Friday, December 18, 2020

Will America split in half?

 

Article by Patrice Lewis in World Net Daily
 

Will America split in half?

Patrice Lewis is troubled by the implications of dividing the United States

One hot topic we're hearing lately is the possibility of conservative states seceding from America. This sounds so familiar, doesn't it? Secession was also a hot topic leading up to the Civil War.

Some big names are engaging in this debate. Texas Republican Party Chairman Allen West, after the Supreme Court dismissed a Texas lawsuit against election battleground states, stated, "Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution," as a remedy to a broken republic where the justice system has been ravaged.

Also, talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh believes conservative states are "trending toward secession," though he admitted it's a concept he's not ready to accept. "A lot of bloggers have written extensively about how distant and separated and how much more separated our culture is becoming politically and that it can't go on this way," he said. "There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can't be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way." He added, "I still haven't given up the idea that we are the majority and that all we have to do is find a way to unite and win."

The frustrating thing is how many people – left and right – love their country and don't want to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." They want America to return to what it was, without Big Tech censorship, tyrannical dictators hiding behind masks, or schools that indoctrinate rather than educate. That's why so many people, liberal and conservative, voted for Trump in staggering numbers – so staggering that massive voter fraud was necessary to pry him out of office. It's why the progressives in power stopped the vote count in the middle of the night in critical states and, literally and metaphorically, stuffed the ballot boxes for Biden.

It's the extreme leftists who are now driving the political machine. "As we know, the truly rabid left exist in extremely small numbers," write columnist Erik Rush. "It is only their immoderate vociferousness and the fact that many of these people occupy places of power that give the impression of a wider scope of influence." [Emphasis added.]

This talk of secession is born of sheer frustration and a recognition that the vast majority of Americans want to return this nation to its constitutional roots. It's born of the sheer frustration that those in power refuse to adhere to the will of the people and put back in office the one man who has the power to hold back the tide of socialism. It's the sheer frustration that come from pounding our heads against the implacable brick wall of Big Tech, the mainstream media and the public educational system that have collectively become the enemies of America and are complicit in bringing this nation to its knees.

So yes, I understand the desire for secession.

Even progressives are entertaining the idea, however sarcastically. In a now-deleted tweet, lesbian feminist activist Amy Siskind proposed a satirical division of America in which the blue states joined Canada to become "The United States of Canada," while red states form an independent country, "Jesusland." (To be honest, this proposed division holds a lot of appeal for me.)

If Biden takes office on Jan. 20, what then? "American politics will be even more poisoned and polarized than it has been for the last four years," notes Pat Buchanan. "Tens of millions of Americans will see themselves as disfranchised and believe that the greatest champion they have had in decades was illegally driven from power by the same deep state-media conspiracy he fought for four years."

When a couple gets a divorce, they often cite irreconcilable differences. That seems to be the case right now in America. Let's face it, progressives loathe conservatives and conservatives loathe progressives. A house divided against itself cannot stand. This mutual hatred is growing and makes it impossible for people to live peaceful, productive lives. Why stay in a marriage if you hate your spouse? Why remain with an abusive partner? Why not go your separate ways? These are questions worth asking.

"Though secession is unlikely, a secession of the heart has already taken place in America," notes Buchanan. "We are two nations, two peoples seemingly separated indefinitely. Can a nation so divided as ours, racially, ideologically, religiously, still do great things together, as did the America of days gone by, to the amazement of the world?"

My husband and I recently had a discussion about the logistics of secession. Who goes where? Who gives up their homes, their businesses, their community connections and moves to either the red or the blue states that want them? Among our largely conservative neighborhood, we have one progressive family who's lived in the area for decades. What would happen to them? We have family and friends living in vivid-blue states. Would they be persecuted if they remained behind?

In short, secession couldn't happen without a tremendous amount of pain and unfairness. Consider what happened when India was partitioned in 1947 into two nations (India and Pakistan). According to Wikipedia: "The partition displaced between 10 and 12 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions. There was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and 2 million. The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between India and Pakistan that affects their relationship to this day."

