policymakers about the implications for economic growth and the overall job market.

According to the latest data, the private sector is facing significant job losses, with many industries experiencing layoffs and hiring freezes. As businesses struggle to navigate the ongoing challenges of the Biden-Harris economy, many have been forced to downsize, leading to a growing number of unemployed workers.

In stark contrast, the federal government is adding more jobs to its payroll. Recent reports indicate that the number of federal employees has been steadily increasing, reflecting a trend toward a larger government presence in the labor market. This expansion raises questions about the sustainability of such growth, especially as private sector job opportunities dwindle.

The October jobs report also saw employment gains in August and September be revised down by 81,000 and 31,000, respectively, bringing the number of jobs added for the months to 78,000 and 223,000, according to the BLS. Meanwhile, unemployment has risen substantially since April 2023 from 3.4% to 4.1%, with the increase prompting the Federal Reserve to cut the federal funds target range by 0.5%.

The impact of these job losses is felt most acutely in sectors that are traditionally considered pillars of the economy, such as manufacturing and retail. As companies streamline operations to cope with economic pressures, the prospects for workers in these fields remain bleak.

The economy was dogged by strikes in the third quarter of 2024, with tens of thousands of dock workers and Boeing airplane machinists ceasing work. Hurricanes Helene and Milton also could have reduced job growth by roughly 50,000, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

Relatedly, the disappointing employment gains under the Biden-Harris administration could worsen Vice President Kamala Harris‘ already weak standing with voters on the economy, as 54% of registered voters trust Trump to deal with the economy while just 45% trust Harris, according to the October Gallup poll. Inflation rose from 1.4% when President Joe Biden took office in January 2021 to approximately 9% in June 2022, and now sits at 2.4%.

Critics argue that an expanding federal workforce will only exacerbates the nation’s economic challenges. They contend that government jobs do not contribute to economic growth in the same way that private sector employment does, as federal positions are often funded by taxpayer dollars rather than generating revenue through goods and services.

Furthermore, as private sector workers find themselves without jobs, the growing federal workforce could strain public resources and lead to increased government spending without corresponding increase in revenue — and additionally create incentive for increased taxes and audits from the IRS.

The higher the percentage of Americans employed by the U.S. government, the more control the government has over its peoples.

Once more, you have been warned!

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

How USPS Politicization And Last-Minute Changes Put Election Confidence At Risk


A critical question arises: can we trust the systems responsible for ensuring the legitimacy of our votes? This issue is more pressing now, given the recent USPS directive, quietly issued at the end of September, to reroute mail-in ballots outside of the usual processing channels. The foundation of confidence in our electoral system demands that any deviation from established norms undergo rigorous scrutiny. The timing and nature of this last-minute change by the USPS not only threatens transparency but also risks compromising the integrity of our democratic processes. Combined with the partisan leanings of postal workers’ unions, this raises serious concerns about undermining public trust in our elections.

Historically, the USPS has relied on centralized processing facilities where each piece of mail, including absentee ballots, is scanned, photographed and weighed. The scanning equipment used is primarily the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking (MICT) system, which was introduced in 2001. Manufactured by Northrop Grumman, these machines are designed to capture an image of each piece of mail, allowing it to be tracked throughout the entire mail-handling process. This technology has provided a robust audit trail for all mail processed, ensuring a high level of transparency and accountability. This scanning process serves not only as a logistical necessity but also as a fundamental check on the integrity of the system. Each mail piece leaves behind a digital fingerprint—an image that can be used to cross-check, count and verify delivery against numbers reported by election officials. This ensures transparency; it allows voters and watchdog groups alike to verify that the numbers match up, that ballots sent are accounted for and that they safely reach their destination without tampering or manipulation.

2025 General Election Extraordinary Measures Memorandum

The new directive effectively sidelines this crucial verification process. Mail-in ballots, instead of passing through these central facilities, are now routed directly to local Boards of Elections (BOEs) without the standard imaging.

I never understood why Democrats were so focused on deploying thousands of ballot drop boxes—we’ve got post offices in every town and city across the country. Why build a secondary collection infrastructure? That was before I realized the USPS was scanning and photographing every ballot. This process allowed election officials to determine whether excess ballots were turned in outside of the USPS or if some ballots were excluded. The directive from the USPS to have ballots bypass facilities where they would be scanned and photographed could be a convenient alternative for someone intent on avoiding accountability, auditability or transparency.

