Friday, July 29, 2022

Government That Shut Down Businesses, Parks, Schools, Beaches, And Churches For 2 Years Says There’s Nothing We Can Do To Stop A Disease Spread By Gay Sex


Article Image

U.S. — The government that shut down beaches, parks, churches, schools, birthday parties, restaurants, retail shops, bars, cafes, skate parks, funerals, and hundreds of other locations, gatherings, and events across the country to slow the spread of COVID-19 announced Friday that there is "absolutely nothing we can think of" that would help slow the spread of monkeypox, a disease that is spread almost exclusively through gay sex.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky held a press conference today where she made the somber announcement that they've tried everything and can't think of a single thing that would stop the spread of this disease which spreads via homosexual encounters.

"Uh... yeah, nothing we can think of that would help prevent this," said Walensky of the virus that is infecting only gay men the vast majority of the time. "Just, uh, keep doing what you're doing. We don't want to disrupt essential activities such as gay orgies where monkeypox is spreading almost exclusively. We wouldn't expect gay men to be able to abstain from having sex with dozens of strangers for a couple of weeks. That's, uh, that's what we think of them."

"So just keep on having anonymous sex with whoever. We've done all we can do."

At publishing time, the government that said you couldn't have a funeral for your grandma or see your dying wife one last time had declared all gay orgies to be an "essential activity."



Doctors Said the Vaccine Was Safe

“We were just following orders,” the doctors will say when the truth comes out. Where have we heard that before?


Last week, German Euro Member of Parliament Christine Anderson called vaccine coercion “the worst crime ever committed on humanity.” This would conveniently replace the previous record in this category, held by the Germans. But she may turn out to be right. “There is so much coming to light,” she said. “All of the adverse side effects, numerous studies now available, on fetal disfigurements . . . genetic defects of babies born to women who got vaccinated . . .” 

Also last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson drew attention to a recent study published in the Journal of Food and Toxicology claiming to have observed “diverse adverse consequences to human health” from the vaccine, potentially including “a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis.” 

I happen to be unvaccinated. I also never caught COVID, but that may be purely a matter of chance. My being unvaccinated however has nothing to do with chance—it was an act of willpower in the face of pretty substantial pressure from a lot of directions. New York wouldn’t let me indoors without my vaccine identity papers and I refused to carry a fake card. I have friends who went through much worse, including one facing de facto expulsion from Columbia University for refusing the vaccine. Her religious exemption was denied. Columbia probably figured her religious faith was nothing compared to theirs: She might believe in Christinaity, but they believe in the vaccine, and who is anyone to question their faith? 

I was all primed to take the vaccine when it first became available, and might well have gotten it—were it not for the very religious character of the pressure to do so. That made me suspicious. We were repeatedly assured (remember the early days!) that those who took the vaccine were completely invincible to COVID, so I figured that by not taking it I could harm only myself. But, mysteriously, this was not the case: The vaccine was, on the one hand, completely effective. On the other hand, I was posing a danger to the vaccinated by not getting it. No doctor was willing to explain the contradiction to me. 

And I think the problem was that a lot of doctors had already gotten vaccinated—and gotten their children vaccinated—without thinking logically about the potential consequences. Then, when potential consequences began to look bad, it was better to pretend that everything was going to be fine than to admit that they might have poisoned themselves—and their children. 

I had a lengthy conversation on this subject more than a year ago with a doctor friend of mine, a good fellow and a friend from school. He was trying to convince me to take the vaccine, if not for myself then for those around me. By this point we’d shifted from “you won’t get COVID with the vaccine” to “you won’t get COVID as bad.” (This may also be false, but it was on that day’s Menu of Truth.) And so the new argument was that I could still hurt other people by not getting vaccinated. The doctor assured me it was completely, totally safe. 

But how could we know that? That is all I asked him. How could we know? Even if this vaccine weren’t a brand-new technology, even if it were something conventional, long-term side-effects could not possibly be known until there was time for them to develop and be observed. 

The doctor told me that the CDC assured us the vaccine was safe, so there could not possibly be any risk. But how could the CDC know, I asked? We began moving in circles. He refused to see the logical fallacy, and I refused to acknowledge that the CDC could know something that only the passage of time would reveal. So he finally fell back on the initial argument: This is an emergency, and you should get it for the good of society. Think of the women and children! Think of your elderly family members! You might be killing them! 