Is this what the future of America might hold? I pray not. While I don't agree with our progressive neighbors' politics, I most certainly don't want them to become political refugees. I have no desire for them to leave their home of 20 years for bluer pastures.

In short, I don't know if secession is the answer to America's internal conflict. But, as God is my witness, I don't know what the answer may be.

 

https://www.wnd.com/2020/12/will-america-split-half/ 


Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller Stops Biden Transition Briefings

 

Article by Virginia Kruta in The Daily Caller
 

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller Stops Biden Transition Briefings

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller has put a stop to all cooperation with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team.

Senior administration officials have confirmed that Miller ordered a halt to all scheduled briefings Pentagon-wide as of Thursday evening, according to a report from Axios. 

A top Biden official was reportedly not told about the move, but one official suggested to Axios that it was just a delay due to the approaching holidays.

“We had fewer than two dozen remaining meetings on the schedule today and next week,” the official said. “These same senior leaders needed to do their day jobs and were being consumed by transition activities … With the holidays we are taking a knee for two weeks. We are still committed to a productive transition.”

President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign adviser Steve Cortes appeared to believe the move was related to recent reports about Hunter Biden and potential business dealings with the Chinese Communist Party.

“Good! Joe Biden could not get even a low-level security clearance right now. He’s compromised by the Chinese Communist Party,” Cortes tweeted.

The Defense Department pushed back on the initial report, saying that Miller had asked for a day and both teams had ultimately agreed to take two weeks and return after the holidays.

Jonathan Swan stood by Axios’ report, adding, “Contrary to this Pentagon spin, there was NOTHING routine about this decision. Senior Trump officials have been furious at the Biden team, privately blaming them for leaks, and this decision was discussed last night with the White House.”

 

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/18/pentagon-stops-biden-transition-briefings-report/ 


Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Taken a train? You too could be Transportation Secretary!

Pete Buttigieg is totally qualified to be Transportation Secretary because he rode the train in college.

Taken a train? You too could be Transportation Secretary!

posted by Dianny at Patriot Retort

This morning, I saw a tweet from NPR politics sharing an article about Pete Buttigieg being tapped for Transportation Secretary, and hoo-boy, is the pull-quote hilarious.

Pete Buttigieg, President-elect Biden’s pick for transportation secretary, said he has “a personal love of transportation,” recounting train trips on Amtrak while in college, and said he proposed to his now-husband, Chasten, in an airport terminal.

This sounds like something from the Babylon Bee.

“A personal love of transportation?” I mean come on!

Pete Buttigieg is a mediocre man with a middling intellect — which might explain why, when he isn’t burping out insipid platitudes, the best he can muster to show his readiness to take on the position of Transportation Secretary is “I rode the train in college.”


Remember when President Trump selected Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education?

“She’s not qualified to be Education Secretary!” The angry media howled. “DeVos was never a teacher!”

But Buttigieg reminisces about riding the train and proposing to his husband in an airport terminal and NPR thinks this qualifies him for Transportation Secretary.

Betsy DeVos attended school, so by the Buttigieg standard, she was more than qualified to be Education Secretary. Hell, just walking her dog past an elementary school would’ve sufficed.

By the Buttigieg standard, every single person who has ever ridden a train or a bus or driven on the highway is also supremely qualified to be Transportation Secretary.

Of course when Pete was mayor of South Bend, Indiana, he didn’t do much to improve the streets. But, hey, he rode on Amtrak and proposed to Chasten in an airport terminal! So game, set, match, you haters!

Was the writer of this NPR article born without the shame gene?

We have four years of this kind of slobbering, ass-kissing, bar-lowering coverage ahead of us. You realize that, right?


at

Beyond The Great Foreboding is What We Need, HOPE


Stop for a minute.  Stop and breathe….

Stop and sit in peace… Just stop, and join together.