There is no known precedent for sidelining the USPS’s centralized imaging system in previous election cycles. This last-minute directive fundamentally alters an established audit trail, appearing unprecedented and raising serious concerns about motives and consequences. The impact of this cannot be overstated: without centralized imaging, we lose the ability to confirm whether the number of ballots delivered corresponds to the number counted. Essentially, a crucial auditing mechanism has been deliberately disabled. The USPS will no longer be able to confirm the volume of mail-in ballots sent to election officials, nor will there be a way to ensure that fraudulent ballots are not introduced into the system or legitimate ballots excluded.

This decision did not emerge in a vacuum. The USPS itself is a highly unionized institution—with over 92% of its workers belonging to a union, the vast majority of whom are registered Democrats. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, 90% of postal workers’ political contributions go to Democrat candidates, further underscoring the partisan leanings within the institution. The National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), led by President Brian Renfroe, and the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), led by President Mark Dimondstein, along with other unions, have thrown their weight behind the Democrat Party, specifically endorsing Kamala Harris for President. This endorsement is not merely a statement of preference; it carries a much darker undertone. Union leaders, including Mark Dimondstein and Brian Renfroe, have explicitly communicated to their members that former President Donald Trump would dismantle the postal service, end democracy, and transform America into a fascist state. Such rhetoric raises a critical concern: How can we trust postal workers who have been conditioned to believe that one candidate threatens their livelihood and their country?

This is not about whether the unions’ political leanings are right or wrong. It’s about the potential for a conflict of interest so glaring that it risks compromising the integrity of our elections. When an organization that processes nearly half of all presidential ballots—approximately 65 million ballots nationally, accounting for nearly 46% of all votes—is not only politicized but actively working to influence the outcome of an election, alarm bells should be ringing for everyone, regardless of political persuasion. Moreover, certain states, such as Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii, conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, with over 90% of ballots being delivered and returned by the USPS. In these states, the influence of USPS is even more pronounced, making transparency and impartiality all the more critical. Imagine being a postal worker convinced by union leaders that President Trump is akin to a fascist dictator-in-waiting. What steps might you take? Would you quietly dispose of ballots from neighborhoods filled with Trump signs? Would you hesitate to deliver ballots to certain districts perceived as leaning conservative? Given that prosecutions in recent years have demonstrated that individual postal workers have indeed thrown away ballots, these concerns are not merely hypothetical—they are grounded in reality. These examples illustrate the potential for abuse and underscore the importance of accountability.

Just last month, reports surfaced of entire bundles of mail-in ballots discarded before reaching voters in crucial swing districts. This follows previous incidents where ballots were discovered in dumpsters, or delayed until they were no longer valid. For example, in 2020, postal worker Nicholas Beauchene of New Jersey was charged with delay of mail and obstruction of mail after discarding 99 ballots in dumpsters. Similarly, Thomas Cooper, a postal worker in West Virginia, was charged with attempted election fraud for altering ballot requests. Another case involved Michael Delacruz, a mail carrier from Pennsylvania, who faced charges for dumping mail, including ballots, in 2021. Such incidents have a direct impact on the fundamental right to vote. And yet, here we are, with a new directive that effectively disables the very mechanism that would allow us to identify such incidents in real time. Informed Delivery, a service that allowed voters to see scanned images of their ballots, provided a layer of confidence to voters by showing that their ballots were indeed in the mail. With 64.9 million active users, this service was a critical tool for voters to track their ballots. With this service now unable to provide images of ballots due to the bypass of centralized scanning, voters are left in the dark, unable to confirm if their ballot has even entered the system.

This culminates in a troubling reality: we are expected to accept, on faith alone, that everything will work out. But faith is not a foundation for democracy—verification is. Public confidence in our elections depends on robust systems that are transparent and auditable. By removing centralized imaging and routing ballots outside of the normal chain of custody, the USPS, under the Biden-Harris regime, has chosen opacity over transparency. This is not merely a bureaucratic choice; it is a political one with serious implications for the legitimacy of our elections.

The endorsement of Kamala Harris by postal unions, and the inflammatory rhetoric used by union leadership against President Trump, have not occurred in isolation. These actions paint a disturbing picture when combined with a directive that decreases transparency in handling ballots. This is not how public trust is built—it is how it is dismantled. For democracy to function, it is vital that voters have confidence not only in the fairness of the election but in the institutions tasked with safeguarding that fairness. When federal workers are openly partisan, and when the systems designed to ensure accountability are dismantled, public confidence erodes, and the specter of illegitimacy looms.