Well now. Who has been killing whom? I don’t want to say “I told you so,” to people who got vaccinated. God forbid. I just want to ask all the doctors who injected their patients and promised total safety—when they knew they had no right to make such a promise—what are you going to do now? What if it gradually becomes clear that you have harmed and damaged hundreds or thousands of people, perhaps permanently? 

We already know the answer to this: They’re going to say, “It wasn’t our fault! The CDC told us it was safe! Pfizer said it was safe! We are victims too! We were deceived! We had no way of knowing!” 

But you doctors did know: Not that the vaccine was necessarily dangerous, but that there was no way of knowing, for certain, that it was not. And you are responsible for the damage done by every injection administered, whatever that may turn out to be. 

Ultimately I believe this scandal will bring down Pfizer and Moderna. They may have all sorts of indemnity against harm caused by their vaccines, and it may take 20 years, but ultimately public outrage will reach such a fever pitch against these drug companies that they will implode. They will have traded massive, unheard of profits today in exchange for ruin tomorrow. 

And one of the reasons Pfizer and Moderna won’t survive is that tens of thousands of doctors will need somewhere to put the blame that should also rest on their shoulders: “We were just following orders,” the doctors will say. We’ve heard that one before.



X22, And we Know, and more- July 29

 



Rewatched a few good NCIS LA episodes today. :) Here's tonight's news:


The National Tragedy of Hunter Biden’s Laptop

How a country’s political corruption, 

institutional decay, and moral decline 

can be summed up in one sad family saga



The recent release of more gigabytes of images and information from Hunter Biden’s laptop adds to the evidence that the all-out elite effort to bury the scandal before the 2020 election wasn’t just to protect Joe Biden, the preferred candidate of the American oligarchy. Sure, the 50-plus senior U.S. intelligence professionals who signed a letter claiming the laptop’s contents were “Russian disinformation” wanted to stop Donald Trump from sending angry tweets at them, but the laptop suggests there was much more at stake.

The U.S. spy chiefs who signed that infamously misleading letter—including John Brennan, Leon Panetta, Michael Hayden, and James Clapper—had directed America’s foreign intelligence services while Biden was vice president and before that chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They knew what his son Hunter was doing abroad, because it was their job to know what foreign services know about leading U.S. officials and their families, and how it might affect U.S. national security.

But none of these powerful and experienced men, presumably dedicated to defending the national interest, lifted a finger to stop Hunter Biden—and really, how could they? He was Joe Biden’s son, after all. And by doing nothing about him, the pillars of America’s intelligence community became the curators of the Biden family’s scandal.

When Trump started asking questions in 2019 about Hunter and his father, prompted by Joe Biden’s public comments about protecting Hunter’s business associates abroad, it became clear that the only way to contain the mushrooming scandal involving key U.S. interests in Ukraine and China—a scandal whose magnitude they had known about for a decade—was to provide the former vice president with all the resources the U.S. government could muster. And that helped make him president.

There is so much data on Hunter Biden’s laptop that it’s hard to keep straight the sequence of images and information that have come from it since the New York Post started sourcing stories to the personal computer in October 2020. The most recent release includes 80,000 images that a Switzerland-based cyber expert recovered from deleted iPad and iPhone accounts backed up on the laptop.

There are more pictures, texts, and emails about the younger Biden’s business deals, drug use, sex life, and family relations. Hunter referred to his stepmother, first lady Jill Biden, as a “vindictive moron.” There’s a contact nicknamed “Pedo Peter,” which appears to refer to his father: Joe Biden often used the alias “Peter Henderson,” the name of a character in a Tom Clancy novel, when he traveled.

“I saw about two dozen images of young girls in suggestive poses and then stopped looking,” says Jack Maxey, a former co-host of Steve Bannon’s “War Room” and the source of the laptop data later authenticated by The Washington Post and Daily Mail. “That’s why I keep asking for some sheriff somewhere to get involved and do this the right way,” Maxey told me in a phone call. “It has to be done under lawful conditions.”

