Violence erupts during Paris protest against police brutality

 

December 5, 2020

PARIS (Reuters) – Dozens of hooded protesters launched projectiles at riot police, smashed up shop windows, torched cars and burned barricades during a demonstration in the French capital on Saturday against police violence. The police fired back volleys of tear gas.

Thousands of people had began marching peacefully in Paris when the clashes erupted between police and pockets of protesters, most dressed in black and their faces covered. Some used hammers to break up paving stones.

 

 

The protesters were denouncing police brutality and President Emmanuel Macron’s security policy plans which the demonstrators say would restrict civil liberties.

They waved banners that read “France, land of police rights” and “Withdrawal of the security law”.

France has been hit by a wave of street protests after the government introduced a security bill in parliament that set out to increase its surveillance tools and restrict rights on circulating images of police officers in the media and online.

The bill was part of Macron’s drive to get tougher on law and order ahead of elections in 2022. His government also said the police needed to be better protected from online hate.

But the draft legislation provoked a public backlash.

The beating of a Black man, music producer Michel Zecler, by several police officers in late November intensified anger. That incident came to light after closed circuit television and mobile phone footage circulated online.

In a U-turn earlier this week, Macron’s ruling party said it would rewrite the article that curbs rights to circulate images of police officers. But many opponents say that is not enough.

“We’re heading towards an increasingly significant limitation of freedoms. There is no justification,” said Paris resident Karine Shebabo

Another protester, Xavier Molenat, said: “France has this habit of curbing freedoms while preaching their importance to others.”

 

https://www.oann.com/protesters-return-to-french-streets-to-denounce-police-violence-tear-gas-fired/ 

 

 

Alwyn Cashe Will Receive The Medal Of Honor

 

Iraq War hero Alwyn Cashe will receive the Medal of Honor.

According to Military.com, President Donald Trump signed a bill Friday authorizing Cashe to receive the military’s highest honor.

 

 Cashe died from injuries he received while saving the lives of six fellow soldiers in Samara, Iraq. He pulled them out of Bradley Fighting Vehicle and succumbed to his injuries November 8, 2005.

 

 Military Times wrote the following about Cashe’s heroic actions:

Cashe wasn’t initially hurt when a roadside bomb exploded Oct. 17 next to his Bradley Fighting Vehicle while on patrol in Samara, Iraq, family members said.

But he suffered second- and third-degree burns over 70 percent of his body when he ran back into the vehicle in an attempt to rescue other soldiers trapped inside, according to his family.

I hope every American out there reads what Cashe did. He represents everything great about America, and he 100% deserves the Medal of Honor.

He put his needs and safety aside to save the lives of six of his teammates. If that’s not a hero, then I don’t know what is.

 

 Right now, the country feels very fractured and we could all use a reminder of what the USA is about. Guys like Alwyn Cashe make me damn proud to be an American.

 

 

Thank God that guys like him are on our side. I will take us with guys like Cashe against anyone else in the world.

He’s a perfect example of the spirit that has made America the greatest country on Earth.

 

 God bless Cashe for his actions and sacrifice. I don’t think there will be a dry eye in the house when the Medal of Honor is presented to his family.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/05/alwyn-cashe-medal-of-honor-donald-trump-bill/ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article by David Harsanyi in The Daily Signal

 

Mandatory Voting Is Authoritarian

 After the 2016 presidential election, I wrote an exceptionally unpopular op-ed for The Washington Post headlined, “We must weed out ignorant Americans from the electorate.” In it, I noted that “never have so many people with so little knowledge made so many consequential decisions for the rest of us.”

My assumption has always been that the Post only accepted the piece because its editors believed I was aiming my criticism exclusively at the right-wing populists who had just voted for Donald Trump. If so, they were wrong. My skepticism extends to all sides.

And to all elections. Indeed, today, the problem is even more severe. More Americans voted in 2020 than ever before even though the winner, Joe Biden, was rarely impelled to answer a substantive question on policy or even to show himself in public.

2020 might have featured the most vacuous campaigns in American history. This is what “democracy” looks like when propelled by fearmongering, ignorance, and the “common impulse of passion,” as James Madison warned. I mean that all around.

We encourage Americans to vote as if it is the only right of a citizen, without any corresponding expectations. And as if that constant cultural haranguing to vote weren’t annoying enough, after every election, no matter how many people participate, there is a campaign to force everyone to do it.