The Biden-Harris regime must be held accountable for these decisions. The American people deserve an electoral system that is both secure and visibly transparent—a system where transparency is prioritized over partisan interests. The decision to prevent the imaging of ballots undermines this transparency. The endorsement by postal unions undermines public confidence. These are not isolated incidents; they are deliberate choices made by those in power, and they have consequences.

We must remember that the integrity of our elections depends not only on preventing fraud but also on ensuring that every step of the process is open to scrutiny. By sidelining established verification procedures, the USPS is removing that scrutiny. The Biden-Harris administration has decided that political gain outweighs public trust, which ultimately poses the greatest danger. We can and must do better. The American people deserve nothing less. You have been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

First, Second, & Fourth Amendments Endangered By Kamala Harris


Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats claim they are the party of freedom. In Harris’ interview on Club Shay Shay on Monday, she argued that people need to vote for her to preserve the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, that Trump “wants to terminate the Constitution.”

Yet, on the First Amendment, Harris previously called for government “oversight or regulation” of social media to stop what she calls misinformation. In 2022, her vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Tim Walz, claimed: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.”

On gun ownership, Harris went so far as claiming: “I am in favor of the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that we should be taking anyone’s guns away.”

Reassuring, but Harris’ emphatic past support for gun control is consistent and legion. Let’s look at her record. She claimed during her 2020 presidential campaign, “I support a mandatory buyback program.” When pressed about Joe Biden’s claim at the time that she couldn’t ban assault weapons with an executive order, Harris enthusiastically responded, “Hey, Joe, rather than saying ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘Yes, we can.’”

But this is nothing new. Harris has strongly advocated for gun control for years. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, she declared, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible.”

She even supports warrantless searches, raising concerns she also doesn’t want to be bothered by the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2008 amicus brief, Harris argued that a complete ban on all handguns is constitutional. She even said there is no individual right to self-defense.

The Biden-Harris administration has been the most anti-self defense administration to date, shutting down thousands of gun dealers by mid-2022 due to minor paperwork errors. They renewed Obama’s Operation Choke Point to cut off financial resources for gun manufacturers and dealers; the companies that remained had to grapple with increased costs. The Biden-Harris administration has also established a national gun registry.

If Kamala Harris becomes president, she will push for even more restrictions. The new Office of Gun Violence Prevention is “overseen” by Harris, which coordinates the administration’s gun control initiatives. The office oversaw a recently released U.S. Surgeon General report that fails to mention a single benefit of gun ownership.

The OGVP was instrumental in implementing the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, introducing complex rules that classify many gun owners as firearms dealers. If you sell a gun to a friend once and discuss selling a second one to anyone, you must first become a licensed dealer. If you sell one gun and keep a record of the transaction, you are also required to first become licensed.

Many BCSA rules are vague, giving the government discretion to arbitrarily label individuals as dealers.

Under Harris’ leadership, the OGVP pushed for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers whenever criminals use their guns. She also pushed to ban semi-automatic “assault” weapons, and require background checks on all private gun transfers.

By early 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had developed a digital database containing nearly a billion firearms transactions.

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan and Thomas Massie found that Bank of America provided the FBI with credit card data for firearms purchases without even requiring a warrant or probable cause.

With a national gun registry in place, officials can now easily identify legal gun owners. Harris’ past threats to confiscate guns become much more likely to succeed.

Gun control has already taken center stage in Harris’ campaign. Harris made gun control a key topic in her first event in Wisconsin and again at a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers.

It isn’t just that Democrats want to regulate every part of our lives, but the real threat to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Bill of Rights are at risk from Harris. Those freedoms are endangered if she wins. You have been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Will Tuesday’s Vote Counts Be Another Sham Biden-Harris Statistic?


If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election on Tuesday, Americans will be told that the final vote count is a sacred number that was practically handed down from Mt. Sinai engraved on a stone tablet. Any American who casts doubt on Harris’s victory will be vilified like one of those January 6, 2021 protestors sent to prison for “parading without a permit” in the US Capitol. Actually, anyone who doubted the 2020 election results was being prominently denounced as “traitors” even before the Capitol Clash.

But is there any reason to expect the final vote count in this presidential election to be more honest than any other number that the Biden-Harris administration jiggered in the last four years?

