A Mostly Peaceful Insurrection

We are now living Barack Obama’s “fundamentally transformed America” And we got here by way of a mostly peaceful insurrection that actually happened in early November 2020, not January 6, 2021.

by Albin Sadar for American Greatness

 “Insurrection! Insurrection! Insurrection!” 

Not unlike the cry of “Russia! Russia! Russia!” that haunted President Donald Trump throughout the four years of his presidency, the new rallying cry for the Democrats leading into the 2022 election (and beyond, no doubt) is the charge that those who continue to support President Trump—and pretty much anyone who doesn’t strongly, vocally condemn him—will be labeled an insurrectionist. And naturally anyone running for office who might gain the backing of Trump will be tagged with the same scarlet letter “I” and vilified incessantly via every facet at the disposal of the mainstream media. 

But why did the events of January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., get so blown out of proportion in the first place? Why has the current “official” investigation, much ballyhooed by members of Congress, turned out to be several ounces shy of a “nothing burger”? 

Could it be that Saul Alinsky, in his famous list of Rules for Radicals (as well as tactics employed by Hitler’s chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels), gives us a clue? 

Accuse your opponent of what you yourself are doing, to create confusion and to inculcate people against evidence of your own guilt. 

If the opposite had been the case, if it had been the Left’s own brigade of rabble-rousers who had descended upon D.C. that day to protest the fact that Donald Trump’s team had stolen the election based on what was plain to see—i.e., vote tabulation screeching to a halt in just the swing states necessary for Trump’s victory; then, during three days of renewed counting, the mysterious appearance of tens of thousands of votes exclusively for Trump; followed quickly by the press announcing that Trump, much to their chagrin, was the new “Comeback Kid,” and anyone doubting Trump’s victory would be labeled a conspiracy theorist—the press would have called the ensuing kerfuffle within the Capitol walls “a mostly peaceful protest.” 

And you know what? They finally would have gotten one right. 

On January 6, 2021, an almost entirely peaceful Trump rally was playing out in Washington, D.C., all the way up until a few instigators (some later identified with connections to the FBI) roused the crowd near the steps of the Capitol and, with the happy compliance of some of the Capitol police swinging back the flimsy aluminum gates, entered the hallowed grounds of our nation’s highest seat of power. This happened, of course, on the very day that Congress was seated, full slate, charged with ratifying the Electoral College vote. 

On the floor of Congress that day was strong dissent from a small group of Republican senators who politely and respectfully asked that this august group of representatives take a mere two weeks before the upcoming inauguration to investigate allegations that the 2020 presidential election was, well, more than a wee bit hinky. 

It wasn’t long after Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) persuasive speech asking for an investigation that the whole procedure was suddenly shut down and the curtain went up on the amateur-hour theater that would too-soon be deemed worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 combined. 

What was Cruz proposing? What was so dangerous about his suggestion? Two weeks to look into credible evidence of fraud of national significance was not, say, four years taking a deep-dive into Russian influence on the previous president and his election the first time around.  

The problem for the Left, however, was “focus.” Surely the country could spend a scant two weeks focused on the alleged 2020 election discrepancies which included more than 1,000 affidavits of eyewitnesses to fraud. Sure, what could it hurt to humiliate Trump supporters by proving to these rubes that this was indeed “the most secure election in history”? Let’s go for it! 

Or the Democrats could steal a page from the Jussie Smollett playbook. If you can’t get the Trump supporters to commit crazy violence, then you’ve got to create the illusion that these grandmas and churchy “prayer warriors” and guys who dress up in throwback tri-cornered hats and buffalo-skinned jackets-with-tassels are even crazier than they look. 

You have to give Black Lives Matter and Antifa a run for their money with this ragtag group. Get the party started with your own operatives; continue to play offense; cry “Insurrection!” Then, who will blame you if you point out that without any sort of investigation you are able to state emphatically that you found zero evidence of election fraud—and spend the next two weeks bringing yet another charge of impeachment against the soon-to-be-shown-the-door current sitting president. 

In short, the Democratic Left, with many enablers in the Rollover Republican Party, co-opted the insurrection narrative and proceeded to instruct America at large that a violent insurrection was championed by nefarious Trump supporters. 

Which on the face of it is truly odd. 

If you want to overthrow a government, which of these two rallying cries would you use?  

“Make America Great Again!” 

or 

“Fundamentally Transform America!” 

The first is positive, optimistic, and uplifting, and implies building, not tearing down, the country that’s already here.  