All around us is this great sense of foreboding ugh, and it’s not just connected to an election; it’s everything.  Everything is weird, everything is not comfortable, everything is less joyful and requires an intensity of thought just to carry-on ordinary events.

Christmas, the day we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is a week away; and yet everything around us seems less focused on joy – and more focused on what joy we are missing.  At the heart of that anxiety is this sense of foreboding. A sense of fear and worry; a sense of trepidation.

In our daily lives we encounter ordinary disconnects now. Masked faces are disconnecting our sense of interaction, our human connection. Unfortunately, and as a natural outcome of these challenges, we are accepting disconnect and creating a void inside ourselves. At the same time COVID is physically disconnecting people from their family.  Many families will not gather this year to celebrate the joyous event of Christ’s birth.  Many parents and grandparents will not see their adult children for the first time in years, perhaps ever.

Amid all of this flux and ugh, even simple tasks like decorating the Christmas tree somehow feels, senses, seems less joyful.  Perhaps financial worry stems the joy in shopping for family and friends.  Perhaps the shine within cheer is slightly dimmed because all around us is something we cannot quite describe, yet we feel it.

Perhaps tears flow at times and we struggle to understand what this unusual anxiety is all about. Then, we begin to struggle with the feeling of shame or guilt for being weak and allowing our humanity to pour out of our human-selves.  Then, at the worst possible time in the year, our faith organizations are slow to understand the importance of fellowship and community amid an upheaval that takes our center from under our feet.

Regional leaders make the anxiety worse.  As our grip on our familiar surroundings becomes more tenuous, we are faced with dictates and mandates that only exacerbate the issues.  The media drumbeat an incessant noise that destabilizes us and yet we cannot quite put our finger on why the impact is worse now…. it is all ugh.

It is all just, ugh.

If you find the assembly of these words familiar to your current sense, first understand YOU ARE NOT ALONE.  Second, understand there is nothing wrong with you.  This blanket of anxiety is laying across our entire nation, and we are all sensing a various level of this ‘ugh’ with some familiarity.  However, that said, it is important to know this is transitional.  We will not be in this place long.  This too shall pass.

How do we shake these destabilizing feelings and emotions?

How do we reconnect to the core-spirit we carry in our lives?

These are the questions we should use to leverage ourselves back to a center of peace and hope.   These are the questions that empower us to recharge of our sense of purpose and life within the lives of others, including our community, family and friends.

♦ The first way we shake this ‘ugh’, is to give to others without reservation.  Giving with purpose is the true spirit of human contact.  The giving is not related to money or wealth; the giving is related to our human purpose.  Perhaps we give a smile.  Perhaps we give a kind word.  Perhaps we give a compliment, or perhaps we just give time to another.

You could give a gift to another or perhaps send an email; or better yet write a letter to a dear friend or family member.  Reach out and tell them they matter and express why their place in this life of yours is important.  Remind them of your specific thankfulness, and connect to the purpose of why we endeavor in this thing we call life.  The important thing is to give, and to do it without any other intent or purpose than to fill your own heart.

♦ Within the giving, remind yourself what this journey is all about and look around to recognize how fortunate we are to have this life.  Choose to cherish the ultimate gift from a loving God who wants joy and hope to permeate our human sense.

Hope is the one necessary human element beyond all other facets of life.  Give the gift of hope and light to those you love by first reminding yourself of the gift that a loving God has given us all.  It is too easy in our human sense to forget the biggest gift we have been granted, the gift of life.  The ability to live and choose how we engage in the lives of others.

Remind yourself of the kind of purposeful HOPE that would leave a throne to be born into a manger as a baby only to grow into a Man willing to lay down His everything for the wretchedness of humanity.

No politics or false sense of security can overwhelm the message of HOPE that a loving God has provided.  No effort of man or human disposition can surmount the greatest love of all.  The message of Christ’s birth is bigger and greater than any legislative battle. “No power of hell, nor scheme of man” can come close to the purpose of God’s intent and love for you as a unique person qualified to receive that love.