Biden, Harris, and their media allies endlessly assured Americans that the national crime rate had fallen sharply since Biden took office. That statistical scam was produced by the equivalent of disregarding all the votes in California and New York. FBI crime data simply excluded many of the nation’s largest cities until a revision earlier this month revealed that violent crime had risen nationwide.

Deceitful national crime data helped cover-up the disastrous impact of open border policies. The Biden-Harris administration did backflips to avoid disclosing the true size of the surge of illegal immigrants from early 2021 onwards. Kamala Harris did zombie-like face plants in recent interviews when elbowed for honest answers.

In the same way that another surge of unverified mail-in ballots may determine the 2024 election, Biden manipulated the number of illegal aliens by using his presidential parole power to entitle more than a million people from Haiti, Venezuela, Cubans, and other countries to legally enter and stay in America on his own decree. The Biden administration even provided a vast secretive program to fly favored foreign nationals into select airports late at night where their arrival would occur under the radar.

Some states will officially count mail-in ballots that arrive well after Election Day even if the envelopes have no postmark. This is the same “late doesn’t matter” standard that Biden used to vindicate the $42 billion provided by his 2021 infrastructure law to boost broadband access in rural America—which Uncle Joe said was “not unlike what Roosevelt did with electricity.” Unlike the Tennessee Valley Authority, Biden’s broadband program has nothing to show since it delivered faster internet access to almost no one. The same default occurred with the Inflation Reduction Act’s alleged showpiece achievement—42,000 new charging stations around the nation for electric vehicles. But that program produced more presidential applause lines than EV refills. As of March, $7.5 billion in federal spending had only produced seven new charging stations nationwide.

How many votes will Harris lose on Tuesday because Americans remain outraged at the inflation that has slashed the dollar’s value by more than 20 percent since Biden took office? There would be far more popular fury if the feds had not deceived Americans about the full financial damage that Washington inflicted. The official inflation statistic doesn’t count soaring mortgage and housing costs—which is akin to excluding any state south of the Mason-Dixon Line from the national vote tally. Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, said that if the feds today used the same inflation gauges used in the 1970s, Biden’s peak inflation would have been 18 percent, twice as high as the reported number.

Tens of millions of voters will not be obliged to show any identification before voting in this election: they are presumed trustworthy regardless of zero verification. But this is the same standard that the Biden-Harris administration uses for not disclosing its most controversial policies to American citizens. People will vote next week without knowing the facts behind whistleblower allegations on Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz’s connections to the Chinese Communist Party, to Secret Service failures to prevent Trump assassination attempts, and the brazen details of the Censorship Industrial Complex.

In Washington, politicians feel entitled to applause for any grandiose promise—regardless of their failure to deliver. Similarly, politicians and election officials promising that the presidential vote count will be accurate and reflect “the will of the people” is far more important than tabulating the actual ballots. Will the unmanned ballot boxes in big cities be stuffed with bogus ballots the same way a politician jams endless balderdash into his campaign speeches? As pundit Stephen Kruiser quipped, “the clothing donation boxes that were all over my old neighborhood in Los Angeles were probably more secure than the ballot drop boxes.”

Of course, if Trump wins, then all the forces of decency must instantly shift to the other side of the barricades. Any electoral victory by Trump will be illegitimate because of politically incorrect comments made by speakers at Trump campaign rallies. As in 2017, if Trump wins, every “true patriot”—or at least every true progressive—will be honor-bound to join The Resistance™.

Keep your heads on a swivel. Do not say you have not been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Democrats, Not Republicans, Are Responsible for Post-Election Violence


Anti-Trump protestors, some violent, took over major U.S. cities for weeks in 2016. But the January 6-obssessed media and Democratic Party want the public to forget what happened. Here’s a reminder.

Donald Trump’s comments about envisioning neocon nepobaby Liz Cheney deployed to any one of the Cheney family’s favorite war zones has resulted in perhaps the most deceitful media campaign of the 2024 presidential news cycle. Cable news commentators including increasingly irrelevant and bitter NeverTrumpers such as Jonah Goldberg—who walked back his tirade on CNN claiming Trump advocated the use of a “firing squad” against Cheney—caterwauled how Trump’s remark would spark “political violence.”

The unsubstantiated allegation is central to Kamala Harris’ closing argument. She continues to insist without evidence that Trump is a perpetrator rather than a victim of “political violence.” Harris fielded a pre-planned question during a campaign stop in Wisconsin on Friday to accuse Trump of using “violent rhetoric” that disqualifies him from office. 