“America Needs Compulsory Voting,” writes a professor in Foreign Affairs. “A Little Coercion Can Do a Lot for Democracy.” “1 In 3 Americans Didn’t Vote. Should We Force Them To Next Time?” asks BuzzFeed.

Ideally, in a free nation, the answer to “Should we force them?” is almost always “no.” But for the folks at places such as the Brookings Institution and Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, the answer is almost always “yes.”

In July, these think tanks laid out their case for mandatory voting in a report titled “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting.” I wish I could whip up an equally anodyne euphemism for “ugly authoritarian instinct,” but none immediately comes to mind.

None of this is new, of course. Over the years, we’ve seen similar columns in The New York Times and Time.

Obama administration officials such as Peter Orszag, an advocate of compelling everyone to buy state-mandated health insurance, were arguing that the United States “prides itself as the beacon of democracy, but it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults.”

Maybe the lesson here is that we should pride ourselves on how many freedoms we enjoy rather than how people vote.

“The hope is not that the United States of America tomorrow morning is going to adopt this,” E. J. Dionne, who is a Georgetown University professor of government, a Washington Post columnist, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told BuzzFeed, “but we do hope that cities, counties, states would take a look at this and perhaps adopt it experimentally, the way, say, Maine has adopted instant runoffs.”

Some of us do not share the hopes of Dionne, a longtime proponent of forcing Americans to do all sorts of things.

The Constitution makes no stipulation that citizens must vote. It doesn’t even mention voting as an individual right. We have no civic duty to vote. I haven’t voted for president since 2000. I haven’t voted at all since 2004.

For me, this is a proactive political choice. But maybe some Americans don’t vote because they are anarchists, or monarchists, or nihilists. Some Americans might not be satisfied with any of their choices. Some might rather be watching cartoons. It’s none of Dionne’s business.

The last thing we should do is make those who aren’t interested, motivated, or feel unprepared to make sound decisions act against their will.

Whenever I mention that compelling people to participate in the political system is authoritarian, someone will ridicule me by noting that voting is the hallmark of “democracy.”

One wonders if citizens of, say, Hong Kong, who had no real vote as British colonial subjects for 150 years, feel freer today than they did 30 years ago.

Sure, mandatory voting exists in Australia and Belgium. But it also exists in Bolivia, Congo, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, and Lebanon. In fact, historically speaking, authoritarian states often adopt compulsory voting as a way of creating a false sense of democratic legitimacy. If you’re compelling people to participate, you’re not doing “democracy.”

2020 saw record turnout—though calling it a “turnout” is a bit misleading since the involvement was largely a function of states’ haphazardly mailing out paper ballots to everyone.

All mandatory-voting advocates are doing is further degrading the importance of elections and incentivizing more demagoguery.

If they truly believed democracy was sacred—rather than a way to accumulate power—they’d want Americans to put more effort into voting for the president than they do in ordering Chinese takeout. And they certainly wouldn’t want to force anyone to do it.

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/04/mandatory-voting-is-authoritarian/ 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

PCR Tests and COVID Vaccines are Useless

 

Article by Raul Ilargi Meijerin Investment Watch

 

PCR Tests and COVID Vaccines are Useless

If you’re enthusiastic about the impact of the newly arriving COVID vaccines, and you expect to “go back to normal” soon, don’t. You’re being fed fairy tales and other narratives. I won’t talk too much here, my quotes are plenty long enough as is.

After first reading an absolute decomposition of the PCR tests this morning, I figured out that the new vaccines being rolled out are equally useless. One has to wonder what goes on here. Just a few days ago, I quoted an article about a Portuguese court saying the PCR tests are 97% unreliable:

Landmark Legal Ruling Finds That Covid PCR Tests Are Not Fit For Purpose

This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).

[..] The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than 3%, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

The writer of that article, Peter Andrews, an Irish science journalist, today at RT writes an even more convincing take-down. The Corman-Drosten paper, upon which “our” entire attitude towards the PCR test is based, was written by a number of highly compromised authors, with interests in both the journal that published it, and the companies that perform the tests.

