2020: The Year of the Big Fraud
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.
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.