Fortify or Die

If Republicans aim to protect their voters, they must secure the ballots of their voters. In order to preserve the consent of the governed they must protect their voters from disenfranchisement.

by Ned Ryun & Erik Root for American Greatness

There are no easy solutions to the problem of our republican decline. Some have proposed a “fortify or die” approach just to guarantee Republicans the ability to compete in elections with the increasingly despotic Democrat Party. Others argue that to participate in the same electioneering tactics as the Democrats—even if legal—is tantamount to joining in the destruction of the political. 

In “Hard Truths and Radical Possibilities,” Glenn Ellmers raises the most thoughtful objections to using all available legal means to turn Republican losses into victories. To exploit the present rules of the game like the Left may be not only harmful to (small-r) republican recovery, but may also hasten our moral decline. Ultimately, he may be correct. To abide by his objections, however, is tantamount to swallowing the black pill. 

More succinctly, his proposal guarantees continued losses. To describe in an imperfect analogy: to leave points on the field is like a football team refusing to kick a 3-point field goal to win the game even though it is legal to do so. If the MAGA Republicans do not adopt all the available legal electoral practices, they will lose. Every time. 

There are two essential things MAGA Republicans must accomplish to secure victory: 1) protect their voters and 2) bank their votes in order to achieve the first. Instead of theorizing about what we hope to achieve (Election Day only voting with paper ballots), we must embrace reality and realpolitik: the laws in place right now will almost assuredly be the laws in 2024. We can theorize all day about what is best in principle, but there are only two things that will count in 2024: how many ballots did Republicans send out, and how many did they collect? And, of course, was it more than the Democrats harvested? The rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

In the 35 states where ballot harvesting is legal, this ballots out, ballots in machine will include voter registration to increase voter rolls, serious attention to educating voters on absentee ballots and prodding them to request them in order to increase the number of ballots being sent out. It will include banking as many votes in the early voting stage as possible, which in some states starts 45 days before Election Day. Those are the rules of the game. Unless we can change them, we must play by them. You can hate it, you can howl at the moon about it. But if you refuse to embrace the game as it is, you will lose every time. 

The objections to banking votes suffer from the flaw of assuming Democratic and Republican voters are the same. The objections also assume that the manner of banking votes between the parties would be identical. It would not and should not be. MAGA voters are high-information voters, while the Democrats are low-information. There is more of a presence of enlightened consent in the former than there is in the latter. 

If the Republicans aim to protect their voters, then they must secure the ballots of their voters; if they are to preserve the consent of the governed, then they must protect their voters from disenfranchisement. This is no different from what Republicans did during Reconstruction to secure the votes of the former slaves, who then supported the party overwhelmingly. 

Banking this vote ahead of Election Day is a means to preserve consent, not destroy it. While Democrats refuse to debate the merits of public policy, Republicans continue to make a public case to their voters about why they deserve the vote. This is not a distinction without a difference. Democrats have forgotten and thus disdain consent; MAGA Republicans continue to appeal to the reasonable mind of their voters. 

MAGA voters understand that Democrat electoral schemes seek to shortcut consent through the manipulation of the vote. If those laws are to be changed to level the playing field, MAGA must win. We understand, “the principle of the ‘consent the governed’ is the supreme discovery of the political art for directing government towards the benefit of the governed.” These voters understand “the natural equality of man,” which is evident for the eyes to see at any Trump rally. 

Admittedly, the practical application of this project is daunting. The Democrats have an easier time of it. All they have to do is secure the ballots of their base in the cities. The density of their operation makes for quick and easy work to procure ballots. Such will not be the case for more rural Republicans. Any banking of ballots will take more time and effort than what is required of Democrats, who have enslaved their voters on their new plantations in the cities. They have the benefit that their voters are a captive audience. MAGA voters are not that way, so getting past the mental block of conceiving of elections as “ballots out, ballots in,” mail-in voting, and early voting affairs could be difficult, but since the recent midterms much of the base has already realized their voting behavior must change. 

The recent debacle in Arizona reveals just why banking votes is important. The entire slate of excellent candidates ran, in part, on the promise to clean up elections, making them more open and free. The publicly announced strategy was to overwhelm the system by voting on “game day.” Thus, the ruling class thwarted this strategy by disenfranchising Republican voters with supposed “machine malfunction.” The number of votes suppressed easily would have put the entire slate over the top. As Charlie Kirk noted, potentially 100,000 voters were turned away that day. Then, anyone who questioned the reliability of the election results was threatened by the despotic Democrats if counties did not certify the stolen vote. 