The people now criticizing the paper are a group that includes senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists from Europe, the US and Japan. Not some Portuguese judges. Not that there’s anything wrong with Portuguese judges; they seem more sane to me than many other parties

A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid. The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless. Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:

• is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design • is enormously variable • cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments • has no positive or negative controls • has no standard operating procedure • does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed. Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified.

This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies. The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper.

And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing! The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience between them. They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing: “Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.’’ Talk about putting the pressure on.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary.

[..] Why was this paper rushed to publication in January, despite clearly not meeting proper standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark ruminations, which I will save for another day.

Even more pressing is the question of what is going to be done about this now. The people responsible for writing and publishing the paper have to be held accountable. But also, all PCR testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those who are so-called current ‘Covid cases’, diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry.

And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed.

Because this latest blow to PCR testing raises the probability that we are not enduring a killer virus pandemic, but a false positive pseudo-epidemic.

 

Also thanks to STFB over at "Mad Mad World" https://www.realms.chat/t/8302070636

 

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/pcr-tests-and-covid-vaccines-are-useless/ 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Will We Be Citizens or Subjects?

What’s left of the system must continue to be worked, but an audacity is now called for, a willingness to stretch institutional bonds to a degree that genuinely alarms our conniving subverters.

Stephen Balch for American Greatness

A decisive moment comes and passes, a fleeting chance for action. People rise to the occasion or not, their measure taken and place in history assigned.

We, the citizens of the United States, have reached such a moment. For those who still remember the old republic, the questions it poses are self-evident. Do we make a stand or nervelessly surrender our rights? Do we affirm ourselves citizens—an historically rare and noble title—or do we accept becoming subjects, the fate of most humankind? 

We might, of course, hope for a quiet subjecthood, one in which our rulers permit us to go about our lives reasonably undisturbed. But that would no longer be our call, only their clemency.

In the course of this lamentable year, we’ve seen the clemency of our aspiring seigneurs on full display. It clearly doesn’t extend to our laws which they impudently flout. Nor to the truth, which they smoother or twist in caricature. Nor to property, which they seize by decree or have their Blackshirts burn. Nor to the American past, American institutions, and American traditions that they hate and trash. If we choose to submit to their mercies, we shouldn’t imagine they’ll long be tender.                 

Some have been arguing that we ought just to get on with it, accept the media-hyped election results and prepare for more winnable battles down the road. But as evidence of grotesque irregularities continues to pile up, it becomes ever harder to accept that time-honored bromide with equanimity. We can’t, to be sure, know exactly what this presidential election’s actual outcome was, but we do know how unbelievable the facts are as popularly presented. We also know which side is responsible for the mudslide now covering the electoral landscape. And we can make a good guess as to the truth that’s been buried beneath.         

Many of those who urge us to move along do so out of the most honorable of motives. Many are sage and experienced. But their calculations emerge from an obsolete understanding of American politics, certainly of the politics of this dark moment. For them, the tides of political fortune have always flowed back and forth and will continue to do so. But that consolation, a balm in times past, is now treacherously misleading.

We face something altogether new, a genuine effort at revolution. During our long republican past, shared economic and social precepts, a common civic culture, religious conviction, and an all-embracing patriotism buffered partisan conflict. Today, we’re back to the human default, wherein “those who have the power take and those hold who can.” And the item in contest is America itself.

A gauntlet has been thrown and its meaning is unmistakable: “We the ascendent, the wise, the socially just, can do as we please, and you the misbegotten progeny of this tainted land must take it as it’s dished. We don’t care what you think. We don’t care that you know. Do what you want, squawk, whine, whimper, whatever; we, your betters, will prevail.”

We can pretend to ignore this gauntlet. We can walk away. Like the bullied boy we can solace ourselves by fantasizing about what we’ll do to that nasty bruiser when he shows up next. But we’ll only be fooling ourselves. From here on he’ll own us. We’re permanently unmanned.

Pretending that what has happened can be calmly borne, just another starting point for conventional politicking, is to normalize it. Why shouldn’t those now congratulating themselves proceed to do it again many times over? They can perfect their act, extending it to all electoral levels. And to paraphrase Macbeth, once one has gone far in inequity, there’s no turning back. Criminality needs criminality to cover itself. Corruption simply cements.