Wrap yourself in the blanket of that unconditional love.  Stop what you are doing.

Pause in the peace of this moment… set down your troubles, LISTEN and FEEL.

“Long lay the world in sin and error pining, til He appeared and the souls felt its worth. A thrill of HOPE; the weary world rejoices, for yonder breaks a new and glorious morn…”

Let the tears flow, and with them release the foreboding.  Engage in the next moment with a loving purpose filled with the HOPE that He provides.  Fall forward to the centered purpose of your life, a very special life, and reflect on the gift we are too quick to diminish.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.”

‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21:1-6‬

Abiding love to all.

Steadfast,

~ Sundance


at

A brief history of secession in America

 

Article by Troy Smith in The American Thinker
 

A brief history of secession in America

The call and clamor for secession has steadily increased within the United States over perhaps the last decade and a half.  Prior, for the most part, it was more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.  Despite its troubles, America remained the most free, prosperous nation on the planet as we rolled into the 20th century.

Then things began to change.  Perpetual war, out-of-control spending, and a lack of governmental transparency and accountability, along with cultural corrosion, began to weaken and divide the nation.  The 2020 election with its specter of fraud and corruption has perhaps ignited the conversation, particularly after comments made by former congressman Allen West, with regard to succession to a level it hasn’t been at in over a century (Mastrangelo, 2020).  Given this, perhaps it would be wise to study our tense history with secession, whether the concept is valid, and whether it would be wise.

Post-Constitution, the first major threat of full state secession came during the Jefferson administration, when the New England states, led by Thomas Pickering, threatened to dissolve their participation in the Union.  Their concerns over the Louisiana Purchase, the economic damage of the Jefferson embargo of 1807, and their personal dislike of Jefferson himself gave them the desire to maintain economic relations with the Union while severing the political.  Jefferson, for his part, declared in his Inaugural Address of 1801 (among other places) it folly but viable in that if the federal government exceeded its constitutional powers, he would defend their right to secede (DiLorenzo, pp. 86–87).  Jefferson’s management of the tense political disputes proved savvy, as no secession was actually implemented, and by the Monroe administration, relations between New England and the rest of the country had significantly improved.

Why did Jefferson argue that secession was viable and yet folly?  Viable because, as the author of the Declaration of Independence, he believed that states ought to have autonomy to rule themselves or join in union with others as they saw fit.  Yet, from an economic and political perspective, clearly, secession would have weakened the blossoming new nation and created an atmosphere that would have much more closely resembled war-torn Europe than a united, peaceful America.  Without question, the wise course of unity served to propel the United States into a world political and economic power.

The most famous, and dire, secession movement occurred just after the election of 1860.  The country, again fractured and segmented, reached a point where, on the surface, it seemed as if political compromise had grown increasingly unlikely.  Yet many leaders on both sides were torn about the issue.  Jefferson Davis, who became the president of the Confederacy, worried that the 1860 election “might actually destroy the Constitutional Union he cherished, and if so, he wanted no part of the country, for it would no longer be his conception of the Union created by the Founding Fathers” (Cooper Jr., p. 323). It’s worth noting that upon secession, the South had hoped it would be peaceful and that payment could be made for federal assets now in Confederate possession.  In other words, Davis believed like Jefferson that secession was legal and viable, but unlike Jefferson, he felt that it may in fact be the only course available.  President Lincoln felt differently, essentially arguing the primacy and supremacy of the federal government over the respective states due to secession violating majority rule and promoting anarchy (DiLorenzo, p. 117) — in other words, both folly and not legally viable.

It’s worth pausing here to examine the geopolitical situation of the Civil War.  In terms of viability, it's hard to argue with Jefferson and Madison, who viewed secession as a final check on federal encroachment of power.  Whether that encroachment was actually reached in 1860 or not is quite another matter.  Should the South have seceded without being stopped, just as Britain, France, and Germany were really fully transitioning into their Industrial Revolutions and consecrating their power, America undoubtedly would not have been able to keep up.  On the other hand, the Civil War meant the deaths of approximately 700,000 men on top of the economic ruin and political disaster that followed.  While secession may have been legally viable, the price the nation paid was steep and bloody.  Regardless, the Civil War put an end to the question for over a century, but not forever.