The lesson from Arizona is if the Republicans are going to protect their votes, and their voters, they must bank votes before Election Day. The salutary effect of this is that far from relegating consent to the dustbin of history, it would preserve it—especially when facing the reality of the latency effect of stolen votes. 

Democrats want to rule without our consent; MAGA wants to live in a republic by consent. This is no small difference. Republicans must win in order to preserve it. 

If it is true that the Democrats are “immune to rational persuasion,” then the securing of the majority through whatever practical means yet within the “boundaries of the moral law” would be salutary for all citizens. We face a similar obstacle that, as Lincoln noted, our government cannot long survive without the consent of all the governed. Yet, it is not a fatalism to the country to secure a legitimate and reasonable majority by means of banking their votes.  

There is one more consideration that should be addressed: the proposal above may not work. What then? 

It has been suggested that should elections obviously become meaningless, we engage in non-participation in any system that would make us de facto slaves. This has merit. But a mere “secession of the plebs” is not a solution in our present situation. In the four or so Roman secessions noted by Livy, all of them were predicated on the notion that the republic still had enough shame to consider their demands. The plebs were successful in securing from the oligarchs, offices, and honors in each instance. Would a withdrawal from fake elections and politics secure something similar in terms of concessions? Very unlikely. The Left is too emboldened and will rejoice that they do not have to contend with a defiant peasantry. A mere secession today will only further embolden their tyranny and increase the pitch of their cruelty—just ask the January 6 political prisoners. 

If the only peaceful means at our disposal is to withdraw from federal political participation, the only redoubt we have will be in the states. In the meantime, we have a moral imperative to secure our votes by all legal means possible, and to protect our citizens as a matter of natural right. As we would not be masters so, too, let us not be slaves. 

X22, And we Know, and more- December 9

 

Somewhat peaceful day, for now anyways. 1 never knows when these tragedies occur, until they actually do. Here's tonight's news:

The Truth About the War in Ukraine

posted by Al Bienenfeld at American Thinker

As events unfolded in Ukraine, I could not help being reminded of the ten-year Vietnam War (1964-1975), and the war in Iraq (2003-2011). Both were based on lies. The Vietnam War saw over 360,000 Americans killed or wounded, while, in Iraq, the total exceeded 36,000. In the Asian war, the premise was an attack on an American naval vessel that did not occur. In the Middle East, it was the threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. I have closely followed events in Ukraine since reading an analysis by Swiss Intelligence Officer, Colonel Jacques Baud. I am convinced that we are embarking on a very dangerous path of military adventurism that will destroy our nation’s finances. It will not stop with Ukraine.

For our elites and their servants, nothing is out of bounds. They will say and do anything in pursuit of their desires. In the service of the Biden Administration, we have allied ourselves with legitimate Nazis who commit war crimes without hesitation. In Ukraine, a war has been started to distract from problems at home and cover up money laundering to politicians. The Democratic Party as a whole subscribes to this along with the Republican establishment.

“Misinformation” (the Biden Administration’s favorite word) has been on display in Ukraine since the Obama administration supported the 2014 coup against the Viktor Yanukovych government, which was considered pro-Russian. In fact, there has been a large ethnic Russian presence in eastern Ukraine since Catherine the Great of Russia came to power in 1762. Officially, we were told that the Yanukovych government’s being overthrown was a revolution of the people. However, one can’t help but notice that Victoria Nuland of the Obama administration was in Ukraine at the time of the coup helping “the people.”

The Ukraine conflict has created an information division in the world internet. Unwilling to field troops to confront Russian forces physically, the West engages in a war of sanctions to disconnect Moscow from the rest of the world. In March, internet technology giants Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Apple joined in removing many, if not all, products from Russia. Russian citizens have been DE-platformed along with non-Russian users from sharing links, websites, or anything positive about the Russian government.

After taking these actions, Meta issued a statement announcing a policy change on Facebook and Instagram that allowed posts threatening violence against Russian soldiers, Putin, and the Russian military in general as it pertains to Ukraine. This is more than information warfare. This is incitement to global polarization and potentially another world war. By aligning with Big Government, Big Tech has shown it is willing to do anything to guarantee its interests, even the murder of foreign citizens our government declares as enemies. The implications at home are frightening.