It was Maxey who got The Washington Post to admit that the information on Hunter Biden’s laptop is genuine. In June 2021, Maxey brought the paper a copy of the hard drive from the computer that Biden left with a Delaware repairman in April 2019. The repairman has said he offered the laptop to the FBI in July of that year and heard nothing back until five months later when the bureau confiscated it from him. That was December 2019, when U.S. spy services were using congressional allies to impeach Donald Trump for asking questions about the Bidens’ activities in Ukraine, which are described on Hunter Biden’s laptop.

In September 2020, the repairman gave a copy of the hard drive to Rudolph Giuliani’s lawyer. The former New York City mayor had been investigating the Bidens’ work in Ukraine for nearly two years at that point after receiving a tip from a former federal prosecutor. Giuliani helped disseminate copies of the hard drive, one of which Maxey took to The Washington Post.

Nine months after Maxey sat with Post reporters to explain the contents of the hard drive, the paper reported its own independent authentication of 22,000 emails in March of 2022. These included communications regarding a deal with a Chinese energy company that earned Hunter $5 million, and his work with Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that paid him $83,333 per month to sit on its board. His father later boasted in public that he’d threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine unless the central government in Kyiv fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma. At roughly the same time The Washington Post authenticated these emails, The New York Times also verifiedcommunications found on Hunter Biden’s computer.

So, have America’s two most prestigious newsprint organizations at last acknowledged that they were wrong to believe former intelligence officials who claimed the New York Post’s October 2020 reporting on the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? Of course not. They were and remain proud of their role in helping push Trump out of Washington. According to one survey, one out of six Biden voters said that had they known about Hunter’s laptop in time, they wouldn’t have voted for his father.

What concerned the prestige press wasn’t that they’d missed a big story—or that they’d participated in a campaign run by U.S. intelligence services to prevent American voters from learning about the extent of the Bidens’ political and moral corruption. Rather, they were worried that an even bigger story about the Bidens might be coming down the road. Maxey says he called the Post in March to say he was taking the hard drive to Switzerland to meet with a cyber expert named Vincent Kaufmann who told him he thought he could retrieve material deleted from the laptop.

The Times published its story two days after Maxey landed in Zurich, and the Post published its own “investigation” two weeks later, pronouncing some of the emails genuine while claiming it was hard to tell with others. As a longtime platform for U.S. intelligence operations—and owned by the same man, Jeff Bezos, who owns the cloud computing technology that Amazon Web Services uses to store the CIA’s information—the Post wanted to help the White House get ahead of potential problems.

Maxey says that after he saw two dozen images of young girls, he told Kaufmann not to look at any more. “I don’t know how many he looked at,” says Maxey. “He was disturbed by what he saw and that no one would do anything about it. He’s a moral person with an incredible skillset but has no life experience. He’s a 31-year-old guy with a bag of chocolate bars or a Diet Coke in one hand and a computer mouse in the other.” Tablet tried to reach Kaufmann for comment, but did not hear back.

Kaufmann began posting some of the material on 4Chan, the anonymous posting board where the messaging operation QAnon started. Users copied the images and text and seeded it on social media platforms like Twitter. Maxey says he never would have released it. “From day one I told Vincent that we can’t release any of this material.”

Maxey says he also saw information on the laptop that has direct implications for U.S. national security. According to Maxey, this material includes documents relating to Pentagon cyber programs and others regarding former FBI Director Louis Freeh. According to a previously released email on Hunter’s laptop, Freeh worked with him to help a Romanian tycoon evade bribery charges. In April 2016, according to an earlier trove of emails, Freeh deposited $100,000 in a trust fund for two of Joe Biden’s grandchildren.

“Vincent thought the media was covering for the Bidens,” says Maxey. “Which is true. He also thought I was shielding them. He couldn’t understand why nothing was happening. He couldn’t believe people wouldn’t protect children, so he felt he needed to deal with it.” Maxey says that since Kaufmann posted the material online, he’s spoken with “several sheriffs who have reached out to help, and it looks like we can resolve this.”