The second talks about a fundamental change, and inherent in that word is the concept of foundations. Meriam-Webster says the “essential meaning” of fundamental is: “[F]orming or relating to the most important part of something . . . relating to the basic structure or function of something.” And provides this example: “The Constitution ensures our fundamental rights.” 

So, would an insurrectionist be more interested in ensuring our fundamental rights? Or transforming them? 

Put another way: if you want to fundamentally transform your house, you need to tear it down to get to its foundation. From there you can lay a new foundation and build whatever house you want, bigger or smaller—or no house at all. You can still call it by the same place name if you want, after all, whatever is there (or isn’t there) still occupies the same space. But, it’s certainly not the same house that was there previously. 

From all appearances, with so much going haywire this past year and the attack on our basic rights and freedoms, it seems we are now living in that “fundamentally transformed America” of which candidate Barack Obama spoke back in 2008. And we got here by way of a mostly peaceful insurrection that many might say actually happened in early November 2020, not early January 2021.

Nevertheless, we are where we are. And “Insurrection! Insurrection! Insurrection!” will be the rallying cry, narrative, and game plan for the Democrats on the road ahead. 

X22, Christian Patriot News, and more-Jan 18

 

Busy day. Here's tonight's news:

Who Will Follow Biden Into No Man’s Land?

The media cheerleaders are taking to the boats as Biden’s approval numbers sink.

by Conrad Black for American Greatness

If Afghanistan was the worst disaster in American military history, not in terms of lives lost but of profound incompetence in planning and executing a vital military operation, last week must stand as the single greatest one-week showcase of political miscalculation in modern American history. 

The administration had run on and propelled itself through its first year in office on the slogan “Build Back Better” and particularly on the multitrillion-dollar cornucopia of expanded money supply scattered among the favored causes of the Sanders Democrats. The Democrats’ most important legislative measures are the Freedom to Vote and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts to assure an almost indefinite Democratic hold on the federal government by banning voter identification rules (which are popular with all groups of voters), expanding mailed and harvested ballots, and restricting voter roll updates and signature validation. These measures passed their trial run when enacted in the swing states of the 2020 election generally by state governors and courts, and not the state legislatures as required by the Constitution, supposedly to encourage voting despite the COVID pandemic.

The Democrats have also made it clear that they intend to impose no restraints at all on the influx of illegal aliens, who could total 6 to 8 million people for the current presidential term, whom the Democrats propose to permit to vote without becoming citizens (which, like much of this protracted attempted coup d’etat, is unconstitutional, if anyone still cares).

The tactical plan—though in the aftermath of its attempted application, it strains credulity that any person with an IQ as high as double figures could have imagined that it would be successful—was to attempt to observe the anniversary of the disturbances at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a manner so theatrical and evocative of ancient American concerns for political freedom that an ambiance could be confected in which the preposterous election-rigging measures before the Senate now would sweep through on a tidal wave of misguided patriotism. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), never the most riveting of interviewees, had an extended session in Statuary Hall, fielding the softest questions the lickspittles of the Democratic national political media could devise. As Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham, always lacerating when reporting on the Democrats’ sleazy antics, quipped on her nightly program, Pelosi was so boring that CNN lost 90 percent of its (comparatively small) audience and “the statues got up and left.”

The feeble basis upon which the Democrats have launched this coup is that the Republican attempt to strengthen the verification and the authenticity of ballots in a number of states that were deficient on these points in 2020 is an assault upon the right of African Americans to vote. 

For those who have not acquired or have forgotten how to translate the puerile shibboleths of the Biden spokespeople, this was why there was all the hysteria about “Jim Crow on steroids.” It is inconceivable that more than one percent of qualified American voters, whatever their pigmentation, could believe such bunk. Yet Joe Biden rose, as he thought, to the tactical requirements and went to Atlanta to say that those who sided with the Republicans in these matters preferred brutal 1960s arch-segregationist Alabama sheriff Bull Connor to the late Congressman John Lewis, Alabama Governor George Wallace to Martin Luther King, and the Confederate President Jefferson Davis to the emancipator of the slaves and co-founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln. 

This is political rhetoric and historical insight of a piece with rabidly partisan historian Douglas Brinkley comparing clearing trespassers out of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 with the liberation of the Nazi death camps in 1945, and Pelosi’s assertion that the rather commodious enclosures set up by President Obama but identified with President Trump in which the children abandoned by illegal migrants enjoyed the best lodging and best nutrition of their lives, were also reminiscent of Auschwitz.        