What is to be done? Whatever that is, it must depart from politics as usual, the standard model of American governance that our elites wish to inter.  Conventions needn’t be abandoned, what’s left of the system must continue to be worked, but an audacity is now called for, a willingness to stretch institutional bonds to a degree that genuinely alarms our conniving subverters. At this late stage in our political degeneration nothing less will suffice.  

President Trump and his allies have rightly taken their case into the courts. But more needs to be accomplished, and with swift and dexterous versatility, in the courts of public opinion. At times like these even the most conscientious jurist will judge the wind as well as the law. And, at the moment it’s blowing hurricane force in only one direction.

Our situation must be fundamentally understood more in political than juridical terms. That means our strategy must buttress legal arguments with formidable public acts. 

Jurists are mortals—as are legislators whose ultimate support we’ll need more than the courts. Both are cowed by the pressure of elite opinion. To do the correct thing, both will need to be steeled by countervailing forces. They fear, correctly, that adhering to the law will bring out the rioters and streetfighters. They must be brought to see that vast numbers of peaceful but equally angry citizens won’t accept cowardly skulking when the nation is in danger.

So damn the COVID, the president must now lead his followers into America’s streets and squares. They must especially flock to the capitol complexes of all the critical states and register indignant protest. They must do the same under the media’s noses in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles, creating a clamor that broadcast agitprop can’t drown out. This has already begun, but its intensity must greatly ratchet up, becoming incessant and overwhelming. If that be demagoguery, make the most of it!

In the face of their literal coup, let ours be a counter-coup de théâtre. If the president and his attorney general believe they have the federal goods on individual malefactors, let them convene grand juries, bring in indictments and make midnight (and televised) arrests of top perps. Why shouldn’t we take instruction from our foes?

And don’t just petition the jurists, have the president and his lawyers lay their case before a joint session of Congress. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) won’t give him House leave, provide the Senate with an exclusive. You say nothing like that has ever been tried? Then no better reason for doing it now. The proceedings would be an educational spectacle the networks, and the president’s traducers, couldn’t ignore. And its grand show would suit the occasion.

The courts won’t call the election for Trump. They shouldn’t. The best that can be expected is a vacating of the results in those states where misdeeds have been particularly egregious. 

Since there’s no time for reruns, the state legislatures will then have to grasp the nettle. They could throw their electoral votes to Trump or, much more likely, find some way to withhold them, or perhaps pick electors who’ll abstain or vote for some stand-in. 

If, in consequence, neither Trump nor Biden have an electoral majority, the choice will devolve upon the newly elected House, with the constitutionally prescribed delegation-by-delegation voting system strongly favoring the president. The (probably) Republican Senate will re-elect Vice President Pence.

Should state legislators fail to show sufficient spine, or should there be rival electoral ballots submitted, there is a final ditch to fall back upon. The Republican Senate could raise objections to accepting dubious electoral votes. Something like that happened in 1876, the last time rampant corruption caused official tabulations to be formally challenged. Possible end games in a scenario like that are too tangled to assess, but the battle could be won. There are scholarly nits to be picked about the legal proprieties of various extremis maneuvers, but in the post-Obergefell age they’d have more than enough legal color for political deployment given dire necessity.    

And if we fail? We fail—but not without forever having branded this election as the leprous thing it was. And in doing so we will have laid the necessary foundation for a continuing unconventional struggle, one that explores the outer boundaries of our Constitution’s resources to trap “His Fraudulency” and friends in the snares they themselves have laid.  

But I’m getting ahead of events. We’ve not yet reached that point. The election is still in the balance and we must do our heartfelt best to prevail. Our forefathers measured up to their great moment when it thunderously came down upon them. They passed history’s test. Despite the counsels of concession, it is their example that we should now be following.

China Is National Security Threat No. 1

Resisting Beijing’s attempt to reshape and dominate the world is the challenge of our generation.

by John Ratcliffe in WSJ

As Director of National Intelligence, I am entrusted with access to more intelligence than any member of the U.S. government other than the president. I oversee the intelligence agencies, and my office produces the President’s Daily Brief detailing the threats facing the country. If I could communicate one thing to the American people from this unique vantage point, it is that the People’s Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom world-wide since World War II.

The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

I call its approach of economic espionage “rob, replicate and replace.” China robs U.S. companies of their intellectual property, replicates the technology, and then replaces the U.S. firms in the global marketplace.