Outside of the New York Post, Fox News, and the Daily Mail, the press has ignored the latest release, as it did with previous tranches of Hunter’s emails. Still, it seems the Biden administration isn’t taking any chances. The Treasury Department has rebuffed requests from Republican lawmakers to release suspicious activity reports (SARs) related to Hunter Biden that might shed more light on the foreign entanglements outlined in the laptop’s information and his father’s possible involvement.

While Biden said he never spoke with his son about his business abroad, a voicemail from another recently released laptop cache shows the president was being less than forthright. He knew about his son’s business with the Chinese energy firm and one of its top officials, Patrick Ho. After The New York Timespublished a softball article in December 2018 about Hunter’s work with Ho and other businessmen tied to the Chinese Communist Party, Biden left a message for his son saying, “I think you’re clear.

Of course Hunter was clear: The FBI was watching over him. The bureau knew what he was doing because it had obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant in 2017 on Ho, who Hunter called the “spy chief of China.”

With the spy warrant, U.S. domestic intelligence services had access to every electronic communication between Ho and his business partner, Joe Biden’s son. Had the FBI wanted, it would have been able to access Joe Biden’s communications as well. The bureau used a FISA warrant on a 2016 Trump campaign adviser to spy on the campaign, Trump’s transition team, and then the White House. While the Justice Department charged and convicted Ho with bribing African officials and money laundering, Hunter Biden, as his father had told him, was in the clear.

If anonymous U.S. intelligence officials say that information based on Treasury Department documents are lies made in Moscow, what isn’t Russian disinformation?

Reports like the ones the Treasury Department is now withholding formed the basis of a September 2020 Senate Republican investigation by Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Chuck Grassley of Iowa that documented Hunter Biden’s business with foreign officials and companies. It included his relationship with Burisma in Ukraine; the Chinese energy company, which also gave money to the president’s brother Jim and his wife, Sara; and Elena Baturina, the widow of a former mayor of Moscow, from whom Hunter received $3.5 million.

The FBI tried to shape reception of the GOP Senate report by going to Johnson a month before its release and telling him he was a target of Russian disinformation. “I asked the briefers what specific evidence they had regarding this warning, and they could not provide me anything other than the generalized warning,” Johnson told The Washington Post. “I suspected that the briefing was being given to be used at some future date for the purpose that it is now being used.”

That is, the FBI told Johnson that he was being targeted by the Russians, then leaked their own comments to the press, so that after the senator’s report was published, the bureau’s media partners could dismiss it as Russian disinformation—even though it was sourced to Treasury Department documents. Like clockwork, just days after Johnson’s report came out, The New York Timescalled it “a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.”

Giuliani and One America News (OAN) journalists visited Kyiv in December 2019 to pursue the Biden investigation, and came away with a 2016 audiotape of what appears to be Joe Biden telling then-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to bury evidence incriminating them both if the newly elected Trump found it. Is the tape real? Who knows? If anonymous U.S. intelligence officials say that information based on Treasury Department documents are lies made in Moscow, what isn’t Russian disinformation? To play it safe, the Biden campaign fed an email query from an OAN reporter to a journalist from The Atlantic to frame OAN’s reporting as—what else?—"Russian disinformation,” a claim The Atlanticthen sourced back to three U.S. national security officials.

That’s how the Oct. 19, 2020, letter signed by more than 50 former U.S. spies worked, too. To substantiate their assessment that the laptop was Russian disinformation, former U.S. intelligence officials cited as evidence a Washington Post story published four days earlier, which reported that, according to four former U.S. intelligence officials, U.S. intelligence officials had warned the White House that Giuliani—the man who put the laptop in front of American voters—had been targeted by the Russians. In other words, the letter was pre-validated and primed by some of the former spies who signed the letter.

All this raises an important question: Why, when it comes to the Bidens, is it always the Russians who are passing on disinformation? Does Vladimir Putin hate Joe Biden as single-mindedly as he was said to have loved Donald Trump? Are there no other foreign spy services that try to interfere with our political system?

Of course there are: Chinese intelligence, for one. And yet whenever there’s bad news about Joe and Hunter Biden, it’s only ever fake news generated by the Russians. Russia has been a convenient foil since the 2016 presidential campaign, when Hillary Clinton and associates and U.S. spy chiefs like Brennan, Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey turned Putin into a one-stop shop for explaining Democratic electoral losses.