Big Tech has cooperated in a propaganda campaign to portray Ukraine as a victim of Russian aggression, with Vladimir Putin as the personification of evil. The goal has been to get ordinary citizens to sympathize with Ukraine and to support a war that not only does not serve American interests but is also harmful to them. For example, food and energy commodities are sold on the international market, and now this unnecessary war has driven up prices at home and abroad.

Soon after the propaganda campaign began, the State Department, CIA, and NATO announced they would provide western military hardware to the Azov battalion in Ukraine—essentially having Americans equip Ukraine’s 100,000-strong paramilitary, openly Nazi division. The Azov are frequently used in place of regulars because of their willingness to do what ordinary soldiers will not. According to Colonel Jacques Baud, a Swiss intelligence officer, Azov is behind Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and even controls him. Baud also confirmed reports of Ukrainian atrocities committed against captive Russian soldiers.

Not long after this, pictures of American advisors in Ukraine soon popped up. Some of us remember that this was true as well in Vietnam before it evolved into a full-scale American war.

Both combatants in the war appear to have engaged in war crimes. The International Criminal Court and various western governments have opened numerous investigations into allegations that Russia violated human rights, including forced population relocation, torture, and murder. For months, though, scant attention was paid to videos apparently showing Ukrainian forces executing captured Russian soldiers. (See here and here.) Only recently has the United Nations tentatively authenticated the November videos.

The day before the latest video surfaced, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large on International Criminal Justice, Beth van Schaack told reporters,

It’s really important to emphasize that the laws of war apply to all parties equally, both the aggressor state and defender state. But when it comes to the war in the Ukraine, that’s really where the equivalency ends. When we’re looking at the sheer scale of criminality exhibited by Russian forces, it’s enormous compared to the allegations that we have seen against Ukrainian forces.

The media have taken sides, showing Russian brutality, but others are trying to get out word of the videos showing Ukrainians brutally beating Russian soldiers with canvas bags over their heads. Prisoners, some standing, some lying face-down on the ground, are shot in the knees and genitals, then left on the ground to bleed to death. It appears that Ukrainian soldiers recorded their exploits for posterity, gleefully bragging as to what was done, which is how we know of their brutal behavior. If you look for videos of Ukrainian atrocities, though, you won’t find them. The Conservative Treehouse once had them, but they’ve vanished, apparently censored. Big Tech knows which side it’s on.

Writing at Consortium News in May 2014, Robert Parry recounted the roundup of ethnic Russians protesting the overthrow of the Yanukovych government. According to Parry, on May 2, they were herded into buildings that were then set ablaze in the port city of Odessa, killing 40 people. Afterward, reporters spotted graffiti on walls with swastika-like symbols honoring the “Galician SS,” the Ukrainian adjunct to the German SS in World War II. This barbaric action was repeated on May 9 in Mariupol, another port city. Those responsible were the brutal Azov.

Almost as obscene as what Ukrainian soldiers seem to have done to Russian military captives is the American media’s dishonest reporting to cover up these war crimes. Instead of showing the videos, they interviewed Ukrainian military officials denying the authenticity of such material.

I do not doubt both sides have failed to abide by conventions of war barring this type of behavior. My point is that “state sponsored media” has comically portrayed the war as good versus evil. This presentation is used to obscure the truth behind the genesis of this war, whose beginnings go back to the Obama Administration’s 2014 coup of a duly constituted Ukrainian government.

A complicit American media has betrayed journalistic integrity and the American people. Both political parties share the blame for the Ukraine war’s human and financial catastrophe, which could have been stopped early on. Washington chose not to.

Our nation has been shamed by Washington leadership and our media. World War II was fought to end the Nazi menace, and today we are helping to revitalize it.

Democrat Voter Fraud: A Brief History

J.R. Dunn for American Thinker

Democrat Voter Fraud:
A Brief History

By J.R. Dunn
Published December 9, 2022

This is a “brief history” because the complete history of Democrat electoral malfeasance reaching back to Tammany Hall and Tweed would require four volumes or more. (I’m running into the same problem with a new book I’m outlining analyzing the Democrats as a criminal organization, much like the Mafia or the Camorra.)

So a brief history it is, limited to the past thirty years or so. Believe you me, there’s no lack of cases even in that short span.