Take Sinovel. In 2018 a federal jury found the Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer guilty of stealing trade secrets from American Superconductor. Penalties were imposed but the damage was done. The theft resulted in the U.S. company losing more than $1 billion in shareholder value and cutting 700 jobs. Today Sinovel sells wind turbines world-wide as if it built a legitimate business through ingenuity and hard work rather than theft.

The FBI frequently arrests Chinese nationals for stealing research-and-development secrets. Until the head of Harvard’s Chemistry Department was arrested earlier this year, China was allegedly paying him $50,000 a month as part of a plan to attract top scientists and reward them for stealing information. The professor has pleaded not guilty to making false statements to U.S. authorities. Three scientists were ousted in 2019 from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston over concerns about China’s theft of cancer research. The U.S. government estimates that China’s intellectual-property theft costs America as much as $500 billion a year, or between $4,000 and $6,000 per U.S. household.

Photo: David Klein

China also steals sensitive U.S. defense technology to fuel President Xi Jinping’s aggressive plan to make China the world’s foremost military power. U.S. intelligence shows that China has even conducted human testing on members of the People’s Liberation Army in hope of developing soldiers with biologically enhanced capabilities. There are no ethical boundaries to Beijing’s pursuit of power.

China is also developing world-class capabilities in emerging technologies. Its intelligence services use their access to tech firms such as Huawei to enable malicious activities, including the introduction of vulnerabilities into software and equipment. Huawei and other Chinese firms deny this, but China’s efforts to dominate 5G telecommunications will only increase Beijing’s opportunities to collect intelligence, disrupt communications and threaten user privacy world-wide. I have personally told U.S. allies that using such Chinese-owned technology will severely limit America’s ability to share vital intelligence with them.

China already suppresses U.S. web content that threatens the Communist Party’s ideological control, and it is developing offensive cyber capabilities against the U.S. homeland. This year China engaged in a massive influence campaign that included targeting several dozen members of Congress and congressional aides.

Consider this scenario: A Chinese-owned manufacturing facility in the U.S. employs several thousand Americans. One day, the plant’s union leader is approached by a representative of the Chinese firm. The businessman explains that the local congresswoman is taking a hard-line position on legislation that runs counter to Beijing’s interests—even though it has nothing to do with the industry the company is involved in—and says the union leader must urge her to shift positions or the plant and all its jobs will soon be gone.

The union leader contacts his congresswoman and indicates that his members won’t support her re-election without a change in position. He tells himself he’s protecting his members, but in that moment he’s doing China’s bidding, and the congresswoman is being influenced by China, whether she realizes it or not.

Our intelligence shows that Beijing regularly directs this type of influence operation in the U.S. I briefed the House and Senate Intelligence committees that China is targeting members of Congress with six times the frequency of Russia and 12 times the frequency of Iran.

To address these threats and more, I have shifted resources inside the $85 billion annual intelligence budget to increase the focus on China. This shift must continue to ensure U.S. intelligence has the resources it needs to give policy makers unvarnished insights into China’s intentions and activities.

Within intelligence agencies, a healthy debate and shift in thinking is already under way. For the talented intelligence analysts and operators who came up during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and Russia have always been the focus. For others who rose through the ranks at the turn of this century, counterterrorism has been top of mind. But today we must look with clear eyes at the facts in front of us, which make plain that China should be America’s primary national security focus going forward.

Other nations must understand this is true for them as well. The world is being presented a choice between two wholly incompatible ideologies. China’s leaders seek to subordinate the rights of the individual to the will of the Communist Party. They exert government control over companies and subvert the privacy and freedom of their citizens with an authoritarian surveillance state.

We shouldn’t assume that Beijing’s efforts to drag the world back into the dark will fail just because the forces of good have triumphed before in modern times. China believes that a global order without it at the top is a historical aberration. It aims to change that and reverse the spread of liberty around the world.

Beijing is preparing for an open-ended period of confrontation with the U.S. Washington should also be prepared. Leaders must work across partisan divides to understand the threat, speak about it openly, and take action to address it.

This is our once-in-a-generation challenge. Americans have always risen to the moment, from defeating the scourge of fascism to bringing down the Iron Curtain. This generation will be judged by its response to China’s effort to reshape the world in its own image and replace America as the dominant superpower. The intelligence is clear. Our response must be as well.