Here we are now, present-day, facing a 27-trillion-dollar national debt, a looming China, a fractured political system, and a people as divided as they have been in 150 years.  Here we are, asking the same questions our forefathers asked.  Perhaps the dilemma can be sidestepped for that very thing.  Perhaps instead of demonizing our Founders and key historical figures of the past like Lincoln and Davis (or allowing them to be demonized), we should instead focus on learning from them, correct their errors, and find new paths.  And perhaps we may yet find a way out of this mess that is both viable and wise.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/a_brief_history_of_secession_in_america.html




Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Hunter Biden Email Ties Joe Biden To Chinese Oligarchs



New documents reported by Fox News Wednesday show communication between Hunter Biden and a Chinese businessman, further implicating former Vice President Joe Biden in his son’s foreign business dealings, Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway said on “America’s Newsroom” Thursday morning.

“You don’t want the president’s son having ties to corrupt foreign adversaries or governments because you worry how that will affect U.S. policy,” Hemingway said. 

New documents uncovered on Wednesday revealed that Hunter Biden sent Ye Jianming “best wishes from the entire Biden family” and requested $10 million from the businessman, who is closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party.

“The context of all of these emails and all these discussions is that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and his brother, James, have made a lot of money from companies or even governments that sought to access Joe Biden,” Hemingway noted. “So they would indicate that they were close to Joe Biden, they would get a lot of money, and they would also make sure not to put anything in a paper trail.”

Video Player
00:00
03:20

Hemingway pointed out that some of the uncovered emails show that President-elect Biden’s involvement in the business ventures was not supposed to be discussed in writing. Despite this, she said, “Joe Biden has always claimed he had nothing to do with this.”

“But we have many indications that at least from the perspective of the governments and companies giving money to the Biden family, they were doing so in part because they wanted that access” to Joe Biden, she said. “Hunter Biden saying that he represents the entire family, and also the other emails showing that 10 percent was supposed to be held for the ‘big guy,’ Joe Biden.”

Hunter’s former associate turned whistleblower, Tony Bobulinski, has said that he talked with Joe Biden about the business venture. “This is in contradiction to what Joe Biden has said,” Hemingway added.

The revelations have sparked calls for a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.

“Special counsels are supposed to be in order if there is a conflict of interest that might be in play,” Hemingway said. “Clearly, there is a conflict of interest between the incoming president’s son being investigated while this guy is president.”

“I think that’s also why the transition team put out this notification about Hunter Biden being investigated,” she added. “They don’t think they need a special counsel.”

Hemingway also noted how the Mueller investigation exemplified a special counsel out of control. “That really caused so many problems for these years of Trump’s presidency,” she said, “even though they never found what they claimed to be looking for, which was treason and collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election.”


at

Study: Wearing A Used Mask Is Potentially Riskier Than No Mask At All



A new study published in the Physics of Fluids scientific journal demonstrated wearing a used mask is potentially riskier than wearing no mask at all.

According to researchers from the University of Massachusetts Lowell and California Baptist University, a three-layer surgical mask is 65 percent efficient in filtering particles in the air. That effectiveness, however, falls to 25 percent once it is used. 

“It is natural to think that wearing a mask, no matter new or old, should always be better than nothing,” said author Jinxiang Xi.

“Our results show that this belief is only true for particles larger than 5 micrometers, but not for fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers,” he continued.

Using a computer model of a pleated three-layer surgical mask, researchers determined that wearing masks “significantly slows down” airflow and alters “particle motions near the face,” making people using already-worn masks more vulnerable to inhaling aerosols in the nasal region.