People who know nothing about history but yet insist upon drawing absurdly ignorant and defamatory historical comparisons don’t succeed in demonizing unexceptionable current political activity; they trivialize and render ambiguous monstrous and soul-destroying atrocities of other times and countries. Comparing Trump to Hitler makes Hitler seem less bad rather than making Trump seem worse. 

As last week sluggishly proceeded, it was a constant challenge to keep in mind that the subject of these frenzied verbal assaults was a series of measures conscientiously designed to assure that every eligible person could vote and that it would be much harder to steal elections than it was in the chronically uncertain conditions of November 2020. After the legislative rule changes necessary to enable Build Back Better and the vote-rigging bills failed, the Supreme Court declared most applications of the administration’s vaccine mandates to be unconstitutional. 

Nothing is working and the public is deserting in millions.

I mustn’t shortchange the other participants in last week’s immense Democratic fiasco. Hillary Clinton, in a sequel to her tear-filled lamentation that she was unable to tell her mother in heaven that she had been elected president of the United States, implied, as Biden entered what appears to be a political death plunge, that she was going to have a try at it again. (Whatever America longs for, it is not a return of the Clintons.) 

Tom Friedman of the New York Times, as faithful and punctual in disgorging political absurdities as the famous “Old Faithful” geyser at Yellowstone National Park, hallucinated that the addition of U.S. Representaitve Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) as the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate would produce something akin to an Israeli grand coalition government. If Cheney joined Biden, Harris, or Clinton, the effect would be to assure that the Democrats received practically no votes. If the presidential candidate was Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who was also mentioned last week, they would merely have to struggle desperately to lose by fewer than 20 million votes.

A barometer I have been watching to see when the cynicism of the media would require it to put some blue water between themselves and this foundering regime they did so much to elect is the Wall Street Journal commentator and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. It finally happened last week: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a pretty inveterate NeverTrumper, denounced Biden’s Atlanta address in stern terms and Peggy got on board: It was a “Breaking Point” and Biden had “united the majority against him.” In a famous phrase of Schiller’s, “Late you come, but still you come.” The media cheerleaders are taking to the boats.

Kamala Harris, shaken by disparagements of her habit of responding to questions with peals of laughter, and to revelations she was deemed to have negative charisma, handled the typical putty questions of a Democratic interviewer who asked if it was time to change strategies given that even the leftish Quinnipiac poll had demoted Biden down to a 33 percent approval rating. She responded with the translucent Demosthenian gem that the administration has “to continue to do what we are doing and the time to do it is every day.”

If that doesn’t rouse the Democratic Party and media out of the trenches and send them leaping up into no man’s land to face the massed artillery and machine-gun fire of the great majority of Americans who regard them as hopelessly incompetent placeholders, nothing will.

The Democrats Embrace Voter Intimidation

Sane people know that every last measure inside the Democrat’s voting bill is an attempt to codify corruption.

by Ned Ryun for American Greatness

Joe Biden has claimed “democracy is under attack” and that to save “democracy” we must annihilate Senate norms such as the legislative filibuster. If you don’t believe that this crisis exists and act immediately, his argument goes, the sun won’t rise ever again; the oceans will dry up, and you’re an evil racist like Jefferson Davis, Bull Connor, and George Wallace (Democrats every last one—and Biden actually sought Wallace’s support back when Biden wanted to be liked by the Wallaces and Byrds of the Democratic Party.) But why let facts get in the way of a good Grandpa Dementia bedtime story? 

Of course the real reason for the shrieking hysteria from Biden and the Left is that they’re confronting what is likely to be an electoral tsunami in the fall. Most Americans with half a brain have realized after a year under the Biden presidency that the Left’s policies and politicians are absolute failures. That’s why Biden has a 33 percent approval rating. And it’s why moderate Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) want nothing to do with Biden, his policies, or his efforts at rewriting Senate rules.

Progressives of course had a premonition that their policies would wreak havoc upon the American people. To protect themselves from electoral accountability they immediately introduced a bill to federalize election law for the Left’s partisan advantage. This comes as no surprise from the Democratic Party of Tammany Hall, which has a long, sordid history of rigging election laws to hang onto power through the intimidation of voters. 