Despite numerous examples of Democrat-involved political violence in Washington over the past decade—2017 Trump inaugural riots, 2018 Kavanaugh protests, 2020 BLM/antifa riots, post-election confrontations with Trump supporters during “Stop the Steal” events in November and December 2020, and recent incidents tied to pro-Hamas demonstrations—the media now claims Republicans, not Democrats, will start tearing down major cities including the nation’s capital if Trump does not win the election.

January 6 Survivors Speak

D.C. police and activist groups, according to the Washington Post, are preparing for violence initiated by “white supremacists,” aka Trump voters, after Election Day. Apparently still traumatized by the unarmed four-hour disturbance on Capitol Hill nearly four years ago, the ruling elite wants to take every precaution necessary to prevent another QAnon shaman or Indiana meemaw from invading their personal fiefdom on the Potomac.

“I really fear outsiders coming in,” D.C. resident Gail Sullivan told the Post last week. ‘This is where the insurrection happened. Maybe it will spill out more into our neighborhoods than it did before.’”

D.C. resident Shreya Tulsiani told Politico last month that she still struggles with flashbacks of that fateful day. “January 6th was a very scary time,” she confessed. ‘I used to live right off of North Capitol Street, so I could see the Capitol. There were Proud Boys petting my dog that day.”

OMG PROUD BOYS PET HER DOG!

Cassie Miller and her husband recently decided to move out of their Capitol Hill home “having lived through” the events of January 6 and fearful of a reprise. “We decided we’d rather be safe than sorry,” Miller told the local D.C. NBC News channel.

To create more drama, the U.S. Capitol Police conducted a “mass casualty” exercise earlier this week, a publicity stunt intended to bolster fears of MAGA trouble. This is the same law enforcement agency, by the way, that protected then promoted Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt at near-point blank range on January 6.

Police across the country reportedly also are bracing for post-election violence. Why? Politico reporter Betsy Woodruff Swan of course blames Trump. “[As] Trump once again promotes falsehoods about election fraud and denigrates election officials, law enforcement officers worry that the floodgates to violence are open,” Swan claims. Swan then used a few thousand more words to detail alleged threats to election workers and other incidents that solely targeted Democrats and Democratic jurisdictions in the post 2020-period.

January 6 Amnesia

If reporters and their Democratic handlers suffer from amnesia about the recent history of election-related violence spawned by supporters of their own party, we know why. As repeatedly stated, every day is January 6, 2021 to Democrats and regime media. It’s as if American history ceased to exist in any meaningful way before that date; nothing that happened before January 6 matters.

So here is a little refresher about what went down following Trump’s shocking victory on November 8, 2016 when Democrats, NeverTrumpers, and the media exploded into a full-blown fit of rage:

  • The New York Times documented days of protests spanning 52 cities following Trump’s election. Anti-Trump demonstrators blocked traffic in Miami, Portland, Las Vegas, and Madison, Wisconsin; protesters burned an American flag in front of the Georgia Capitol building.
  • Democrats in Los Angeles burned a pinata resembling the president-elect.
  • After three days of intense violence, Portland police declared a riot on November 10, 2016. Anti-Trump thugs attacked police, vandalized business, and set buildings on fire. The following day, the Portland police department announced the use of “pepper spray, rubber ball distraction devices, [and] rubber baton rounds” to halt the rioting.
  • More than 7,000 protesters took to the streets of Oakland, California on November 9. A local Oakland newspaper described the chaos: “Protesters hurled Molotov cocktails, rocks and fireworks at police. Some protesters set off fireworks. Others burned a Trump effigy, and someone set a pile of cardboard on fire in the middle of a downtown intersection. A group of protesters wearing clown and Guy Fawkes masks used bricks, their feet and a large stick to smash the glass windows of the Oakland Coin and Jewelry Exchange at 1725 Broadway. Other storefronts on that block were covered in graffiti as well. Multiple trash and cardboard fires were started in the middle of the street and a much larger fire was raging at the intersection of 17th Street and Broadway.” At least three Oakland police officers were injured that night.
  • Confrontations with police in Omaha, Nebraska resulted in the deployment of mob control munitions on November 10, 2016; at least two people were arrested for obstructing justice.
  • Protesters began shouting “kill the police” during an anti-Trump demonstration in Indianapolis on November 12, 2016. Some protesters threw rocks at police; at least seven protesters were arrested and two officers received minor injuries.