Biden’s DHS Nominee Is The Absolute Picture Of DC Political Corruption

Christopher Bedford reporting for The Federalist

Alejandro “Al” Mayorkas is a left-wing Democrat with a history of doing favors for wealthy and politically connected people, including working to help suspected Chinese spies enter the country and convicted drug dealers get out of prison. Last time he was in power, he administered President Barack Obama’s most anti-congressional use of executive power to accomplish amnesty. He also earned zero votes from the Republican minority when applying for that job.

Some might suggest this makes Mayorkas just about the worst possible nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but not Joe Biden, who plans to put him in the post in 2021. 

So why would Biden do it? The left wing of the party was promised a partnership in a Biden presidency, with Sen. Bernie Sanders claiming Biden personally told him he will “be the most progressive president since FDR.” So far, they’ve been disappointed, with nominees including a Clinton-mold liberal interventionist to the Department of State, and Janet Yellin (over, say, Elizabeth Warren) to Department of the Treasury.

And if Democrats succeed in Georgia to tie the Senate, a Vice President Kamala Harris can push Mayorkas across the finish line and earn the left a man on the inside. If they lose, the left gets a human sacrifice in their honor. Either way, the left gets a try, although it’s unlikely enough to satiate The Squad.

So who is Mayorkas, and why does the left seem to like him so much? In his role at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), he swiftly implemented  Obama’s extra-congressional amnesty order. His work with legal and illegal immigration advocates earned their praise, and at least two awards from outside immigrant groups. In his eventual role as deputy secretary of Homeland Security, he led the president’s Cuba delegation. Combine this resume with his Cuban-American heritage and he stands in stark contrast with President Donald Trump’s DHS.

Now, why won’t he gain any Republican support? In addition to his politics, he appears about as corrupt as modern D.C. gets. 

A 99-page report prepared for the U.S. Senate by the DHS inspector general (IG) details the allegations against Mayorkas during his tenure at the head of the USCIS. While he denies the allegations and prefers to talk about the orphans he’s helped in his letter to the IG, the three cases detailed involve trying to give citizenship to politically connected, wealthy foreigners, at the behest of powerful Democrats.

“I was praised for my leadership when I engaged with the poor and the needy,” he complained in a letter to the IG, maintaining that his influential Democrat buddies with direct access to him don’t deserve any less.

The meddling was allegedly on behalf of figures like Hillary Clinton’s now-deceased brother, Anthony Rodham, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, future Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, then-former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, and the then-mayor of Los Angeles. Unsurprisingly, Mayorkas says he can’t remember the substance of any of the private conversations he had with these players. Equally unsurprising: Every one of these outside players declined to speak with the IG.

The program in question, the EB-5 program, essentially trades U.S. citizenship for “job creation,” doling out the coveted passport to foreigners who can pull together $500,000 and demonstrate their money will create jobs in a specific area of the country. More than 80 percent of applicants come from China, The Daily Caller News Foundation reports, including those working with a casino represented by Reid’s son, Rory, and including the Chinese investors working with McAuliffe and Rodham. 

The Chinese government doesn’t let its subjects go abroad without a promise to keep their party and loyalties in line, and Republicans have accused the Chinese Communist Party of specifically using the pay-to-play citizenship model to infiltrate the United States for low cost. Indeed, one of Rodham’s clients was a vice president of Huwaei, a company globally targeted for extensive connections to Chinese spying operations.

The three incidents of Mayorkas’s meddling were plenty sufficient to shock the IG, as were the number of people willing to report on his behavior.

“That so many individuals were willing to step forward and tell us what happened is evidence of deep resentment” stretching from the Washington office all the way to California, the IG report reads. These whistle-blowers included “current and retired career and non-career members of the Senior Executive Service, attorneys, all levels of supervisors, immigration officers, and those involved in fraud detection and national security.”

Mayorkas says he was just a good public servant trying to fix a broken system without regard to “the identity of the petitioners.” The agency, he said in justification for his abrasive attitude, “was failing in… administration of the EB-5 program, including failing to enforce the law, adhere to its own policies, promote sound policy, understand business facts and realities, correctly apply economic principles, and honor its own representations.” 

Also, McAuliffe is a belligerent ass — and on that point Mayorkas is hysterically and believably adamant.