Now the Democrats want to add to this notorious history by allowing 16 year-olds, illegal immigrants, and non-citizens to vote, with universal mail-in ballots, privatized takeovers of elections (by leftist billionaires, no less), no photo ID, election weeks in lieu of Election Day, and the list goes on and on. 

Having seen the success of their extra-legal rigging of the 2020 election with “emergency measures,” the Democrats demand they be made permanent. But above all, to reverse their political fortunes, what the Democrats really want—no, what they need—is H.R. 4, which is a patent voter intimidation bill. 

Just like everything else the Left tries to rebrand or rewrite, we should be clear about what H.R. 4 is. It’s not about vote integrity. It’s about their pursuit of one party power (theirs of course). And it’s absolutely about voter intimidation. The Democrats are hell-bent on it. 

Why do you think the Democrats want to take voting further and further away from the poll booth? It’s to annihilate the idea of a secret ballot. In America, we have a secret ballot to protect voters from intimidation or remuneration for doing their civic duty. At polling locations, it is far easier to protect voters and their privacy from the prying eyes of those who would intimidate them and usurp their right to vote as they see fit. 

But mail-in voting has few such safeguards. The ones it does have are difficult to enforce and Democrats are intent on removing even those. When a ballot harvester is amassing his bounty in a senior center, who will protect the elderly from being intimidated to vote a certain way? Who will protect the vulnerable voter from being steered to cast a ballot by someone paid to “assist” him? 

This is not an abstract question. Remember the Center for Tech and Civic Life(CTCL)? In 2020, with the help of hundreds of millions of Mark Zuckerberg’s “Zuck Bucks” channeled through CTCL, the Left hired commissars to go into senior centers to ballot harvest (read: fill out seniors’ ballots for them) with no protection for seniors’ privacy rights. The abuse was so rampant in elder care facilities in Wisconsin that criminal charges have been filed. 

But screw the law and all that: the Left wants to do it again. Why? Because there were no consequences the last time they rigged the election. Now they just need to replicate those conditions again and again and again so Democrats continue to get their way. 

We saw in 2020 some of the most vulnerable and defenseless groups of people coerced into voting together with no privacy protections and Democrats want to make that a permanent thing. If this bill passes, it will codify mass coercion and the intimidation of voters will not be stoppable. 

Secret ballots can only really be enforced at the polls. That’s why we need to ban mail-in ballots except in extreme cases, ban electronic voting machines, return to paper ballots, and make Election Day a national holiday during which we celebrate our democratic process. Otherwise we will not have free and fair elections again and there will be no guaranteed peaceful transfer of power because people will no longer believe in the process. 

Sane people know that every last measure inside the Democrats’ voting bill is an attempt to codify corruption. If you advocate against photo ID and in-person voting, you’re doing it for one reason: you want to cheat. Europe knows that, even if they made exceptions in the last election cycle. France outlawed the use of mail-in ballots in 1975 with many European countries requiring photo ID to vote, meaning most advanced countries still hold to some standards of free and fair elections. But not the American Left. 

Those who care about protecting vulnerable voters from the Democrats’ intimidation should oppose H.R. 4 and every other iteration of the Democrats’ attempts to irrevocably corrupt the process. 

If not, the Democrats want to make sure you never get another chance.

Gallup Survey on 'Party Preferences' Confirms Dems' Worst Fears About Joe Biden

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

Judging by the number of House Democrats who are abandoning ship ahead of the 2022 midterm elections alone (the number currently stands at 26, with more sure to follow), some Democrats obviously are well aware of the writing on the wall when it comes to their chances of retaining the House later this year.

Issues like the economy, inflation, the unemployment situation, and the ongoing coronavirus pandemic loom large for Joe, who one year since his inauguration has seen his approval rating plummet from a high of 63% in one post-inauguration poll to 33% in one from just last week.

Though Biden trotted into the Oval Office in a blaze of glory, propped up by a mainstream media eager to get back to “business as usual” (read: “scratch our backs, we scratch yours” relations) with a Democratic presidential administration, the shiny newness has worn off and the icing is off of the cake, with cold, hard reality rearing its ugly head.

That reality is that Biden is not only not the uniter in chief he promised to be, but he’s also a pretty ineffective leader whose priorities are not what they should be and who can’t even bring his own party together to get behind him in passing Democrat agenda items.

Gallup Polling has conducted comprehensive quarterly surveys going back decades to gauge the political party preferences of voters. Typically, Democrats tend to have the edge in these surveys, but something pretty remarkable happened in the fourth quarter last year:

On average, Americans’ political party preferences in 2021 looked similar to prior years, with slightly more U.S. adults identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic (46%) than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican (43%).

