Historical Anomalies of the 2024 Presidential Election (Pt. 1): Make America Grover Again

Donald Trump is attempting to become only the second president to ever win a non-consecutive term of office.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter at American Greatness

In America’s 2024 presidential election, there are two political anomalies in play. Each has a bearing on the race, though in differing degrees and during various stages of the campaign.

The first historical anomaly is that Donald Trump is attempting to be only the second former president ever to win a non-consecutive term of office. The historical track record does not auger well.

• After losing his 1840 presidential reelection bid to William Henry Harrison, former President Martin Van Buren lost Democratic nomination in 1844 and later lost as presidential nominee on the on the Free-Soil Party ticket.
• Having succeeded to White House upon the death of President Zachary Taylor 1850 and then failing in 1852 to secure his Whig Party’s nomination, the execrable 13^th President (exhibit A for triskaidekaphobia), Millard Fillmore, failed in his 1856 comeback bid as the standard bearer of the aptly named Know Nothings.
• After having won two consecutive terms from 1869-1877, former President Ulysses S. Grant sought a non-consecutive third term in 1880 but lost the GOP nomination to James A. Garfield. (Garfield won the election and later became the second president to be assassinated.) The largest obstacle Grant faced was his party and the public’s opposition to a president breaking Washington’s precedent by serving more than two terms of office.
• In 1912, having taken a term off after having succeeded in having William Howard Taft succeed him as president, Teddy Roosevelt became disenchanted with the Ohioan’s conservatism. Roosevelt challenged Taft for the 1912 GOP nomination; lost; ran as a third-party candidate on the Bull Moose ticket; and lost again. (Democrat Woodrow Wilson garnered a 41.8% plurality of the popular vote and an electoral college landslide.)
• Finally, eight years following his landslide defeat to FDR, former President Herbert Hoover subtly maneuvered for a rematch but did not obtain the GOP’s 1940 presidential nomination.

The first president to accomplish a non-consecutive term of office was our 22^nd and 25^th president, Grover Cleveland. In 1884, Cleveland became the first Democrat President since the Civil War by defeating Republican James G. Blaine of Maine. Interestingly, Blaine’s presidential bid was hamstrung by the “Mugwumps,” reform Republicans who opted to support the more progressive Cleveland. Then, in 1884, Cleveland lost his reelection bid to Republican Benjamin Harrison (grandson of President William Henry Harrison). The reason? Despite Cleveland again winning the popular vote for a second time (and the first time since 1856 that Democrats had won it in consecutive elections), Harrison carried the electoral college. Finally, in the rubber match between two presidents, Cleveland again won both the popular vote and, this time, the electoral college, making him the first president to win non-consecutive terms and Harrison the first incumbent GOP president to lose a reelection bid.

The relevance of President Cleveland’s political resiliency to the 2024 race rests in allowing former President Trump’s supporters to accurately cite the historical record and argue that such a presidential comeback had already occurred once and could potentially happen again. The parallels were thought to be propitious: in attempting to attain a second, non-consecutive term, Mr. Trump would likely be running against the individual who ousted him from the office, Mr. Biden. I have previously argued that Mr. Biden will ultimately not be his party’s nominee in 2024. Presently, however, he remains the Democrats’ presumed nominee. If this holds true and Mr. Biden is his party’s standard bearer for the 2024 presidential election, rarely will I ever be happier to be mistaken.

Importantly, Mr. Trump’s supporters’ argument was necessarily aimed first at GOP primary voters, for they would determine the best standard bearer to defeat the Democratic incumbent. A disheartening fact recurs throughout the above-referenced unsuccessful attempts to win a non-consecutive term of office: specifically, only Van Buren and the victorious Cleveland were able to secure their party’s nominations when seeking a non-consecutive term. (In both instances, each man was nominated for a third consecutive time.)

Further evincing the difficulty of a former president winning his party’s nomination is that there have been incumbent presidents who have failed to receive their party’s nomination for a second consecutive term. Initially elected president in his own right in 1852, four miserable years later Franklin Pierce lost the 1856 Democrat Party nomination. He is the only incumbent president who, after serving his full four-year term, accomplished such a rebuke from his own party.