But there’s something even more obvious going on here: Calling every report on the Biden family’s corruption “Russian disinformation” is the preemptive countermeasure U.S. intelligence services have deployed on the off chance Moscow really does release whatever it has on the president and his son—including more hard drives, tapes, or records of financial transactions. At this point, after all the claims American spies have made about “Russian disinformation” looking to undermine the Bidens, who’s to say what’s true or not?

And what choice did American security agencies have? They couldn’t stop Hunter, who had his father’s blessing. So they spied on both of them. CIA officer Eric Ciaramella was detailed to Biden’s vice presidential staff, where he was in charge of the Ukraine file—that is, he observed what the Bidens were doing in Kyiv and reported it back to Langley. When Trump started raising questions in July 2019, Ciaramella filed a phony whistleblower’s complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general and, using the media and Democratic Party operatives, set in motion impeachment proceedings against the president.

With the fall and winter 2019-20 impeachment hearings indelibly establishing candidate Biden as Trump’s true nemesis, the Democratic nomination was virtually guaranteed. All that remained was to vanquish Bernie Sanders by promising to accommodate the also-rans. Pete Buttigieg was made transportation secretary, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren were whisked back to the Senate with gold stars, while the candidate who folded long before any of them after calling Biden a racist was chosen to be his vice president, reportedly over the soon-to-be first lady’s objection.

Anti-Biden opposition leaders argue that U.S. spy services are acting as his private enforcers. It’s not hard to see why. The Department of Justice sends armed agents against dissident journalists like James O’Keefe and former Trump officials like Jeffrey Clark, and they’ll likely do the same to Trump. The point of the congressional January 6 committee, after all, was to establish the basis for the DOJ to indict Trump sometime in the fall, shortly before midterm elections, with something like the obstruction of justice case Robert Mueller failed to make with his two-year-long Russia probe.

Attempting to convict a former president and his aides and supporters because they remain an electoral threat is a signature banana republic move, but Joe Biden is no caudillo. Rather, he’s a frontman for America’s national security state and its foreign wars. Since when does a president feel comfortable or compelled to tell the voting public in an election year that their food and transportation costs will continue to rise indefinitely with no benefit to them, and to start getting used to it? When the commander in chief with a congressional majority says there’s nothing he can do to protect the electorate from foreign actors who, in his own telling, are responsible for the price hikes crushing American households, he is confessing that he is not really in charge. The logical assumption is that the war in Ukraine is being used and reframed as yet another scheme—like the Green New Deal, COVID lockdowns, and vaccine mandates—to transfer U.S. taxpayer money to the oligarchs.

It hardly needs to be said at this point that, contrary to media reporting on the left and right, there is no actual investigation of Hunter Biden’s laptop. In August 2020, an FBI agent who played a role in framing Trump as a Russian agent dismissed the laptop as Russian disinformation. This assessment, according to a recent letter from Sen. Grassley, caused the FBI’s investigative activity to cease. It doesn’t matter how damning the laptop’s contents might be, or whether they include child pornography or photographs of Joe Biden cashing checks from China. Whatever investigation might exist is performative, meant to show that the agencies are treating the president’s son like any other U.S. citizen. It’s a Potemkin investigation, obscuring the wasteland that was once the constitutional order before 9/11 legitimized the intelligence agencies’ ruinous attacks on it.

Still, even without a trial, it’s clear that Hunter Biden has enjoyed one of the most maniacally reckless careers in American history. What distinguishes him from real daredevils, like rock stars, test pilots, and terrorists, is that he always worked with a safety net—one billed to the American public, which will continue to pay dearly for the excess his father afforded him.

Outsiders can’t know the character of the tragedies and ambitions that push families together and drive them apart. Maybe Joe Biden thought that facilitating Hunter’s access to dangerous foreign officials and corrupt foreign companies would toughen him up. That would be something like an imperial American version of the Prince Hal path to greatness. Or maybe the psychology isn’t very complicated at all, and it’s just the saddest story about an American political family that will never be told.



