Elon Musk is Giving Democrats Heartburn

By Joe Fried CPA Aug 24, 2024 @ Joe Fried CPA Election Central

Trump is surrounding himself with some interesting people: The latest is Robert Kennedy Jr., who should pump new energy into the Trump campaign.  And there is JD Vance, the super articulate advocate for the MAGA point of view. Another smart supporter is Elon Musk, who endorsed Trump in mid-July. The mainstream press will do its best to either ignore or denigrate each of these people. Nevertheless, I think they will be helpful to the Trump campaign — especially with young people.

A few years ago, when Elon Musk was giving millions in support to Barack Obama, Democrats thought he was just fine. Now they see Musk as a racist, a danger to the world order, and a threat to Democrats.

The left was already upset with Musk for purchasing Twitter (“X”), for allowing the Orange Menace et al. to air their views on that website, and for the recent presidential endorsement. Recently, however, Musk did three more things that rankle Democrats: He re-posted a meme that makes fun of Kamala Harris, he talked with Trump for 2 hours in a conversation seen by millions on the “X” platform and, most dastardly, he created a Trump-friendly political action committee — a Super PAC.

The meme

Musk re-posted a meme that utilized AI to imitate Kamala’s voice. It is a video that was designed to be amusing and to highlight Kamala’s phoniness. Here is how the meme begins:

“I, Kamala Harris, am your Democrat candidate for president because Joe Biden finally exposed his senility at the debate. Thanks, Joe! I was selected because I am the ultimate diversity hire. I am both a woman and a person of color, so if you criticize anything I say you’re both sexist and racist. I may not know the first thing about running the country but remember, that’s a good thing if you’re a deep state puppet...”

The rest of the video is equally outlandish — and funny! For example, the fake Kamala stresses the importance of hiding her total incompetence, and the importance of trying to sound black. (She uses her “best Barack Obama impression.”)

Numerous mainstream pundits and journalists have somberly complained that the meme violates X’s media manipulation policy. They worry that people might confuse the meme Harris with the real Harris. I guess the AI imitation is more realistic than we understood.

The Conversation

Regarding the Trump-Musk dialogue, the mainstream media assert that they have no problem with free speech but are upset because the two men spread lies and disinformation. A comprehensive list of these supposed falsehoods was made by Daniel Dale of CNN. Let’s assess a few of the items on Dale’s list.

• Trump and Musk said that Kamala had been the “border czar” — a claim that Dale says “is false.” For years, however, many people and publications have regarded her as the border czar. Even the BBC — no friend to Trump — admits it:   “...many people came to see [the Kamala Harris] assignment as all-encompassing. Several media organisations, including the BBC, described Ms Harris as a “tsar” in news reports.”
• Trump said, “Our crime rate’s going through the roof.” Dale found this to be another falsehood, but the CNN fact checker was not using the best evidence. Trump based his statement on the periodic “National Crime Victim Surveys,” which are conducted twice per year by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The Bureau describes itself as “the primary statistical agency of the Department of Justice.” Regarding its periodic surveys, BJS issued this statement:   “The BJS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households.”  
• In contrast, Dale cited flawed data from the FBI, which only reports the data that is voluntarily submitted to it by police departments, many of which decline to participate. That is probably why BJS surveys show far higher crime rates.
• Trump claimed that nuclear war was a far bigger threat than global warming. I think most people would agree. He also said, tongue in cheek, “the ocean’s gonna rise one eighth of an inch over the next 400 years.” Obviously, Trump’s claim about a 1/8 inch increase in oceans was intended to be hyperbolic rather than factual. However, that didn’t stop Daniel Dale from issuing this stern advisory: “Trump’s claim about the pace of sea-level rise is wildly inaccurate.”
• Daniel Dale was also upset about Trump’s claims concerning 2020 election irregularities: “The 2020 election was not rigged. Trump lost fair and square...” However, there is much information that contradicts Dale’s assertion. My fact-based book describes in great detail why the elections in 6 key swing states were not certifiable. The book has been widely read and discussed, yet no one has debunked anything in that book, or even attempted to do so.

To be fair, Daniel Dale pointed out some issues that were exaggerated by the former president:

• Trump claimed the inflation was the worst in 100 years, but it was the worst in just the last 44 years.
• Trump said that his policies made it impossible for China to purchase Iranian oil. Dale admitted that statement was true by the end of the Trump administration but he added that “ships may travel from Iran with their transponders switched off...” to conceal their commerce with Iran. So, Dale was basing this fact check on a theory that ship transponders were shut off?

Musk’s new Super PAC

Without a doubt, this is what concerns Democrats the most. Elon Musk has pledged a very large sum of money (up to $180 million) to a Super political action committee (PAC) that has the goal of developing a ground game that can get “800,000 low-propensity voters in swing states to the polls for Donald Trump.”

This is a great strategy that could make the difference between a Republican victory and a Republican defeat. However, it is important to distinguish between a good ground game and ballot harvesting.

The ground game is a legal strategy to encourage voting. On the other hand, ballot harvesting is generally illegal, and involves the use of political operatives who take physical control of voter ballots. It is illegal in most states.