The Dinkins Magic Voting Machines

Just days before voting in the 1993 David Dinkins/Rudolf Giuliani election, the New York Times reported that a number of voting machines had been found in a closed Manhattan school. All the machines were loaded with votes for Democrat incumbent David Dinkins.

Voting proceeded without the help of those machines, and of course Rudy was elected. But that was the end of it. As far as I’ve been able to learn, there was no investigation, no inquiries, or, for that matter, any further reportage on it. A Democrat attempt to steal the NYC mayoral election was flushed down the memory hole.

An Inconvenient Decision

We all know the absurdist story of the 2000 presidential election. But it’s often overlooked that Al Gore was attempting an outright steal of a presidential election, a bold move not to be repeated until 2020 – and he attempted it with the open assistance of the judiciary.

The leftist version is well known, since it’s all we ever hear – George W. Bush was only ahead by 900 votes in Florida when Gore, in the pure interest of fairness, requested a simple recount, at which point the right-wing extremist Supreme Court leapt in and handed the victory to Bush by fiat. (This, by the way, has served as an excuse for all electoral cheating since that point – “the GOP started it in 2000… We have to cheat, to protect democracy.” As to what excuses the myriad cases of cheating that occurred beforehand… well, don’t ask me. I dunno.)

What actually happened is that Gore’s crowd created a strategy in which every possible vote-counting method would be utilized, with recounts repeated as many times as necessary until one was finally discovered that would overturn the results. These included attempts to carry out recounts only in Democrat strongholds such as Dade County while shutting down any such efforts on the Panhandle, home to many military retirees.

The Bush campaign took Gore to court to prevent such schemes, until finally, given the opportunity at last, the Florida State Supreme Court – almost exclusively Democrat-appointed -- found in favor of Gore’s demand that ‘undervotes” – ballots showing no presidential vote at all – be counted, while at the same time “awarding” him nearly 500 votes, a novel concept unheard of in American jurisprudence up to that date.

It was here, facing the prospect of a presidential election thrown by a corrupt Democrat court in full public view and in defiance of established precedent, that the U.S. Supreme Court finally stepped in, overturning the Florida court’s decision and ending the recount circus. Bush won with 537 votes. (A later media recount showed that Bush’s lead would have held in any reasonable recount process.)

Votes from the 8th Dimension

The 2004 Washington state gubernatorial contest between Republican Dino Rossi and Democrat Christine Gregoire ended with Rossi up by 261 votes. A machine recount left him still ahead by 42 votes. The state Democrats paid over $700,000 for a hand recount, and whaddaya know… Votes started appearing from any and all conceivable sources. A bag containing votes here… an electoral official’s car there… it’s surprising they didn’t start falling out of the sky like the frogs in Magnolia.

By the end of the year Gregoire was ahead by 130 votes and was inaugurated on January 12. Rossi, God love him, continued fighting, taking Gregoire to court over the blatantly illegitimate votes. A Pierce County judge tossed the votes out, only to be overruled by the Washington State Supreme Court. A final decision didn’t come for six months, when Judge John Bridges, a Democrat appointee, tossed aside the concept of “chain of custody” to find in favor of Gregoire. Rossi should have continued on to the U.S. Supreme Court – after all, a critical legal concept was being overthrown – but he does get an E for Effort, since he did more than any other Republican in recent memory.

The Washington case enshrined the concept that all Democrat votes, whether they emerged from a portal into hyperspace or were discovered in a 2000 B.C. Sumerian temple, had to be counted no matter what the circumstances. GOP votes… not so much.

Goshdarnit, People Liked Him

A similar chain of events occurred in the election of Al Franken in Minnesota in 2008. Incumbent Norm Coleman originally prevailed with over 700 votes, which were mysteriously whittled down to 200 in short order. Franken called for a recount, and begorrah, the votes suddenly started appearing. Some, anyway -- an envelope of votes from one county simply disappeared, but were counted regardless, the totals evidently being read out from tea leaves. By the time it all ended, Franken was ahead by 312 votes. Coleman, a Republican gentleman of the old school, made perfunctory efforts at protest, but was undercut by the GOP itself, led by former governor Arne Carlson, a RINO to rule them all, who had refused to endorse Coleman during the campaign.

Shortly after the election, it was discovered that at least 1,099 illegal votes had been cast by felons, and this had been known during the vote count, but had been ignored. Franken exchanged his diapers for a suit and spent the better part of two terms voting the way he was told and embarrassing his party before being forced out during the “MeToo” craze.