“In this study, we found that the protective efficacy of a mask for the nasal airway decreases at lower inhalation flow rates,” the study states, noting that the nose, while usually the first line of defense to the lungs, is “one of the three confirmed binding sites for COVID-19 viruses.”

The study also found that the pleats in surgical masks maintained high airflow but contained high levels of particles and droplets that could be potentially inhaled.

While mask efficacy is reduced once worn, researchers clarified that wearing a mask still “significantly reduces particle penetration into the lungs.”

They also specified that masks “protect the upper airway (particularly the nose and larynx) best from particles larger than 10 µm, while it protects the face and lungs best from particles less than 10 µm (PM10),” but noted that other studies should be conducted with masks that do not perfectly fit the face to “refine the assessment of mask protection efficiencies.”


at

The Institutionalization of Election Fraud

 

Article by Jon N. Hall in The American Thinker
 

The Institutionalization of Election Fraud

Many Americans, including this writer, contend that the 2020 presidential election is being stolen. About 70 percent of Republicans and even some Democrats believe that such a theft is happening. But despite considerable evidence, they cannot prove their case and put a number on the full extent of this alleged fraud.

Other Americans contend that the 2020 presidential election is not being stolen, and they, too, cannot prove their case. This second camp doesn’t deny that election fraud occurred but alleges that the margins are too great for fraud to have changed the outcome. Even respected conservatives have taken the position that Biden’s margins of victory are too great to overcome. But that seems to beg the question, because unless one can demonstrate the legitimacy of each and every ballot, one can’t really say what the margins are.

To prove what the legitimate vote count is, one would need to establish the eligibility of all the voters. Essentially, one would need to reregister all the voters. And that effort would be just the first of the several tasks that would be needed to demonstrate what the true vote count is.

If election fraud occurs cycle after cycle and is even tolerated, it can’t be said that America has a real democracy. Recently, this writer urged that the U.S. Supreme Court vacate the presidential elections in several problem states and order new elections to be conducted. This would be an unprecedented event, of course, but the glaring irregularities, anomalies, and illegalities are also without precedent. However, an editorial at National Review asserts that “the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to order new elections in those states.”

Since when has not having authority stopped the federal courts from doing anything? Until we get the “tyranny of the courts” under control, questions of authority should be tabled. I found the editorial unconvincing, but it did prove to be prescient about what Scotus would do -- NR’s editorial ran at 6:30 AM on December 11, shortly before Scotus declined to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania.

This declination is a failure of the Court, which should have vacated the Pennsylvania presidential election just to send a message to the judiciary that they must stop overstepping their authority. It’s shameful that Scotus did not hear the Texas case. Their argument on “standing” is an evasion. That’s because the unconstitutional and illegal actions of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court unleashed rampant fraud, which nullified the votes of residents in other states. But Pennsylvania’s court also caused the disenfranchisement of GOP voters in their own commonwealth.

Regarding Pennsylvania, do watch Mark Levin’s opening monologue for his December 6 Fox News show: “The Supreme Court needs to intercede in 2020 election fraud investigations.” As Levin reports, not only did Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court overstep, so did its legislature, which is controlled by the GOP! Levin lays out these government illegalities in such an elegant linear manner that it’s a thing of beauty. And what he shows is that election fraud in Pennsylvania has been institutionalized. Mail-in voting is the new regime. We’ve shot the czar and his family and there’s no going back. So you’d best shut up and move along.

But what if Scotus had heard the Texas case and ordered that Pennsylvania conduct a new election? What would be the use of new elections if we conducted them in the same way and with the same data? We’d just get the same results. Therefore, new elections should require new safeguards with the aim of getting zero fraud. Does Scotus or the Dems have any ideas about how to achieve zero fraud?

Well, I’ve presented a few ideas which aim to do just that. In fact, these ideas assume that fraud will occur. These little changes say to the fraudsters, Come at me with everything you have, and I will repel you; send me a billion fraudulent ballots, and I’ll detect them. Also, my reforms would make it possible to “cure” ballots with mistakes.