Mayorkas has a point about the bureaucratic difficulties in Washington, but according to a great number of interviews, his motives can’t be taken seriously. “Employees were afraid to speak up in meetings,” the report reads, “because if they had a different view, Mr. Mayorkas would ‘cut them up, take them apart, or put them in their place.'”

“Another high-ranking official,” it continues, “described going to a meeting with Mr. Mayorkas as feeling like ‘going into a lion’s den to justify our existence as a Christian… That scenario always comes to a predictable end.'”

“I fear,” one official emailed when the Reid deal began, “we are entering a whole new phase of yuck.”

It’s all in the IG report —  a report that helped earn Mayorkas 41 Republican nays, four abstains, and zero yays when  Obama nominated him for a promotion to the deputy secretary of Homeland Security — the department Biden now wants him to lead. Democrats were less concerned, voting unanimously for him with only his old friend Leader Reid sitting it out (a customary move when his vote is not needed).

The behavior detailed in the report isn’t a career standout: Favors for the powerful are no strange game to Mayorkas. As his term as President Bill Clinton’s attorney for Central California drew to a close, he used his power to become the most influential person in favor of commuting the sentence of Carlos Vignali, Jr., who was serving 15 years for trafficking massive amounts of cocaine.

“U.S. Attorney Alejandro Mayorkas provided critical support for the Vignali commutation that was inappropriate, given his position,” a 2002 House of Representatives report reads. “Mayorkas, the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, was asked by Horacio Vignali to call the White House in support of his son’s clemency petition.”

“His call,” the report continues, “conveyed support for the Vignali commutation … despite his knowledge that the prosecutors responsible for the Vignali case opposed clemency.”

So why would he make the call? In short, Vignali Sr. was a major Democratic backer, who made donations to powerful politicians in Los Angeles.

Once again a Hillary Clinton brother — this time Hugh Rodham — joined in on the fun, earning $204,200 for “working part-time for two months gathering materials in support of Vignali’s case and making telephone calls to White House staff.” When his sister and brother in law pressured him to return the money, the congressional report reads, he returned just $50,000.

These are the circles Mayorkas runs in, and has for decades. Even the Hunter Biden-China trouble doesn’t seem enough to dissuade Joe Biden from wanting him to defend the homeland.

He was “smart, charismatic, and persuasive,” his old employees said. “Full of emotion, impulsive, volatile, and tenacious.” In other words, he does well in Washington — and so do his friends. That is, if Democrats win in Georgia.

 

Article by Scott S. Powell in The American Thinker

 

The Supreme Court and the Electoral Coup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/the_supreme_court_and_the_electoral_coup.html#ixzz6fkxRPqWh

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Biden: I was Buck Naked, Trying to Pull My Dog's Tail When I Broke My Foot

Bonchie reporting for RedState

I’m trying to think of what would possess an advisor to Joe Biden to think this was the story to go with, but here we are. As was revealed previously, Biden broke his foot in what was originally described vaguely as him simply playing with his dog.

Now, the claim has morphed. Biden says he was getting out of the shower and decided to attempt to pull his dog’s tail in a playful manner. That’s when a rug came out of nowhere to trip him up, because we all break our foot when we trip over a rug, right?

This is like your kid claiming that aliens caused him to miss his curfew. I mean, come on, does anyone believe this story? Besides, what kind of 78 year old degenerate gets out of the shower, chases his dog around naked in order to painfully pull its tail, and then breaks his foot by tripping over a rug?

Let’s be real. Joe Biden is a decrepit, elderly man who probably broke his foot doing some menial task because his body is falling apart. At least that’s the theory Ace of Spades is going with, and I think he’s probably dead on.

Yeah, this decrepit old man was chasing a dog around.

“That’s what happened.”

No, here’s what happened: This ancient credibly-accused rapist broke his foot just getting out of bed, but they’re making up a story about dogs and tails and monkeyshines to play down the fact of how truly fragile and decrepit he is.

Bingo.

Republicans tried to warn that this guy was a shell of his former self, but the media insisted on treating him as a well aged Adonis. He could ride a bike! He even walked down stairs by himself! Meanwhile, his eye exploded on national TV and his mental lapses became a daily joke.

Of course, maybe he is telling the truth. I mean, we are talking about a guy who routinely sniffs women and girls without permission, so perhaps naked chasing of his dog isn’t that unbelievable.