Trump Agonistes

At this point anyone who needs convincing about cheating during the 2020 election needs their own personal TED Talk covering it. While media keeps telling us it has been “debunked,” they never quite get around to details such as when, where, by whom, and on what grounds.

What’s often overlooked is that 2020 was layered operation, with efforts taking place from the most exalted corridors of power down to the lowest one-legged precinct worker. Consider the Hunter scandal(s). Following the NY Post’s blockbuster report, 52 members of the “Intelligence Community” published a letter in Politico asserting that it was a Russian dezinformatsiya exercise. Intelligence operatives also approached social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook with the same yarn, with Dorsey and Zuckerberg eagerly censoring the story. The entire saga, featuring hookers, crack, stifled investigations, payoffs from China and Ukraine, and 10% for the "Big Guy," was buried until well after the election. This, playmates, goes by the term “election interference.”

Following the vote, polls revealed that up to 17% of voters would not have voted for Biden if they’d known about Hunter’s escapades. That’s the election right there. So how has this been debunked? It hasn’t -- there’s no way it could be; it’s right out there in the open, stinking like a dead skunk. It has simply been ignored.

As for cheating at the voting level, everything that needs to be said was said in 2000 Mules, which summarized True the Vote’s investigation into the “irregularities” surrounding the election. The mechanism was simple: left-wing operatives dumping armfuls of votes into isolated drop-boxes at three in the morning. Literally thousands of hours of footage of this activity exists, and is featured in the film. (My favorite bit of evidence here involves the single bust of voter fraud that occurred – in Louisiana, of all places -- A critical piece of evidence involved fingerprints on the fake ballots. Within hours, vote dumpers across the nation appeared suddenly accoutered with vinyl gloves.)

It seems to me that it would be easy enough to “debunk” this if you really wanted to – simply track down those lefty operatives (we know who they are) and find out what they were actually doing in the middle of the night dropping boxloads of ballots while wearing gloves. If they’ve got a reasonable answer, fine. But they don’t… that’s why such “debunking” has never and will never occur.

True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips were arrested on trumped-up contempt charges just a week before the 2022 election. What a coincidence!

2022

Which brings us to the latest reports, in which the Democrat Party astonished the world by abandoning 170 years of duplicity to allow the first completely clean national election in nearly two centuries.

Actually, no… having gotten away with 2020 -- so far -- the Dems saw no reason to hold back. While something on the order of 400 laws reforming electoral procedures have hit the books since 2020, it wasn’t enough. None of these were in blue states, and few if any in purple ones.

So Fetterman was not elected in Pennsylvania, and Kelly and Hobbs were not elected in Arizona, and Cortez Masto was not elected in Nevada. These are the results of cheating, blatant cheating in Arizona and Pennsylvania (250,000 bogus votes were intercepted in PA before the election, and sequestered by order of both the state and federal Supreme Courts, decisions which acting Secretary of State Leigh M. Chapman ordered election officials to ignore. Does anyone want to bet those were the only ones?)

Arizona is a unique situation, with the contest overseen by… Katie Hobbs, acting as secretary of state. This is unbelievable, the equivalent of putting Hunter Biden in charge of the DEA. Kari Lake is admirable in many ways, but how she allowed this one to get by her I cannot surmise. This should have been a major issue from day one and fought relentlessly all the way through. It’s a simple fact of nature: give a Democrat an opportunity to cheat, and cheating will happen, as the sparks fly upward. There is no excuse for overlooking this by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Once again, we need to call on Goldfinger’s dictum: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. We are way past “three times” at this point.

Three points follow. First, Democrat electoral cheating is not a Trump fantasy. The Dems have been cheating since they first emerged from the roiling chaos of Andrew Jackson’s id. Tammany, the Locofocos, the Jim Crow South, Frank Hague, Tom Pendergast, Harry Hopkins, the Cook County machine, Joe Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson… It’s one long saga of corruption from beginning to end. The suggestion that the Dems are totally corrupt in their approach to elections is not a novelty, nor is it a slander. It is a simple statement of fact. Claims to the contrary are nonsense, as are the media assist-me-to-my-fainting-couch fits every time the topic comes up.

The Dems have taken a system of fraud developed over a century’s time and steadily weaponized it over the past three decades. It is a science at this point. Its most glaring weakness is that, like any con, it requires near-open cooperation from its victims to work.