When I see those huge rooms filled with people (supposedly) verifying the legitimacy of signatures, I just shake my head. We shouldn’t be wasting our time with signature verification. We should instead require the voter to use his SSN. That little addition to the ballot would obviate the throngs of verifiers, who may well be fraudsters themselves, and it would allow us to secure the vote.

I believe the election was stolen, but I can’t prove it. But no army of investigators can prove what the legitimate vote count was in the 2020 presidential election, and that is a scandal and a tragedy for our “democracy,” if that’s what you want to call it. But the incompetence, corruption, and failure is not just with government and the political class, it lies also with the People for tolerating such a squalid state of affairs election after election. And now we seem to have ended up with the Deep State’s chosen candidate, an easily manipulated figurehead, a doddering old flimflam artist who is the head of a family of influence peddlers and grifters.

Americans should be embarrassed by their elections. The political class is playing us for a bunch of fools. If Republicans can hold on to the U.S. Senate on Jan. 5 in Georgia, Mitch McConnell should insist on doing election reform before doing anything else. Congress should “take over” federal elections and impose a single standard on all the states for conducting elections for federal officials. The precedent for such a move is none other than the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The most poisonous situation for a democracy is the suspicion that an election has been stolen. None of the changes since the Bush-Gore mess in 2000 have been sufficient to remove doubt and give assurance to the voter that his participation was not in vain. Without GOP Senate wins in Georgia on the 5th, there’ll be little hope for institutionalizing real election integrity.

So, by all means, Georgia, have a happy New Year’s party, and then go out and vote for Perdue and Loeffler… America is depending on you.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/the_institutionalization_of_election_fraud.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Analysis-U.S., Iran and inertia, an axis to dampen France’s Lebanese dreams

 

December 18, 2020

By John Irish

PARIS (Reuters) -During a private dinner in Paris last month, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made clear that Washington was unhappy with France’s strategy to include Iran-backed Hezbollah in efforts to resolve the economic and political crisis in Lebanon.

French President Emmanuel Macron has been spearheading international efforts to rescue the former French protectorate from its deepest crisis since its 1975-1990 civil war. He has travelled twice to Lebanon since a huge explosion at the Beirut port in August devastated the city.

Macron is trying to use Paris’ historical influence to persuade squabbling Lebanese politicians to adopt a road map and form a new government tasked with rooting out corruption, a prerequisite for international donors including the IMF to unlock billions of dollars in aid.

He had been due to return for a third visit on Dec. 22, but postponed the trip on Thursday after testing positive for coronavirus. Army chief Francois Lecointre will replace the president to visit French troops on the ground and an official involved in organising the visit said Macron may speak by phone to Lebanese President Michel Aoun but there were no other plans for now.

The 42-year-old French leader has from the outset faced the inertia of Lebanon’s fractious political class, which has bickered and ignored international warnings of state bankruptcy, as well as resistance to his plans from Washington.

 

 

“The Lebanese political class is stuck in its own contradictions and is happy to play the clock,” said Nadim Khoury at the Arab Reform Initiative.

“(Prime Minister-designate) Saad al-Hariri is not able to form a government and internationally the U.S. will not facilitate French efforts to form a government.”

The U.S. objection to Macron’s plan is centred on Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed armed movement that wields enormous power in Lebanon and which Washington brands a terrorist group.

Hariri, a former prime minister, was given the task of forming a government after Mustapha Adib resigned in September. He is so far struggling to cobble together a cabinet to share power with all Lebanese parties, including Hezbollah.

Paris was not initially keen for Hariri to take up the role, having previously failed to implement reforms, three French officials said. But given the lack of progress in forming a credible government, Macron did not oppose the nomination.

France says Hezbollah’s elected arm has a legitimate political role.

The U.S. has already imposed sanctions on three leading politicians allied to Hezbollah. During a dinner in Paris last month with eight ambassadors, including from Europe, Pompeo made clear more measures would follow if Hezbollah were part of the government, according to two people with knowledge of his visit.