However, the general stability for the full-year average obscures a dramatic shift over the course of 2021, from a nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter to a rare five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter.

[…]

The GOP has held as much as a five-point advantage in a total of only four quarters since 1991. The Republicans last held a five-point advantage in party identification and leaning in early 1995, after winning control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the 1950s. Republicans had a larger advantage only in the first quarter of 1991, after the U.S. victory in the Persian Gulf War led by then-President George H.W. Bush.

What brought about the change? They note in their piece that there was a correlation last year between shifts in party preference and presidential approval ratings. And Biden’s began falling dramatically in the third quarter as reality set in for voters.

This is something that played out in the Virginia red wave of 2021, where independent voters shifted to Republican gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkin in part because they weren’t happy with Joe Biden’s performance so far and wanted to send a message.

If these trends hold throughout 2022, it could prove disastrous at the ballot box in November:

This is the worst fear of Democrats confirmed: Joe Biden has been an awful drag on their party rather than the rescuer they thought they needed. Unfortunately for them, not only are there other “drags” on their party (like AOC), but it also appears that there’s no end in sight to the Democratic party’s woes, especially if Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema stand firm on preserving the filibuster.

New ‘Domestic Terror Unit’ Is A Way To Punish Americans For Thought Crimes

‘Domestic terrorism’ is now a catch-all term used by many in government to justify political intimidation and persecution.

Hudson Crozier reporting for The Federalist

On Tuesday, Department of Justice representatives informed a Senate committee of plans to gather a group of select attorneys to form a “Domestic Terror Unit” in light of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, noting that its number of investigations of alleged domestic terrorists have more than doubled since the spring of 2020. While admitting “there is no single federal crime labeled ‘domestic terrorism,’” a DOJ official promised to invoke a “criminal code” that allows enhanced sentences for certain crimes listed as “terror offenses.”

There are many reasons to doubt the authenticity of the federal government’s efforts against this “persistent and evolving” threat, including its conveniently blurred definitions.

The National Defense and Authorization Act’s definition of “domestic terrorism” distinctly refers to “unlawful use or threat of force of violence in furtherance of ideological agendas” in the context of political or anti-government extremism. Most other common-sense definitions clearly denote violence as an essential feature. However, federal agents have a poor track record in their use of the label, not only in the case of parents angry at school boards, but most recently in relation to Jan. 6, 2021.

In July 2021, after pleading guilty to “obstruction of an official proceeding,” non-violent Jan. 6 defendant Paul Hodgkins, who had no prior criminal record, was given a heavy eight-month sentence. Judge Randolph Moss described him as one of many “terrorists” that day, baselessly lumping him in with those who committed actual violence.

In all his insufferable rantings about an “assault on democracy” and the rebellious “symbolism” of Hodgkins raising a Trump flag, Moss could not explain how his particular crime of roaming the Senate floor for 22 minutes had enabled violence. In fact, he plainly admitted that the punishment wasn’t based entirely on individual guilt, but on a perverse idea of “balanced” justice:

The court here had to consider both what I think are the extremely damaging events that occurred that day but also who Mr. Hodgkins is as an individual. And as I think is reflected by the sentencing I imposed, I tried to strike that balance.

This implies one may be considered a terrorist by virtue of being within geographical distance of what terrorists are doing if one’s political leanings are on a similar spectrum.

Despite the court’s claims, neither the prosecution nor the judge brought forth a sentencing enhancement based on the existing code of terror offenses mentioned Tuesday. Why? Because Hodgkins’ crime isn’t on it. It was terrorism because the court said it was, not by law.

More judicial malpractice occurred in the case of non-violent defendant Jacob Chansely, the infamous “Q shaman” who was held in solitary confinement for months while Judge Royce Lamberth repeatedly denied his release. In November, Chansely received an unbelievable 41-month sentence when he pleaded guilty to the same charge as Hodgkins.

While admitting Chansely committed no violent crime at the Capitol (in fact, he openly called for peace), the court cited a “need to deter others especially in cases of domestic terrorism.” By punishing a non-terrorist more harshly than necessary to “deter others,” our bloodthirsty DOJ showed a willingness to weaponize federal convictions that deplete a defendant’s civil rights just to make an example out of him.