Which the GOPe has been happy to supply. Republicans have made next to no effort at any point to put a stop to it. Not even Rudy, the GOP’s attack dog, made an effort to shine a spotlight on Dinkins and his little games. And if the man who took down the New York mob wouldn’t touch it, what can we expect from the flock of capons currently running the Republican Party?

Years ago, when I was in real estate in New Jersey, there was an immigrant from a Slavic country living in downtown Passaic. He had been mugged over sixty times. Local thugs would wait until he left to shop for groceries, then follow him to the store and simply relieve him of the bag when he emerged. The city cops offered him a radio (this was well before the cellphone era) so that he could summon them when it happened again. “No, no,” he wailed. “It would only be taken from me.”

The emotions aroused by this story include pity, sympathy, and heavy admixture of glee and contempt. This may seem mean, but it’s also healthy.

The Republican response to Dem electoral cheating arises from the same source, a gutlessness indistinguishable from sheer cowardice.

Things may at last be changing. Trump blew the whistle on the whole scam – one of the major reasons they hate him. Now Kari Lake is redeeming herself by promising to hammer Kathy Hobbs and the Arizona Dems for as long as it takes. This is a good start -- but it’s only a start.

There are dozens – perhaps as many as a hundred – populist conservatives joining Congress at the beginning of next year. Investigating voter fraud (particularly involving Hobbs, and her snipers on the rooftop) represents their opportunity to make their mark.

This is the second election in a row marked by impossible results. Not “extraordinary,” not “unusual,” but impossible. Joe Biden did not get 81 million votes. Fetterman could not have been elected by a sane electorate. Catherine Cortez Masto was not saved by magic votes arising from spontaneous generation. All these outcomes are outside the realm of the possible. All were produced by a sophisticated, highly developed system of cheating. Eventually, we’ll have to put a stop to it, one way or another.

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

The Lying Media Told Me Not To Watch Netflix’s ‘Ancient Apocalypse,’ So I Did

‘Ancient Apocalypse’ scares the media because it sets a threatening example for viewers to begin questioning authority in other realms. 

posted by Evita Duffy at The Federalist

Archeologists and their friends in the media are losing their minds over author and journalist Graham Hancock’s alternative ancient history Netflix series “Ancient Apocalypse.” According to The Guardian, “Ancient Apocalypse is the most dangerous show on Netflix.” It’s “an all out attack on archaeologists,” reads one hit piece on the series. It “promotes a whole lot of bunk,” Slate accuses. “[Graham’s] whole theory is steeped in racism and white supremacy,” alleges another.

The outrage articles don’t seem to have stopped anyone from watching “Ancient Apocalypse,” though. The series reportedly garnered 24.62 million hours of viewing in its first week of release, earning it a spot on Netflix’s “top 10” in 31 countries.

Accusations that Hancock’s theory is an affront to archaeology or that it’s somehow “racist” and “white supremacist” are poor excuses for the real reason people in the corporate media hate “Ancient Apocalypse”: its active defiance of the establishment narrative in archeology. The media fear the show threatens to prompt viewers to begin questioning the authority in other realms, as well. “[W]here does it end? Believing that election fraud is real? Believing 9/11 was an inside job?” The Guardian frets.

The new docuseries rejects establishment archeology’s belief that human civilization was not advanced prior to about 4,000 B.C. Hancock travels to various ancient structures across the globe, pointing out that many of them happen to be architecturally alike — something modern archaeologists have been unable to explain. He also points to many ancient civilizations sharing similar stories of an ancient being or beings teaching them about architecture, agriculture, astronomy, arts, and mathematics.

Hancock hypothesizes that a crashing comet destroyed Atlantis or a similar advanced lost civilization some 13,000 years ago, sparking a Great Flood (an event recorded and passed down by many ancient peoples). Hancock attributes the similarities in architecture and origin stories of the known ancient civilizations to the survivors of the lost civilization. He believes the survivors were somehow able to disseminate their knowledge to hunter-gatherers across the globe, who, in turn, built some of the oldest ancient civilizations in recorded history.

Hancock is a compelling narrator, and the idea that an advanced civilization was wiped out by the Great Flood isn’t implausible. However, his hypothesis still leaves viewers with unanswered questions. How did the survivors of the lost advanced civilization travel to all these different societies around the world? How did they communicate with people who undoubtedly spoke different languages? Where is the archaeological evidence of this advanced civilization? Surely a cataclysm just mild enough to leave behind survivors couldn’t have destroyed all evidence of this lost advanced civilization?