 

 

Responding to assertions that the U.S. was unhappy with French efforts, a French presidential official said President Donald Trump and Pompeo had clearly expressed support on several occasions for the French initiative to create a “government capable of receiving international aid”.

The official added that the U.S. had participated in two donor conferences organised by France, underscoring its support.

In a statement after Pompeo had met Macron, the State Department said the two had discussed “significant threats to global security, efforts to counter violent extremism, Iran’s destabilizing behavior, and Hezbollah’s malign influence in Lebanon”.

The stalemate has important ramifications for all sides.

Without U.S. backing, international organisations and donors will not give Lebanon the money it needs to claw itself out of a financial crisis which the World Bank says will likely see more than half the population engulfed in poverty by 2021.

Macron, having vowed amid the rubble in Beirut not to abandon the Lebanese people, is scrambling to show some foreign policy success in the region after walking empty-handed from high-profile initiatives on Libya and Iran in recent years.

For the outgoing U.S. administration, a tough stance on Hezbollah is key to demonstrating that its overall Middle East policy, including maximum pressure on Iran, has been effective.

Three diplomats said they did not expect President-elect Joe Biden to change policy quickly given the bi-partisan nature of the U.S. stance and other priorities for the new administration.

 

 

Biden has said he plans to scrap what he calls the “dangerous failure” of Trump’s maximum pressure policy on Iran, but people familiar with his thinking have said he will not shy away from using sanctions.

WARNING SIGNS

The differences with Washington exacerbate what was always going to be a difficult challenge for Macron.

When he had lunch with Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun and parliament speaker Nabih Berri on Sept. 1, his objective was to ensure Berri, head of the Shi’ite Muslim Amal Movement, committed to a deadline to form a new government.

Macron insisted on 10-15 days, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting. Berri, a stalwart of Lebanese politics who has in the past had a hand in picking key ministers, twice responded with “Insha’allah,” (God Willing), a polite way sometimes used in the Middle East to react to something you don’t want to do. Macron put out his palm to say no and again emphasize his demands.

Berri’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Macron’s office said: “The president continues his calls with the various political players in Lebanon as he had previously committed to.”

A week later, although Macron said he had got all factions to back his plan, the United States blacklisted two former ministers, including one from Amal, for their ties to Hezbollah.

 

 You’re right to say the sanctions policy of the American administration, done without consultation or coordination with us, has strained the game,” Macron said not long afterwards, when asked about the U.S. not being warm to his efforts.

Since then Gebran Bassil, son-in-law of Aoun, who heads the Free Patriotic Movement, Lebanon’s largest Christian party, has been sanctioned over his ties to Hezbollah. U.S., European and regional diplomats say new sanctions are imminent.

PUNITIVE MEASURES

Hezbollah has become the overarching power in Lebanon, with elected members of parliament and positions in government. While its support from Iran has been hit by U.S. sanctions, the group remains a pillar of Tehran’s regional influence.

French officials say Washington’s punitive measures have done nothing to change the situation on the ground. A French presidential official told reporters on Dec. 2 “they did not block anything … but haven’t unlocked anything either.”

Speaking at an online conference of the CSIS think-tank, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dorothy Shea said that while avoiding state failure in Lebanon was “first and foremost”, Washington viewed Hezbollah as being “wholly in service to their Iranian masters” and said U.S. measures were having an effect.

Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East, regards Iran as its biggest threat and Hezbollah as the main danger on its borders.

 

 

Iranian officials said that Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was in contact with Tehran on how to handle Macron’s initiative, but they would not allow Hezbollah to be weakened.

Macron has meanwhile been left admonishing Lebanon’s politicians for betraying their commitments.

“As of today, these commitments have not been kept,” he said on Dec. 2. “So far, there is nothing to show that they were more than words. I regret that.”

 

 

https://www.oann.com/analysis-u-s-iran-and-inertia-an-axis-to-dampen-frances-lebanese-dreams/ 

 

 


 

at