Demonstrations lasted for weeks leading up to Inauguration Day. Students walked out of classes; protesters surrounded Trump’s hotel properties in Chicago, New York, and Washington; and clashes with police continued. Now, some events certainly can’t be categorized as violent but considering the Biden/Harris Department of Justice now considers anyone who nonviolently participated in the events of January 6 a domestic terrorist—the new rules must apply to history.

Post-election protests in 2016 culminated in a violent riot in the nation’s capital on January 20, 2017. Protesters tied to antifa lit cars and businesses on fire just blocks from the inauguration proceedings. More than 200 rioters were arrested and six officers sustained injuries.

But unlike those who protested on January 6, the DOJ dropped all charges against 2017 inaugural rioters.

In anticipation of potential post-election violence next week, D.C. businesses have begun boarding up their doors and windows. Regardless of the media spin or outlandish fears by D.C. residents of another unarmed “insurrection,” those business owners undoubtedly fear Kamala Harris supporters will cause trouble if she loses. After all, years of precedent prove the opposite of what Democrats and the media want the public to believe. They, not Trump supporters, represent the real threat for “political violence.”

Don’t say you have not been warned.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

How The FBI ‘Prebunked’ A True Story About The Biden Family’s Corruption Before The 2020 Election

1.November.2024.

In late 2019, the FBI came into possession of Hunter Biden‘s laptop. The laptop contained damning evidence that directly implicated the Biden family and Joe Biden himself. Specifically, it proved a pattern of influence-peddling, where political access was traded for personal and familial gain involving various international players. However, instead of revealing this information, or even preparing for a legitimate disclosure, the FBI chose a different route. Over the course of 2020, they embarked on a campaign with Big Tech to ensure this story—the truth—would be buried before it ever came to light. The FBI, aided by Big Tech companies, successfully suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story in an effort that ultimately constituted interference in the 2020 presidential election—and according to polling changed the outcome of the election.

The timeline of the Hunter Biden laptop story—from its initial acquisition by the FBI to the New York Post’s publication of the details, and the ensuing censorship by Big Tech—reveals the depth of coordination that was at play. The FBI’s actions went beyond mere incompetence or negligence; it was a preemptive strategy to condition influential social media platforms to dismiss any forthcoming stories about Hunter Biden as Russian disinformation. This “prebunking” approach—preemptively discrediting real information—ensured that when the truth finally emerged, it was met with skepticism, censorship and suppression.

The Timeline of Interference

The first significant event in this saga occurred in late 2019, when the FBI acquired Hunter Biden’s laptop. By this point, the FBI had verified its authenticity—a verification that took place before any public reporting on the laptop’s contents. The laptop, abandoned by Hunter Biden at a Delaware repair shop, contained emails, photos and documents detailing the Biden family’s involvement in foreign business dealings, with the former Vice President allegedly benefiting from these ventures. The laptop was, without a doubt, real, and the FBI knew it.

Despite this knowledge, the FBI took a questionable next step. In early 2020, they began meeting with Big Tech companies, such as Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft, ostensibly to prepare them for potential Russian disinformation campaigns targeting the upcoming election. During these meetings, the FBI set the narrative. They warned that foreign actors—most notably Russia—might attempt a “hack-and-leak” operation intended to discredit the Biden family. The FBI specified that this operation would likely involve claims about the Biden family’s ties to Ukraine—a detail very close to the information that was already present on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

These meetings between the FBI and Big Tech were not casual conversations. Over the course of 2020, the FBI held more than 30 such meetings with major social media platforms, consistently hammering home the point about an impending “October Surprise” in the form of leaked information about the Bidens. Not only did this position social media companies to expect an attack, but it also primed them to act as gatekeepers, ready to filter or suppress anything that matched the FBI’s predicted narrative.

Big Tech’s Role in Suppression

The turning point came in October 2020 when the New York Post published its explosive story on the Hunter Biden laptop. The timing—just weeks before the presidential election—made the story incredibly significant. Almost immediately after publication, Big Tech companies took action to limit its spread. Twitter outright banned users from sharing links to the story, even locking accounts that tried, including that of the New York Post itself. Facebook, for its part, suppressed the story’s reach on its platform, reducing its visibility to users and ensuring it would not gain traction in the crucial days leading up to the election.