Just because Hancock’s theory has holes doesn’t mean it isn’t worth considering, and it certainly doesn’t mean he should be silenced. Yet suppression is exactly what Hancock’s critics want. Last week, the Society for American Archaeology published an open letter pressuring Netflix to “reclassify this series as ‘science fiction’” rather than a documentary. The Guardian piled on, writing, “Why has this been allowed?” apparently suggesting that Netflix never should have green-lit the show in the first place.

Scientists have a long tradition of being hostile to dissenters. When Copernicus proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, he was called a heretic. When Alfred Wegener presented the idea of continental drift, he was mercilessly mocked, and when Albert Einstein came out with the theory of relativity, his hypothesis was labeled “absurd.”

Scientists’ hostility to Hancock is predictable, but the media’s interest in “Ancient Apocalypse” is, at first glance, more puzzling. They rarely cover or care about scientific inquiry and discovery. As The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson writes, “Two of the most consequential stories in human history — the discovery of alien life and documented footage of what appear to be alien aircraft — [were] more or less […] met with a collective shrug by the mainstream media and the public at large.”

The propaganda press may not care about science, but they do care about controlling the public discourse for the benefit of the political left. Without any evidence, the media smeared the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation” ahead of the 2020 election, aiding then-presidential candidate Joe Biden at the polls. They also continue to uniformly gaslight those who question the results of the 2020 election, even though there is evidence that the suppression of the laptop story affected the outcome. They also deny the electoral effects of the Zuckerberg-funded private takeover of government election operations by leftist groups before the 2020 election in key areas across the country.

Election interference is sort of the media’s forte. For years, the press tried unseating duly elected President Trump by peddling the Russia collusion hoax, which was based on information spoon-fed to them by the Clinton campaign and corrupt FBI.

One of the most egregious examples of media corruption and deceit was their Covid propaganda campaign. The press blindly promoted Democrats’ economically devastating Covid-19 lockdowns and Big Pharma’s useless masks and, in many ways, failed Covid vaccine. They also smeared the plausible lab-leak theory as “racist” and a “conspiracy theory,” all while destroying the reputation and careers of any scientists who dared challenge them.

To be a free-thinking individual, it is crucial to consider ideas that challenge the orthodoxy in science, politics, history, and more. It is equally important for free thinkers to look beyond the corporate news cycle and ponder deeper questions — like the origin of ancient human civilization. The press doesn’t like either of these things. They want the public’s minds shackled to whatever they present on the nightly news.

“Ancient Apocalypse” infuriates the media because it beckons us to consider great human mysteries and to be skeptical of establishment narratives. The series is entertaining and well-produced, but viewing it also has the delightful added bonus of giving a big middle finger to the lying propaganda press who think they own our minds.

Adam Schiff's CCP-Like Tactics Shine in Letter Urging Meta to Keep Trump Banned on Facebook

Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is said to be eyeing the Senate seat currently held by Dianne Feinstein, 89, as rumors swirl over if she’ll retire ahead of 2024 after 30+ years of service and persistent questions as to the state of her mental health.

But though the manipulative Democratic lawmaker is preparing to lose his leadership position as House Intelligence Committee Chair in the aftermath of House Republicans retaking control, he’s still up to the same old behind the scenes search and destroy antics that slithery objects like Schiff like to engage in when they think no one is looking.

In the latest example, Schiff inadvertently exposed himself when he accidentally sent a letter to some House Republicans that was meant only for his Democratic colleagues.

In one version, he encouraged his colleagues to put pressure on Facebook (now known as “Meta”) to continue their bans on former President Donald Trump’s FB and Instagram accounts. Facebook originally suspended Trump shortly after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot but in June of that same year voted to keep him locked out of until at least January 7, 2023, pending further review.

The other version of the letter was one that Schiff reportedly sent directly to Meta demanding they keep Trump, who last month declared his 2024 presidential candidacy, off the platform “beyond January.”

Apparently Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) was one of the Republican members of Congress who received the copy of the letter (in error) urging Democrats to put pressure on Facebook. She wrote about it on her Twitter feed:

Below are screengrabs of the letters, which interestingly enough are not on Schiff’s press release page as of this writing:

Previously, Schiff has also sent letters to Meta urging them to continue and strengthen their censorship tactics as it relates to alleged “vaccine misinformation” and the “spread [of] dangerous hate, conspiracies, and misinformation.”