Then, there are the other former presidents who were initially elected to the Vice Presidency and later ascended to the White House upon the death of the president:

• In 1844, John Tyler failed to get the Whig Party’s nomination.
• In 1852, the aforementioned reprobate, Millard Fillmore, was also defeated for the Whig Party’s nomination.
• In 1868, Democrat Andrew Johnson, elected on a “Unity” ticket with the martyred Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, failed to obtain the Democrat’s nomination.
• And, in 1884, Chester A. Arthur failed to secure the GOP’s nomination.

Consequently, Mr. Trump and his GOP supporters faced an uphill task in convincing the party to nominate him again—if, for no other reason, the Republican Party had never thrice nominated an individual for president. The facts were clear: former President Trump was triumphant in 2016; he was defeated in 2020. Thus, the crux: would a new GOP nominee have a better chance of winning? Did the rejection of his 2020 reelection bid constitute the electorate’s final judgment upon Mr. Trump’s presidency and his political viability?

Obviously, Mr. Trump and his supporters argued no, and the bulk of GOP primary voters agreed. Consequently, absent any unlikely occurrence, Republicans will have thrice nominated Donald Trump to be their standard bearer and must persuade the electorate it erred in rejecting his 2020 reelection bid, especially those undecided voters in the swing states that will determine the electoral college.

Further increasing former President Trump and his supporter’s uphill struggle, there is one key distinction to be made between the non-consecutive bids of the two New Yorkers, former Presidents Cleveland and Trump: due to a split within his opponents ranks, in all three of his presidential campaigns, Mr. Cleveland won the popular vote; due to a split within his own party’s ranks, in two presidential elections, Mr. Trump has never won the popular vote. Clearly, it will be a difficult undertaking, though not an impossible one, based upon the 1892 triumph of MAGA Democrats (Make America Grover Again).

Yet, in addition to a former president seeking a non-consecutive term, there is another historical anomaly in play with which neither Cleveland nor Harrison had to contend, but one which Misters Trump and Biden must:

America’s first lame duck election.

And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- April 7

 

If Donald Trump Is So Bad, Why Do Democrats Have To Lie About Him?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

Donald Trump is Hitler. I know it’s true because I saw it on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow said it. She wouldn’t lie, would she? Not only that, the President of the United States said it, and he wouldn’t lie, would he? Of course they would, it’s what they do. But more than the fact that they would is the fact that they have to. Democrats have soiled the sheets – taking the country from a booming economy to one where you can’t walk out of a grocery store for less than $80 is something so horrible you almost have to try to do it. You can’t run on that level of incompetence, so you have to try to convince people that the other guy is somehow worse. Since there is no unit of measure by which the economy under Donald Trump was worse than it is under Joe Biden, lying is absolutely required. 

And Democrats will lie about anything. The “very fine people” lie about Charlottesville was one of their first and, in spite of it being exposed as a complete and total load of Biden, the President repeats it every chance he gets. Maybe he’s too senile to know he’s lying, but his history of making things up suggests otherwise.

“Trump colluded with Russia” is another example. It’s weird how questioning election results is only a “crime” when a Republican does it, but pioneers in the field – Democrats dating back to 2000 – are heroes standing up for democracy. George W. Bush stole both 2000 and 2004, and he’s “not my President” is required for tenure at most universities, but questioning the legitimacy of Biden is a “threat to democracy.” The 2008 and 2012 elections were legit, but not 2016 because Russia, we’re told, spent a couple of thousand dollars on Facebook ads. In other words, the election was “stolen” for the cost of a “donation” to buy a private meeting with Hillary and Bill Clinton. 

The 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia was stolen too, because 50,000 duplicate names and names of dead people were removed from the voter rolls, according to conspiracy theorists. The funny thing is, the Democrat lost by almost 55,000 votes, so even if she would have received every single one of those “disenfranchised voters” who didn’t exist, she still would have lost by 5,000. But we aren’t dealing with people who engage in reality, we’re dealing with Democrats.

We’re dealing with people who take a 7-second clip of Donald Trump and lie about it, saying he’s calling all illegal aliens “animals,” when the whole quote shows clearly he’s referring to the man who beat an American woman to death to the point that he disfigured her skull. Officially, Democrats have lied about what Trump has said about the murderer of Laken Riley more times than Joe Biden has correctly said her name, which isn’t hard since the only time he’s ever attempted to say her name was a rehearsed moment in the State of the Union Address when he said “Lincoln Riley” twice while literally holding up a button that read “Laken Riley: Say Her Name.” 

Joe Biden is as bad of a person as he is a father and grandfather (especially to the granddaughter they acknowledged once in a statement and immediately returned to ignore and not even counting in their number of grandchildren), with a history of lying about anything that suits his needs at any given moment. 

You expect that from politicians; they’re politicians, after all. But you might expect a little more from the people who insist they “speak truth to power” in the media. You’d be wrong. 

The network that won’t run a Trump victory speech or press conference because “he might lie” will not question any of Joe Biden’s lies. The participate in them. Trans Harry Potter and his third wife on Morning Joe, who collectively have less integrity than a silicone sex doll (though, ironically, more silicone), parrot anything this administration says like someone is just off camera with a gun to the head of their children. Actually, they probably care more about Biden than they do their children, why else would they humiliate themselves so often and openly? 

If you watch MSNBC you will come away dumber, which is probably why it appeals to Joe Biden. They both present themselves as though they’re Jeopardy champions when the reality is they’re third-place finisher who wins no money on Wheel of Fortune. 

But the joke is on us – they’re getting paid and Biden is President. And if they have to lie to maintain that dynamic, so be it. 

Make no mistake, however, they do have to lie to maintain it. There is no unit of measure to show the country is better off under Biden than it was under Trump. Gas prices are up, food prices are up, wars are breaking out and expanding, the border is being flooded, and so on and so on. The best Democrats can do is compare the best numbers the Biden administration can cook up to the worst numbers of the Trump presidency, and even those, that were artificially low thanks to the pandemic, barely make their case.

That leaves Democrats with straight-up lies. You’d think you wouldn’t have to lie about an opponent who is singularly horrible in every respect, but they have to, which tells you something. 

On the other hand, all Republicans have to do is remind people of their electric bill, the last time they filled their car (or that Democrats are going to force them to buy a new, very expensive electric one soon), their rent, mortgage rates, war, everything…

Democrats have to lie, it’s all they have. But “You don’t know how good you’ve got it” is one hell of a mountain to climb in an election campaign. That’s why they’re coupling it with “The other side is Hitler,” even though, in addition to their mutual affinity for hatred of Jews, Hitler and the Nazis were progressive leftists too. 

That the truth is not helpful to Democrats tells you a lot. Actually, it tells you everything you need to know, and it’s exactly why they lie all the time, about everything.

Trump’s Judges Aren’t Using Legal Reasoning

posted by Matthew G. Andersson at American Thinker 

Even if you don’t happen to be a lawyer, law professor or legal scholar, it isn’t hard to see a big problem with many of the published decisions made by judges who are hearing defense arguments and motions made by President Trump, in the continued “lawfare” cases being used by the DNC (not the United States) to persecute him financially, and block him politically. 

There are a number of these judicial positions that are out in the press. 

I’d like to focus on just one: the most recent case in Georgia involving free speech.

I’m not going to write up a “case review” that is readily available from several professional critics involving substantive and procedural law. What I want to point out here, rather, is that the government’s case, and the judge’s opinion stemming from it, rest on systematic logical fallacy.

The prosecutor’s entire argument, parroted by the judge, consists of mere assertion, without any evidence standards, because the government can’t prove the charges — they can only keep repeating their claims over and over. That is why they are obsessed with President Trump’s “intent,” and his “state of mind.”   The prosecution’s entire case must rest on a fallacy of assertion. 

What is a fallacy of assertion?  In the spirit of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who often stated that a dictionary was among his best judicial tools, here are a few definitions:

1. Ipse dixit (bare assertion fallacy) – “a claim that is presented as true without support, as self-evidently true, or as dogmatically true. This fallacy relies on the implied expertise of the speaker or on an unstated truism.”

2. Proof by assertion, “sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction and refutation. The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers (argumentum ad nauseam).  In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.”

3. Appeal to Ignorance. “This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.”

These are some of the most obvious logical errors that the government feels perfectly at ease with — and apparently so do the majority of the judges. But aren’t we always told that lawyers and judges use something called “legal reasoning?” 

What is legal reasoning?  Some judges prove they either cannot reason consistently within a finite set of legal rules, or that they will suspend logic as a form of rhetorical (self) deception. 

As an example, consider the Georgia judge who just ruled on President Trump’s motion to dismiss that is centered on free speech law, and rights.  It is a fascinating example of logical error. The judge stated that “The Defendants’ expressions and speech are alleged to have been made in furtherance of criminal activity and constitute false statements knowingly and willfully made in matters within a government agency’s jurisdiction which threaten to deceive and harm the government.” 

This is a troubling use of judicial opinion that merely reinforces the prosecution’s case by repeating it, when it serves no purpose in judging the presence of free speech rights. Such rights are not quashed by allegations. One might mistake the judge for the prosecution’s advocate. The judge does admit that the DNC’s case is alleged, but he makes a fast syntactical switch from describing behavior as alleged, to judging that same alleged behavior as ipso facto criminal (“and constitute false statements knowingly”).  

But it gets worse, as the judge slowly but thoroughly engages in what psychologist Stanley Milgram called the “Cyrano” effect, where an individual repeats the words from another person, without realizing what they are doing; some call it speech shadowing.  A Cyranoid is someone who exhibits “identity incongruity,” because their words are coming from someone else.

Concerning the actual free speech doctrine that remains at issue in this case, it is fair to note that pre-trial motions to dismiss are difficult, largely due to judiciary plaintiff bias, and the motion was denied without prejudice, meaning it can be raised again. But the judges words are worth thinking about: “Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity.”  This obviously invokes Holme’s “clear and present danger” test, if you buy that argument (I don’t), but what the judge mischaracterizes is “public concern” which was in reality, public duty and public right, which Trump was charged as their president to represent. The judge then uses circular reasoning to link concern with crime (which is based on a “report” from Nancy Pelosi).

Clearly in the Trump legal cases, most judges otherwise seem to have been given instructions, and may not recognize, or cannot admit, that they have abandoned judicial neutrality and reason. They still believe that they are actually judges in a court, because they cannot separate form from content, ritual from reality, or power from privilege.

As Canadian lawyer and Queens University law professor Bruce Pardy said recently, “Now we have courts that openly advocate political views.”  Indeed, the views are out in the open, but the influence and corruption are not.  The worst part is that such judges don’t realize how far they have fallen from the law itself, and from their higher duty to uphold and promote public confidence in it. 

Partisan Intelligence Activism Will Reemerge in 2024

posted by John A. Gentry at American Thinker 

U.S. intelligence personnel likely will resume the activism they prominently displayed in 2016-2021 as the presidential campaign season deepens. They then were driven by ideology and special interests, which now are stronger. Many of the former senior intelligence officers then critical of Donald Trump have badly damaged their credibility, so new politicizers with new messages may emerge, especially after July, when Trump presumably will be formally renominated.

The agencies themselves, as matters of policy, will not be activist. The culprits will be former intelligence officers with deeply partisan views, who have few restrictions on their public activities, and current employees who leak. Agency leaders do not directly control these activities, but some past and current leaders established policies that continue to strongly encourage tendencies toward political activism.

President Obama was the major instigator of the politicization of U.S. intelligence. His Executive Order (EO) 13583 of August 18, 2011, “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce,” summarized his explicitly political agenda, which soon became known as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI). Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dennis Blair converted an early version of Obama’s diversity agenda into Intelligence Community policy in 2009, before Obama’s government-wide mandate.

DEI policies appeal to two general groups of intelligence people. First, leftists like them for ideological reasons. While liberals embrace DEI as a fairness issue, cultural Marxists know that DEI, an offshoot of critical race theory, is designed to be divisive in organizations and societies that embrace it. Second, the policy overtly favors privileged demographic groups -- minorities, women, LGBTQ+ people, and later disabled persons -- in hiring, promotions, and assignments. DEI thus is materially helpful for these people, who now comprise large and growing shares of the intelligence workforce.

For these people, DEI policies are self-evidently good on philosophical and personal material grounds. Some even imagine that DEI policy-induced ideology and its associated personal benefits are key components of national security. Others argue that it is essential that CIA and other agencies “look like” the country they represent. They do not ignore people who disagree with them. Instead, they actively reject the views of people Hillary Clinton called “deplorables.”

CIA director John Brennan (2013-2017) was especially aggressive at implementing Obama’s agenda. But his favoritism and blatant politicking soon generated a backlash. The favoritism toward women and minorities was not just unfair to White men, some people argued, it damaged the performance of intelligence. In response, DNI James Clapper and others asserted, always without evidence, that DEI policies actually enhance the agencies’ performance. An academic study of such assertions found no evidence to support them. Many more current and former intelligence officers now say instead that there has been major damage. A study of these claims is now underway. Stay tuned!

The purposeful changes in policies, demography, and organizational culture at CIA, especially, led intelligence officers who strongly supported Obama’s agenda to react viscerally in 2016 when Donald Trump’s arrival on the national political scene seemed to threaten the “progress” Obama had made. Quiet when Hillary Clinton seemed likely to win the presidency and continue Obama’s policies, former intelligence officers heeded Brennan’s call for political activism to defend the “progress,” as did evidently many current employees in the form of leaks.

Of the former intelligence officers prominent in 2016-2021, no one was louder than former deputy CIA director Michael Morell. He started the blatant violations of longstanding, very functional CIA norms against political activism with his op-ed endorsing Clinton in August 2016. And he instigated the worst abuse of intelligence credibility, the open letter signed by 51 former intelligence officers that claimed, just before the 2020 election, that the New York Post’s accurate story about incriminating evidence on Hunter Biden’s laptop computer had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Morell later told the House Judiciary Committee the letter was instead an influence operation instigated by the Joe Biden campaign to fool voters just before the election. One of the people approached to sign the letter told me the pitch received was explicitly to help Biden, not to enlist intelligence expertise.

Trump and his appointees incomprehensibly did nothing to reverse the policies Obama initiated, but President Biden’s even stronger executive order of June 2021 expands Obama’s agenda to DEIA -- diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The diversity offices at each agency now are creators of ideological orthodoxy, and its enforcers. The diversity office of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence publishes a quarterly newsletter called The Dive, which conveys this orthodoxy to the intelligence workforce. For example, its Winter 23/24 issue tells employees to avoid specific words that might offend American Blacks, Africans, and Muslims. It contains an article by a man who explains how being a cross-dresser at work makes him a better intelligence officer. He supports the mandatory transgender awareness training that DNI Avril Haines imposed on all intelligence officers in 2023. And it has a story about a deaf person who had a good deployment abroad, aided by two sign language translators. The receiving element got one intelligence officer for the price of three -- no problem in Biden’s world of DEIA. (Thanks to The Daily Wire for getting this pub declassified and released!)

The Dive’s words are not mere suggestions. Intelligence officers generally are smart people who read between lines for incentives to follow. They know that the diversity offices have become go-to places for people of privileged demographic groups if they feel they have not been treated appropriately -- or as they would like. Like Soviet communist party commissars, CIA diversity officers reportedly relieve managers who misbehave, per DEIA orthodoxy, leading managers now to approve or even reward substandard work, or quit as managers.

Even more damaging may be the impact on analysis. History indicates clearly that biased organizational cultures within intelligence services lead to analytic errors, and intelligence agencies’ leaders in recent years have been candid in acknowledging their ideological agenda and aims to change organizational cultures. We do not yet know what major intelligence failures of the future may be a direct result of the ideological biases of reengineered organizational cultures.

The ideology and interests that directly generated the politicization of intelligence in 2016-2021 by many accounts are much stronger than they were in 2016. Intelligence officers have been quiet in recent years because many of them like Biden’s DEIA policies and others are afraid to express opposition to them. History suggests strongly that activism will resume if Trump again appears to threaten their politics and interests.

Citizens can help fight such activism. Current and former CIA people, especially, with the help of the anti-Trump media, misrepresented their actions and motives and manipulated voters in 2016-2020. In defense, voters should learn about disinformation techniques. Watch for politicization by formers and call out them and the left-leaning media that promote them. Resist believing bogus stories. But remember that while inappropriate partisanship seems certain to reemerge, many fine intelligence officers still quietly maintain traditional norms of apolitical public service. These people deserve our thanks. The intelligence agencies are important. They need reform, not elimination.

Solar Eclipse- A National Emergency and Food Shortages?

 You can't make this stuff up!

Various posts on Facebook caught my eye this morning. It turns out that around parts of the USA, there are empty grocery shelves, long lines for food and queues for gas. After all, the April 8th solar eclipse could cause death and destruction.

 

The National Guard has even been called to duty in Oklahoma. You know, to protect the locals from the hysterical hoards of tourists that will be flocking to small towns everywhere.

Having read the above article, the reason why the nuclear unit is involved is clear as mud. But a National Guard spokesman did state that the team is “just really a very highly-trained unit that can respond to various amount of things dealing with large crowds." Good to know!

In fact, some local governments have been making emergency plans and preparations for months in advance. National guard units and military installations have been called in and are involved to keep people safe. Now I understand that some places can expect more than a few tourists, but really? Isn’t this overkill?

Then there are the projected food and fuel shortages.

News flash!

Just to say it, a solar eclipse is not a national emergency, it is not a state emergency and it isn’t a local emergency.

To both encourage people to “stock up on food and fuel”, while simultaneously decrying that the shortages that will make this some sort of crazy COVIDcrisis toilet paper shortage is just…well… bizarre behavior on the part of government officials.

and just to write it, solar eclipses just aren’t that “special”.

The last eclipse in the USA was in 2017 and there was a big one in 1970. Near as I can tell, the USA didn’t suffer during these solar eclipse “attacks”. No one died. No one lost bladder or bowel function - due to fright or a lack of toilet paper. Animals didn’t go bat-shat crazy. Basically, what happened was that for a few brief minutes the day turned to night. Then day happened again. Life went on as before.

Remember how during previous solar eclipses there were internet and cell phone outages, food shortages, and traffic jams?

yeh - I don’t either…

Here is a little secret - within each 24 hour cycle, there are at least 8 hours of total darkness. How do we all survive each night without stocking up on toilet paper, food and fuel?

I get that some people won’t be driving to work or school but instead will be driving to view the eclipse from a better angle. That for one long weekend - tourism will boom in unexpected places. But let’s face it, that eclipse is cutting a pretty big path through much of the USA. So, really? That many people driving to a single focal point for a better view? So many people on the move that it is likely to create some sort of food shortage?

You know, kind of like the huge food shortages that happen every year at Thanksgiving or Christmas? We all survive those yearly “mass movement” events just fine without food or fuel shortages. So, the whole idea that the world will come crashing down is just more fearporn of the worst sort.

This is a manufactured crisis.

___________________________________________________________________

Does anyone remember Y2K? Yeh, that Y2k.

An estimated $150 billion was spent in the United States to “upgrade” computers and application programs to be Y2K-compliant in 1999. Because it was predicted by a few and spread by MSM, that all the computer systems in the world would come to a screeching halt due to a programming bug. There were even dire forecasts of computers exploding, buildings burning, and commerce ending. Come January, 2000 - basically nothing crashed, nothing burned and the economy didn’t even blip. Life went on as normal. News of the death of the Internet, all things computer and life as we know it was greatly exaggerated.

Another non-event. Hyped by state sponsored media to push us all into buying more big tech product.

For this one - first they hype how people need to travel to get the best view, followed by the hype that the eclipse tourism will cause widespread shortages.

Then they call out the nuclear national guard in advance and wonder why “the far right” has gone crazy with conspiracy theories. Which, well - which are actually pretty funny - even if some take some of them seriously.

I am now officially guilty of having just spent way too much time looking at crazy conspiracy theories regarding the eclipse on Twitter and trust me, the vast majority of these posts are either hypnotically weird or they are making fun of the whole circus.

This one was particularly bizarre.

By the way, the repackaged video - above is not CERN and has nothing to do with the eclipse -it is from 6 years ago:

“The Swiss have put on one of the most bizarre opening ceremonies in history to mark the completion of the world's longest tunnel at a fairground in Erstfeld, in the north of the country. Famed for their trains, organizers roped in more than 600 dancers.”

The crazy train that just collided with CERN and the solar eclipse just doesn’t stop. But it is a hoot!

The “fact-checkers” of MSM are now going into a feeding frenzy because Alex Jones dares to voice the opinion that the US government might be using the solar eclipse “event” to train for emergency crowd control, which might be needed during or after the 2024 election. Honestly, who is to qualified say that Mr. Jones isn’t either right or wrong?

Beyond that - I think we can all triangulate fact from fiction.

                                                           Source: 

Guys, Please Kindly ❤️ Recommend