In August, the government extended its wild accusations out of the courtrooms and into local police departments. Leading up to the anniversary of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security issued an alert advising police and neighborhoods to be on the lookout for potential terror threats. Among them were “opposition to COVID measures,” or association with “conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud.”

Do you oppose certain COVID policies or hold a skeptical view of the 2020 election’s security but have no intent to respond violently or illegally? The DHS draws no line; to them, you may be a terrorist. Their language spreads beyond actions to include statements or beliefs that are inherently devoid of any call to action, violent or not. One could almost call it an indictment of “thought crime.”

Lastly, while the Jan. 6 Capitol attack obviously involved acts of political violence, it hasn’t been linked to any broader, organized threat to the country, raising more questions as to what exactly justifies a new Terror Unit in response.

In August, after hundreds of arrests and investigations, the FBI admitted to finding no hard evidence of an elaborate political plot on Jan. 6, a confession no one in the government has retracted since. The most concerning evidence of a plot may be the FBI’s own use of provocateurs, but it’s looking doubtful the FBI or DOJ will investigate itself.

When asked by the Senate committee if any Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with “insurrection,” DOJ representatives said they were unaware of any. That’s because the answer is no. Regardless, the feds continue to ramp up their already fanatical response to a problem they haven’t clearly defined.

Our self-serving ruling class hasn’t conducted itself responsibly or transparently in the wake of the Capitol attack, and we can expect this new development to be no different. While the Biden administration would have us believe that the aimless actions of a few foolish troublemakers represent the greatest authoritarian threat to the United States, its systematic purge of political opponents indicates otherwise.

Democrats Begin Pushing a Major Elections Lie

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

No more hypocritical of an institution will you find than politics. The shamelessness with which many in the arena will decry the actions of their opponents only to pursue those same actions themselves ranges somewhere between jarring and disturbing. It’s so detached from the way normal people interact across the vast expanse of the United States.

How does Rep. Adam Schiff spend half a decade bleating about Russian collusion only to doctor evidence multiple times in his quest to bring down Donald Trump? How does CNN’s Jake Tapper ban anyone who even tacitly questioned the 2020 election from his show while he himself spreads baseless election conspiracy theories?

That’s where we are, though. Schiff is welcome on Tapper’s show anytime despite the litany of documented lies the congressman has told. Meanwhile, after spending the last year appropriating Joseph Goebbel’s language about the “Big Lie,” Tapper is now pushing his own version of it.

Tapper isn’t alone, of course. The president himself, following the epic defeat of his so-called “voting rights” bill (which is really a federal attempt to rig the 2022 election) last week, went before the press ranting and raving about “who gets to count the votes.” Aside from the obvious senility-driven anger at play in such a reaction from Joe Biden, one is left asking what the heck he’s talking about?

So what are Biden, Tapper, and others talking about with these unsubstantiated assertions regarding vote counting? Well, the technical answer is that they aren’t talking about anything. At least not anything that actually exists. Despite the wild rantings of these leftwing ideologues, the votes of the next election and all those after will be counted just as they’ve always been counted, i.e. by local election officials at the county level. That’s been a hallmark of our decentralized elections system since this nation’s founding. That Democrats want to federalize and centralize so much now, wiping away common-sense state guidelines and procedures, should be a dead giveaway as to what their real goal is.

Tapper feigns moral superiority as he implores us to “pay attention to who they’re lining up to count the votes,” providing no evidence of his vague claim. That’s not by accident, though. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

The goal here is to sow doubt in the next election by convincing people that not only will voters be suppressed (false), but also that those who do vote won’t even have their vote counted. Now, doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the kind of rhetoric Tapper spent the last year decrying as “delegitimizing our elections?” You see, questioning our elections is good again because it’s Democrats who are lined up to get waxed in November.

The same people who can’t stop talking about January 6th and clutch their pearls anytime a Republican mentions voter fraud are suddenly very interesting in pretending that our elections are not, in fact, free and fair. How very convenient, right? And if you ask them about their hypocrisy, they’ll insist that when they do it, it’s different. Because, unlike voter fraud, which absolutely, unequivocally doesn’t exist by their telling, mythical voter suppression is everywhere. They make that claim with a straight face despite the fact that black Americans vote as a percentage on par with white Americans.

Nothing Tapper and the rest are saying makes sense because it’s not supposed to make sense. The end game here is to drive another wedge into the heart of the American populace. And what better way to segregate people into their respective camps than to claim that one side winning literally means the end of the democracy? Such a “threat” to the country can justify anything, after all. That Tapper knows exactly what he’s doing makes his behavior all the worse.