This is the first known instance of Schiff using his power in Congress to lean on Meta to ban or continue their ban on specific accounts, however, and it comes just as we’ve learned much more about the levels of Democrat lawmaker involvement in having the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story suppressed on Twitter in October 2020.

In December 2019, Schiff was ripped by Republicans after he crossed the line in releasing the personal phone records of, among others, then-ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), two of then-President Trump’s personal attorneys including Rudy Giuliani, as well as journalist John Solomon.

“This act was brazen and shameful,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote at the time. “While it may not have been illegal (because Congress writes its own rules on investigations) it certainly was wrong. It certainly tramples on rights normally held dear by the left.”

“But most of all what it did was expose that Schiff, for all of his pompous bluster, is doing exactly what he has accused President Trump of doing: using his power to investigate his political opponents,” Paul continued.

Sadly, Schiff is proof of the old saying about how you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Fortunately come January, though, his power will be greatly diminished once the new Congress is sworn in.

Dems 'Alarmed' at Bizarre Scenario That Could See Donald Trump Take Back the White House in 2024

Teri Christoph reporting for RedState 

The race for the all-important 270 electoral votes is already well underway. Donald Trump is the first Republican to announce that he’ll be running in 2024, for the third time, and Joe Biden, although not yet officially a candidate, is crisscrossing the country touting the “successes” of his administration.

While speculation runs rampant about which other Republicans might step forward to challenge Trump, a Democrat-aligned think tank is gaming out a peculiar option that would see an unlikely third-party ticket form with both a Republican and a Democrat on the ticket. This scenario is being put forth by Third Way, a liberal organization “that champions modern center-left ideas.” Details were shared with Axios writer Alexi McCammond, who notes that Democrats are “alarmed by 2024 bipartisan spoilers.” Per McCammond:

• The report details epic failures from past political efforts and warns about the unique dangers of an emerging outsider candidate.
• “If a third-party candidate blew past historic precedent and managed to win enough Electoral Votes to keep any candidate from getting to 270, then the outcome would be decided in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans and where Donald Trump would prevail,” the report says.

Third Way argues that a third-party ticket, one that would not have “R” or “D” by the candidates’ names, would pull votes away from the party that currently holds the White House. Furthermore, they note, both parties are deeply unpopular with a dissatisfied electorate, who many just find a bi-partisan/non-partisan ticket attractive. History, however, hasn’t been kind to these kinds of challenges.

History indicates that third-party candidates do not win presidential elections, despite often showing promise early on. Every presidential election cycle includes third-party candidates, some major and some minor. Without exception they consistently underperform expectations and do not come close to winning.

What would be different about a third-party challenge in 2024? Presuming Trump will be the GOP nominee, which certainly isn’t a given, Third Way’s analysis shows his voters are “stickier,” meaning they’ll stick with him no matter what. Biden’s voters are, in Third Way’s view, much more likely to jump ship and support a third-party candidate. If enough of those non-sticky Biden voters — and disgusted independents — break for an upstart non-partisan ticket, Biden and Democrats would be in real trouble.

Some other notes from Axios:

• In 2020, a third presidential option wasn’t present in the same way as ’16, helping Joe Biden best Hillary Clinton’s numbers in battleground states.
• Democrats improved their vote share from that cycle in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin amid decreased support for outside candidates.
• Voters who say they don’t like either party’s presidential nominee tend to lean Democratic — “ideal targets for a credible third-party candidate,” said Aliza Astrow, the Third Way senior political analyst who authored the report.

Of course, this scenario would hold true for whichever Republican wins the ticket; Third Way is only inserting Donald Trump’s name because they know he’s the one person who’ll grab attention. The mere inference that Donald Trump could be reinstalled in the White House, no matter how far-fetched the idea, is enough to set the left’s hair on fire.

Democrats may just have something to fear with this bizarre scenario. As Axios notes, the bipartisan group No Labels is looking to raise millions in support of viable third-party option in 2024 — and they are open to running a ticket in direct opposition to Joe Biden. Ryan Clancy, a spokesperson for No Labels, told Axios, “Our citizen leaders from around the nation have no interest in fueling a spoiler. But if the public urgently wants and needs another choice, we’ll make sure they have it.”