Vindication: Biden Administration Quietly Orders Part of Border Wall to Be Finished in Arizona


Cameron Arcand reporting for RedState 

On Thursday, the Biden administration ordered for the Yuma Morelos Dam Project in Arizona to be completed, which would “close four gaps” along the porous southern border sector.

According to the Associated Press, this effort was backed by former President Donald Trump’s administration, essentially vindicating conservatives who backed tougher security in the region.

The Department of Homeland Security said that the effort will mitigate the risks for migrants, as “the area presents safety and life hazard risks,” according to a statement.

Of course, nobody should expect the administration to brag about this, as they hated the concept of a border wall. On day one of the Biden White House, they ordered a “pause” of border wall construction and scrapped other Trump-era immigration policies. These swift actions arguably fueled the ongoing border crisis, and the decision to fill these gaps in Yuma comes too late. Materials had been left sitting at the border, when they could’ve instead continued to be used to prevent the humanitarian disaster plaguing border communities.

In the fiscal year 2022, which ends in September, there have been 235,230 migrant encounters, according to Customs and Border Protection data. This is the third highest sector, as it is trailing only behind the Rio Grande Valley and Del Rio sectors in Texas.

As Yuma’s KYMA reported on Wednesday, the influx of migrants at the border puts an unbelievable strain on local authorities, as they have to fulfill the roles that the federal government cannot.

Arizona and Texas have taken nearly every action to get a handle on the border crisis, including the controversial decision to bus migrants to East Coast cities such as Washington, D.C.

Democrat Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser even ordered the National Guard to assist with the flow of people, to which Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R-Ariz.) did not hesitate to make it clear that these cities are getting nothing compared to their small towns, RedState’s Nick Arama reported.

“Washington D.C. finally understands what Texans have been dealing with every single day, as our communities are overrun by thousands of illegal immigrants,” Abbott said, according to Fox News.

Ducey pointed out the statistics behind the crisis in his rebuke of Bowser.

“Mayor Bowser is lamenting 4,000 migrants — Arizona had 43,570 border encounters in June alone,” he tweeted.

Sorry, but the administration does not deserve credit for doing the bare minimum at the border. Their neglect is a gross disservice to Customs and Border Patrol agents, local authorities, and the good people of the American Southwest.




Democrats Are Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected By Popular Vote

The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines 
the electoral system established by our Constitution.



The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.

The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College. 

Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.

Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).

Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation

The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.

This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.

Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.

Cabalism Comes to Light

Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.

In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.

So why does all this matter?

An Oppressive Majority

It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.

The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.

Left Looks to Crush the Right

The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.

The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.  

Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.

In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.

Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.



Hershey warns of Halloween treats shortage

 

US chocolate manufacturer Hershey has warned of a shortage of sweets over the Halloween holiday as it struggles to ramp up supply.

On Thursday, chief executive Michele Buck said the firm "will not be able to fully meet consumer demand".

It is the latest firm to be hit as the pandemic and the Ukraine war challenge production.

Earlier in the day, Swiss food giant Nestle said it had put up its prices again because of "unprecedented" costs.

During a call after Hershey released its latest earnings, Ms Buck said the company had found it more difficult to secure ingredients as a result of the war.

She added that disruption to Russian energy supplies to Europe - Moscow has cut gas supplies to Germany and the EU is aiming to restrict its energy imports - was affecting Germany, where Hershey sources equipment and supplies.

Because Hershey's everyday and holiday products use the same manufacturing lines, Ms Buck said the firm made the "tough decision" focus on everyday treats.

"We had the opportunity to deliver more Halloween, but we weren't able to supply that. And we were really producing," she said.  

The period around the Halloween holiday in October is an important one for Hershey. It accounts for around a tenth of the company's annual sales, as adults and children stock up on KitKats, Twizzlers, and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.

Ms Buck's comments came after Hershey reported better-than-expected earnings on Thursday.

The firm said its net sales jumped by over 19% to $2.37bn (£1.9bn) over the three months ending 3 July, which beat market expectations.

Companies around the world are facing cost pressures.

On Thursday, Nestle said it had increased prices by 6.5% in the first half of this year.

Nestle boss Mark Schneider said price increases were made to limit "the impact of unprecedented inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints".  

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62342854