Nancy Pelosi Goes Full Joe Biden in Bizarre Founding Fathers, Filibuster Rant

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState

Nearly a week after President Joe Biden said if you don’t agree with him on changing the Senate rules on the filibuster and/or on federalizing elections that you were no better than Democrat racists of the past like Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Jefferson Davis, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has added her own unhinged twist on the kind of person you allegedly are if you don’t play nice with Democrats on these issues.

With today being MLK Day, Democrats are of course milking the opportunity the holiday presents to invoke the late civil rights icon’s legacy when it comes to their pet projects, and that includes on the so-called “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” both of which would be massive power grabs for Democrats if passed and signed into law by Biden.

Pelosi, flanked by family members of MLK as well as Congressional Black Caucus Chair Joyce Beatty, gave a press conference earlier where the emphasis was on “voting rights” and how Democrat holdouts like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (not mentioned by name) needed to get over their commitment to preserving the filibuster in the name of democracy or whatever.

But during her remarks, Pelosi sounded like Joe Biden last week, stating that “if you really truly want to honor Dr. King, don’t dishonor him by using a Congressional custom as an excuse for protecting our democracy.” She went on to say that those who stand opposed to changing the filibuster “have no right to honor this family, to visit the [MLK] monument.”

Seriously?

Moments later, she went full “Crazy Joe” in animatedly suggesting that Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had “tears in their eyes for the departure from our democracy that is happening right now.”

Watch:

Firstly, I’m a bit confused here. Last year we were told that monuments to our “slave-owning Founding Fathers” need to be removed and confined to museums. Now we’re being told they have tears in their eyes over stalled “voting rights” bills that Pelosi and other Democrats say in part are to make it easier for minorities to vote? Democrats really need to make up their minds on this one.

Secondly, though I can’t speak to the thoughts of anyone who has departed this earth, I feel pretty certain that MLK would be deeply disappointed in the Democrats of today, including Nancy Pelosi, all of who seek to keep fanning the flames of racial division not because they want to solve anything but because it helps keep them in office and on TV, virtue signaling about how committed they are to civil rights.

Third, if Nancy Pelosi believes the Founding Fathers were all about putting our elections in the hands of the federal government, she’s sadly mistaken. As George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley explained last summer in an op-ed:

When the Constitution was written, the Framers expressly warned of the need to keep the federal government at bay in elections. South Carolina constitutional convention delegate Charles Pinckney noted that “great care was used to provide for the election of the president of the United States independently of Congress; to take the business as far as possible out of their hands.” It was done, he explained, because Congress “had no right to meddle with it at all.” Many Framers feared the power of the central government and wanted to prevent the abuses of Great Britain in the use of executive powers.

This view was reflected in the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, which confines the power of Congress to determining “the day on which [electors] give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Where Congress is left with the timing of such elections, states are left the manner in which those elections are held.

Not only did this state control over elections advance the purpose of decentralization of authority, it reflected the strong federalism principles in the Constitution. States were viewed as “laboratories of democracy,” with each pursuing different approaches to governmental functions, including elections. They also were closest to the voters, who could more readily change laws and policies on the state level.

Would be nice if Democrat “leaders” like Pelosi had even the bare minimum grasp of understanding regarding the political history they spout. But this is all about narratives and whatnot and branding your political opposition racists and traitors, so who cares anything about the inconvenient facts?

Video Shows Pennsylvania Official Admitting Election Laws Were Broken In 2020

This video provides yet another example of the widespread violations of election law during the last presidential election.

Margot Cleveland reporting for The Federalist

So, we’re going to actually follow the law fully this time,” Delaware County, Pennsylvania’s Christina Perrone told fellow election-related workers during a Zoom meeting after the November 2020 election. This video—the latest obtained by The Federalist—provides yet another example of widespread violations of election law during the last presidential election.

Regina Miller, a contract worker for the large Pennsylvania county, filmed the video of the April 7, 2021 Zoom meeting, which involved voting officials discussing plans for the upcoming elections, according to sources familiar with the recording. The video began with Perrone, who, according to a lawsuit filed against her, other Delaware County officials, and the county, served as a project manager for the county, saying they would “talk about that off-line”—with the “that” not specified.

The remainder of the clip, however, gave some clues, with Perrone saying she had a brief conversation with “Jim,” “and this time it’s much different than last time because we’re going to have them sign oaths. There’re going to be W4s and we need them to sign something allowing somebody else to pick up. So, we’re going to actually follow the law fully this time,” Perrone ended with a laugh.