This coordinated suppression did not happen in a vacuum. Internal communications from Facebook reveal that they were acting based on information from the FBI. In one chat, Facebook employees openly discussed how the FBI had warned them about an imminent leak related to Burisma—the Ukrainian energy company with ties to Hunter Biden. These conversations happened only a week before the New York Post story broke. The alignment between what the FBI had “warned” about and what actually happened was notable.

Even more noteworthy are the internal communications from Facebook and Microsoft employees, who acknowledged that the FBI had effectively “tipped them off” about the story. One Microsoft employee noted that the FBI’s warning had specifically mentioned a potential Burisma story, adding that the timing matched exactly with the New York Post release. Such specificity raises serious questions about whether the FBI’s intention was ever about safeguarding the election from disinformation—or if it was about managing the narrative to protect one candidate from a damaging story.

Facebook’s own leadership seemed aware of the stakes. In internal messages, Nick Clegg, Facebook’s Vice President of Global Affairs, admitted that their handling of this issue would influence how a “Biden administration views us.” This kind of political calculation—censoring legitimate news to curry favor with an incoming administration—is the very definition of election interference. The internal cynicism among Facebook’s staff was evident: when discussing their suppression of the New York Post story, one employee noted, “The Press is only as good to you as you are bad to Trump.”

The very employees tasked with executing these policies knew the likely impact. They joked about how, when eventually called to testify, they would say that their actions to “influence the 2020 election” had been planned with the U.S. government for years. These jokes were admissions. The censorship was not incidental; it was designed, coordinated, and executed based on direct guidance from the FBI.

The Impact on Public Perception

The FBI’s efforts did not end with Big Tech’s suppression of the story. Only days after the New York Post article was published, 51 former intelligence officials released a public statement claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This statement, orchestrated by Secretary Antony Blinken while he was an advisor to the Biden campaign, was intended to cast further doubt on the story. The statement provided the final piece of the puzzle: a supposed expert validation that the laptop was part of a foreign disinformation effort, even though it was not. Former Vice President Joe Biden cited this letter in his defense during debates, using it to dismiss the revelations as “Russian disinformation,” even as the FBI knew it was authentic.

In the four years since the 2020 election, the truth has slowly unraveled. Mark Zuckerberg and other Big Tech leaders have admitted that their actions to suppress the New York Post story were influenced directly by the FBI. These admissions come too late. The damage—in the form of suppressed information, manipulated public opinion and election interference—has already been done. The FBI’s preemptive framing of the Hunter Biden story as a Russian plot was a calculated effort to control the narrative and protect a favored candidate.

A Pattern of Censorship

What happened with Hunter Biden’s laptop was just the beginning. Once the Biden regime took office, pressure on Big Tech to censor content only grew. In the months following the inauguration, platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Amazon began receiving explicit demands from the White House to curb speech deemed undesirable by the regime. This included not only political content but also opinions and jokes, signaling an era of broad and pervasive censorship. My own accounts on Twitter and Medium were permanently suspended.

The collaboration between the Biden-Harris regime and Big Tech took many forms, but the roots were planted in 2020 when the FBI orchestrated a plan to “prebunk” an accurate story about Joe Biden’s corruption. This prebunking effort weaponized both the media and major technology companies, effectively turning them into tools of state influence. By controlling the flow of information, the FBI ensured that voters would not learn about Hunter Biden’s dealings until it was too late to matter. This not only undermined faith in the institutions that are supposed to ensure fair elections but also demonstrated a significant level of governmental overreach.

Conclusion

The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020 represents one of the clearest examples of state-sponsored election interference in U.S. history. The FBI had the laptop, verified its authenticity and instead of allowing the information to reach the public, undertook a campaign to preemptively discredit it. They primed Big Tech to see the story as a foreign attack, and when the New York Post broke the news, Big Tech platforms did what they had been conditioned to do—they censored it. The result was a manipulated election where critical information about one candidate was withheld from the public.

This case is not only about Hunter Biden’s laptop. It is about the relationship between the federal government and the platforms we rely on for information. It is about the deliberate actions taken by those in power to shape what voters know and, ultimately, how they vote. The weaponization of the FBI and Big Tech to “prebunk” a true story speaks to the broader dangers of unchecked government influence over supposedly independent media channels. As the revelations continue to unfold, the American people must demand accountability, transparency, and, most importantly, a commitment to protecting the sanctity of free and fair elections.

Category:

Uncategorized

Leave a comment

Tagged with: