This was a year in which a number of frauds were exposed: Election fraud, media fraud, and public health fraud, among them. Their exposure has stirred outrage and as the year ends, no relief seems in sight.
Election Fraud With No
Apparent Judicial Relief
Many Americans -- according to
some surveys, a majority -- believe that the presidential election was marred
by massive fraud in five states without which the President would surely have
been re-elected.
The short version of this
disbelief in the integrity of the election results is this by Kenekoa the Great
on the unrealistic belief that the frail, corrupt Joe Biden won:
When you win a record low 17% of counties, lose Black &
Hispanic support, lose 18/19 Bellwether Counties, lose Ohio, Florida, &
Iowa -- and lose 27/27 House "Toss-Ups" -- but you shatter the
popular vote record
Peter Navarro has a longer
version:
“Evidence used to conduct this assessment includes more
than 50 lawsuits and judicial rulings, thousands of affidavits and
declarations, testimony in a variety of state venues, published analyses by
think tanks and legal centers, videos and photos, public comments, and
extensive press coverage,” the report claims.
Additionally, the report cites affidavits alleging the
exploitation of the elderly and the infirm by “effectively hijacking their
identities and votes” and accuses Democrats of using the coronavirus pandemic
to relax voter ID requirements to the point that ballot harvesting and fraud
could slip by unnoticed.
The report outlined incidents in the key states of
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where ballots allegedly were illegally harvested
and dumped into drop boxes.
The election was marred with examples of dead people
voting, according to the report.
“In Pennsylvania, for example, a statistical analysis
conducted by the Trump Campaign matching voter rolls to public obituaries found
what appears to be over 8,000 confirmed dead voters successfully casting
mail-in ballots,” the report claims. “In Georgia — underscoring the critical
role any given category of election irregularities might play in determining
the outcome — the estimated number of alleged deceased individuals casting
votes almost exactly equals the Biden victory margin."
The report concludes: “The ballots in question because of
the identified election irregularities are more than sufficient to swing the
outcome in favor of President Trump should even a relatively small portion of
these ballots be ruled illegal.”
None of this evidence has
been rejected
by any court; all have refused to consider it citing a variety of jurisdictional
hurdles.
Americans should know how perilous their democracy has
become. The majority of Donald Trump’s voters already believe the presidential
election was rigged, and there is no doubt that suspect voting changes,
attributed to the requirements of voting in a pandemic, have created large
anomalies in five states that made a great many such votes impossible to
authenticate. Untold numbers of ballots arrived at a time and in a manner that
incites the inference that they were substantially fraudulent. The numbers of
votes involved in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are
undoubtedly adequately numerous to have influenced the election.
The courts have failed to address the questions raised by
this disturbing pattern of votes confined to only five states.
[snip]
The refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the appeal
from the state of Texas, joined by 18 other states, is an outright abdication.
Of course, Texas and its co-petitioners have perfectly adequate standing to
demand that all states, in choosing a president, conduct their elections
credibly enough to assure the whole country that the Constitution has been
followed in filling the nation’s highest offices. For the Supreme Court to take
the position, as it did, that it could not hear the election challenge case
because Texas and the others did not have the standing to challenge how another
state conducts its presidential election is completely spurious in the
circumstances. Where the courts don’t exercise their jurisdiction, a vacuum
arises which is likely to be filled by lawlessness, and potentially, even
violent lawlessness.
The United States has become a country where a majority of
Americans—people of good will from both parties -- believe presidential
elections are not conducted honestly.
As Daniel Greenfield details,
not only did the Supreme Court abdicate any judicial responsibility for hearing
the contested election cases, so
have lower courts.
When should you file a lawsuit over an election? If you are
a Democrat, the answer is at any time. But if you are a Republican the answer
is never. [snip] You can sue over how an election was handled in 2018, and
get a decision in 2020, but you can't sue over an election in 2020. Not if you
are a Republican.There's no standing to sue over an election before it happens
because then it's speculative; theories of potential future injury, nor can you
sue while an election is underway. Because, come on, it's already
underway.We're not on the eve of an election; we're in the middle of it, noted
Charlene S. McGowan, counsel for Georgia's Office of the Attorney General. And
then it's too late to sue afterward. But speaking of who gets to sue, here's
who gets to sue when it comes to the Democrats. The federal lawsuit was
initiated by freelance journalist Greg Palast along with Helen Butler,
executive director of Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda.F reelance
journalists can sue over 2018 elections, but Republicans, no matter how
clearly they can show injury, can't sue over the 2020 election.
This leaves the only remaining
avenue to affect the genuine choice of the people to the Congress when it must
vote on the selection of electors, a procedure clearly permitted by the
Constitution. Will they have the courage to do the right thing? If they
don’t, we will see fraudulent elections forever with no judicial redress. In
almost none of the counties whose votes are disputed was the Dominion system
examined. In Maricopa County Arizona the vote officials are refusing
to honor a subpoena to provide the machines for examination. In the
only county where they have been examined (Antrim, Michigan) the analyst who
audited the system reports that the machines flipped
Trump votes to Biden.
It has been particularly
galling to me that Facebook clipped hundreds of ”go vote” messages on my page,
while parking
its fat finger on reliable articles on vote fraud, censoring them or
warning readers away, citing fact checks written by youngsters who themselves
dissembled and misrepresented.
Media Fraud
This partisan fraud has been
ongoing for at least two decades but is no longer escaping the attention
of great deal of its erstwhile consumer base. For years we have been
examining media disinformation and bias. This year it was particularly
evident in the media’s discrediting
the accurate reports of Hunter Biden’s corruption (and that of his
father and uncle, who also benefited from it).
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online
survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters think many news organizations
ignored the Hunter Biden story to help his father’s presidential campaign.
Thirty-two percent (32%) disagree and say they ignored it because they felt it
was a partisan hit job. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see
survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-six percent (56%) believe it is likely Joe Biden was
consulted about and perhaps profited from his son’s overseas business deals
including at least one involving a company in mainland China. This includes 43%
who say it’s Very Likely. This is little changed from late October. Thirty-eight percent
(38%) still consider this connection unlikely, with 22% who say it’s Not At All
Likely.
Now that Hunter Biden has acknowledged publicly that he is
under criminal investigation for tax evasion, many major news organizations
like the New York Times and CNN are covering his
questionable overseas business dealings, first reported several weeks before
Election Day by the New York Post.
Seventy percent (70%) of voters say they have been closely
following news reports about Hunter Biden’s business dealings, with 38% who
have been following Very Closely.
Among those who have been following Very Closely, 76% say
the media deliberately ignored the story before Election Day to help Joe Biden,
and 72% think the president-elect is likely to have been consulted about and
perhaps profited from his son’s overseas dealings.
Add to this the media’s refusal
to accurately describe the months-long BLM/Antifa riots, looting, arson,
and killing, calling it instead “mostly peaceful protests,” it’s no wonder
people are tuning them out. The heavy hand of the left wing played its part.
Internet giants like Twitter suspended the account of the oldest newspaper
in the country, the NY Post, which broke the story of the
Biden family corruption with China, Russia, and the Ukraine as well as the
account of the White House press secretary, and you
can understand why “fewer than 15 percent of Americans trust the
media.”
Treat your pen like a
Democratic party weapon and be rewarded with pink slips to the unemployment
line. “An estimated 28,637 job cuts were reported in the industry by late
October, Variety, citing data from Challenger, Gray &
Christmas, reported, nearly as many as the record 28,803 reported in
the media sector in 2008. By comparison, the sector saw just over 10,000 job
losses in 2019 and 15,474 in 2018.” The
Hill attributes it to the China Virus. I think the mendacity and
patent bias also has a great deal to do with the shrinking media employment.
2020: The Public Health
Fraud
It was impossible to overlook
the failures of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) to garner our respect. The
Center’s constant shifting of advice based on little empirical evidence
was maddening enough. Between the CDC and Dr. Fauci, we had a year of Simon
Says. Worse was their obvious hypocrisy of condoning the “mostly peaceful
protests” by thousands of people closely massed, often maskless, shouting and
singing (and spraying droplets all about) while the rest of us who work and pay
their salaries and unemployment benefits were in home confinement, deprived of
normal entertainment, socialization, education, rent payments, work
opportunities, and spiritual gatherings.
This week was the capper. Due
to incredible management by the President and Vice-President, vaccines were
developed to deal with the virus and are on their way. One assumed
that the first to be offered a chance to get it would be those most vulnerable
to the virus -- the elderly. But, no -- per the New York Times, the
CDC wants the first shots to go to the frailest of the elderly and health care
workers, but from there the allocation is being debated. Is the vaccine to
prevent deaths or to reduce transmission? Is it to redress imagined privilege
if we emphasize the latter? The CDC
chose to de-emphasize the elderly as a group because “older
populations are whiter.... Instead of giving additional health benefits
to those who already had them, we can start to level the playing field a
bit.”
The authors of the article,
Abby Goodnough and Jan Hoffman, acknowledge there is some disagreement
with using the vaccine to “level the playing field”:
Still, some people believe it is wrong to give racial and
socioeconomic equity more weight than who is most likely to die.
“They need to have bombproof, fact-based,
public-health-based reasons for why one group goes ahead of another,” said
Chuck Ludlam, a former Senate aide and biotech industry lobbyist who protested
putting essential workers ahead of older people in comments to the committee.
“They have provided no explanation here that will withstand public scrutiny.”
Pesky of Mr. Ludlam to insist
on medical reasons for providing priorities for limited supplies of
medical aid.
The debate by those in the
field provides some shocking admissions. Marc Lipshits argues teachers should
not be considered essential workers who would get priority for the vaccine.
“Teachers have middle-class salaries, are
very often white, and they have college degrees,” he said. “Of course, they
should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of
workers.”
Elise Gould says they should
be, but only because they serve minorities: “When you talk about
disproportionate impact and you’re concerned about people getting back into the
labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their
children don’t have a reliable place to go,” she said. “And if you think
generally about people who have jobs where they can’t telework, they are
disproportionately Black and Brown. They’ll have more of a challenge when child
care is an issue.”
Last I saw, children are not
very high spreaders of the virus. I should think that, not the racial makeup of
the teaching force or the students, should be determinant of whether teachers
are essential workers. But then again, it’s my understanding that the people
most vulnerable to death from the virus are elderly black people, whom people
like Gould would not give priority to. Even lefty Matthew
Iglesias thinks this is idiotic.
Last but by no means least, note the weird race craft here.
We know the people who’ve been dying the most from Covid are black senior
citizens. The decision here is to not prioritize them, but
to instead vaccinate a different, less vulnerable group of people and
then assert that this creates some kind of abstract collective racial benefit.
There have been a lot of takes lately about woke liberals prioritizing symbolic
racial issues over the concrete needs of non-white people, but this idea really
takes the cake.
This week we also learned that
in 1986 Uranus blasted a
gas bubble 22 times as large as earth. I think it might
have landed here this year.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/2020_the_year_of_the_big_fraud.html