The Federalist contacted Delaware County, inquiring on the identity of “Jim” and the other participants in the call and seeking comment on videos filmed by the whistleblower. The public relations director for the Pennsylvania county, Adrienne Marofsky, stated that as the matter involved “pending litigation,” the county was “not responding to press questions.” Marofsky added, however, that, “The county is confident that the elections in 2020 and 2021 were conducted fairly and fully complied with state and federal laws.”

Perrone seemed to think otherwise, at least according to her comments in the Zoom video.

Several other videos previously obtained by The Federalist capture an array of troubling discussions also related to the 2020 election, including “Delaware County officials destroying election material or blocking out ‘derogatory’ information in the copies made in response to the Right to Know Request” submitted to county officials by residents seeking copies of documents to confirm the November election results.

Another video captured a man identified for The Federalist by sources familiar with the recordings as James Savage, the chief custodian and voting machine warehouse supervisor for the Delaware County Voting Machine Department during the November 2020 election.

As The Federalist previously reported, Savage is seen on tape “inquiring on ‘recreating data’” from the November 2020 election. The recording then shows an individual off-camera offering a “suggested approach that would entail recreating results for ‘these jokers,’ and ‘then create another set for the next set of jokers’ — an apparent reference to the individuals who filed the Right-to-Know request — ‘but we cut it up and then we create a permanent record.’”

The Federalist previously asked Savage’s attorney, J. Conor Corcoran, about the whistleblower tape showing Savage discussing recreating election data for Delaware County, inquiring: “Why would there be a need to recreate the election data with V-drives?”

Corcoran, who represents Savage in a defamation case the voting machine warehouse supervisor filed against two local poll watchers as well as Donald Trump and his legal team, did not respond to that question or others after The Federalist refused to provide him the identity of its source.

However, late last month, the two poll workers Savage had sued for defamation filed the videos, along with other evidence in support of their motion to dismiss Savage’s defamation case. In response, Savage’s attorney, Corcoran, filed a motion asking the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to strike the videos and other material filed in the case.

In arguing the material submitted by the poll workers should be stricken from the court record, Savage’s attorney maintained it “contain[ed] scandalous and impertinent” matters, including “the irrelevant and false allegation that [Savage] ‘conspired with James Allen to ‘get rid’ of the ‘pad and second scanners; [and to] hide and secrete November 3, 2020, election data, materials, and results.” James Allen is the director of election operations for Delaware County.

Savage’s denial of any conspiracy with Allen concerns yet another video The Federalist had obtained after Savage and other Delaware County officials were sued by local residents for alleged violations of state election law, as well as claims of a conspiracy following the election to hide the many problems and illegalities that occurred during the November 2020 election.

That video captured Savage speaking with an individual identified by those with knowledge of the lawsuit as Allen. In the video obtained by The Federalist, Allen is heard telling Savage, “Then get rid of the pads and the second scanners.”

“We can’t talk about it anymore,” the tape captures Savage replying. When Allen questions, “Why?” Savage explains, “It’s a felony.”

The Philadelphia trial court has yet to rule on Savage’s request that the videos and other court filings be stricken from the case, but even if they are excluded in that case, the whistleblower videos raise many questions for Delaware County officials, including what laws were not “fully followed,” as Perrone put it in the latest video obtained by The Federalist.

The questions should not stop at Delaware County or Pennsylvania, however, or even be considered apart from the revelations continuing to grow throughout the country of violations of election law.

From Wisconsin, where state officials ignored election code provisions mandating the use of a “special voting deputy” in nursing homes, to Georgia, where the secretary of state has launched yet another investigation into problems with the November 2020 election, the issues are many. And the whistleblower videos suggest that what is happening behind the scenes is even worse.

But rather than even acknowledge the many documented problems with the last election cycle, congressional Democrats and President Biden seek to cement chaos into American elections by gutting state election-integrity laws such as voter-ID requirements with the so-called “Freedom to Vote Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.” Those who disagree with this approach are “domestic enemies,” according to our supposed unifier-in-chief who spoke to crowds in Georgia last week to demand passage of the two bills.

It’s time for ordinary Americans to make the demands, however, and the whistleblower videos from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, provide hope the public will realize our country faces a systemic problem. It is not a voter-suppression problem: It is an election-integrity problem.