President Trump once urged his party to harvest ballots in retaliation for the harvesting done by Democrats. That was a terrible idea for several reasons. Here are a couple of them:

• Democrat district attorneys, like Alvin Bragg, would be delighted to prosecute Republicans caught harvesting ballots, even though they show no interest in prosecuting Democrat ballot harvesting.
• Harvesting ballots would not be very effective with regard to Republican voters because they are more politically independent. Harvesting works best with druggies, the homeless, and non-English speaking Democrat constituencies.

In the American Thinker you will find more information about political ground games and the dangers of ballot harvesting.

I believe Democrats are terrified by the Musk Super PAC — and they should be. Until now, they have largely owned the get-out-the-vote strategy, and have often employed effective but disgraceful tactics. For example, more than 20 Democrat states automatically register voters — often without telling them. In those states a person may become registered because she visited a state welfare agency or because she was released from prison. Later, sophisticated ballot harvesters can acquire county voter registration lists, assume the identity of these clueless new voters, and apply for ballots using their identities. This topic is also explored in the American Thinker.

It seems that Musk is “all in” for Trump and JD Vance. That is good cheer for Republicans — and heartburn for Democrats.

Subscribe! All subscriptions are free!
Go to the original article for the link at the end of the article.

Been there. Done that. Not doing it again.

March 2, 2023 By Robin M. Itzler  @ American Thinker

In years past, if there were two candidates on the ballot, most Republicans would select those with the “R” after their names. Today, Conservative patriots focus less on party affiliation and more on candidates’ positions. After all, if the choice is between Republican Liz Cheney and now Independent/former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, who would you vote for?

Whether it’s the Tea Party, We the People, Make America Great Again, or another like-minded patriotic movement, America First Conservatives are disgusted with Republican UniParty congressional leadership. Following the pork-filled omnibus bill’s passage, Dan Bongino summed it up:

That so many Republicans in the Senate and House would support an omnibus bill that does more for Ukraine’s borders than our own southern border explains why the GOP has multiple problems with its base.

America First patriots staunchly believe the Republican leadership does not care about us except when it needs money and essential volunteers during campaigns to do the grunt work. This is why the cycle never ends:

• America First candidate runs in the primary.
• GOP leadership pushes out America First candidate in the primary.
• RINO is the general election candidate.
• GOP says vote for the RINO since the Democrat candidate is worse.
• RINO wins.
• Patriots get angry with RINO’s actions and/or votes.
• Repeat ….

Responding to patriotic Americans who want to know what they can do to keep the country from trending toward Marxism, John Daniel Davidson wrote that’s it’s up to us:

You’re going to have to save the country yourselves. Donald Trump isn’t going to save it. Ron DeSantis isn’t going to save it. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that a GOP majority in Congress is going to save it.

Two recent examples of Conservative patriots focusing on candidates, propositions, and policies rather than party affiliation come from Orange County, California, once the nation’s most conservative county.

Image: Simple ballot (edited) by freepik.

Cypress: In late 2022, a group of concerned citizens formed Keep Cypress United (“KCU”) to maintain their city council's fiscally responsible majority. Because the ballot limited voter’s choices to three candidates, KCU immediately endorsed two fiscally responsible Republicans. For their third endorsement, founding members (all Republicans) interviewed several candidates. They endorsed the Libertarian over the Republican. As founding member Glenn Button explained:

I am one who prioritizes policies over people, such as fiscal restraint and public safety. A candidate who is best able to articulate and strongly defend a favored policy is then to be preferred over a mild candidate of the preferred party.

Self-funded and with only a few weeks to counter immense outside funding and questionable campaign practices benefitting a progressive candidate, KCU had a booth at the city’s October festival, held informal meetings, attended city council meetings, and wrote letters to the editor.

Their efforts helped keep a fiscally responsible Conservative majority on the Cypress City Council.

Conservative Patriots of Orange County: In late 2021, a new non-partisan organization premiered, focusing on “conservative patriots” rather than party affiliation. In one-year, Conservative Patriots of Orange County (CPOC) grew to nearly 300 members. According to CPOC President Deborah Pauly,

About one-third of voters in Orange County have registered as no party preference or independent. Many of these voters have been disenfranchised by or have become disenchanted with the two major parties, including Republicans who can no longer tolerate leadership that is ethically compromised. These citizens are civically minded. CPOC is an outlet for those who prefer open, forthright, and robust discussion on important issues.

With headline speakers, unique events, a focus on activism, and a refusal to kowtow to establishment doctrine, the organization has quickly become a powerhouse in Orange County politics.

Despite those successes, why are so many Republicans still switching to Independent or No Party Preference and/or endorsing non-Republican candidates? Josh Hammer explained it well:

It is one of the most bitter and tragic ironies of our contemporary politics that the leadership of one of America’s two major political parties, the Republican Party, utterly despises that party’s very own voting base.

The base is not going to keep playing these ridiculous UniParty games. And they’re sick of the rigging, as Wayne Allyn Root wrote, commenting on manipulated 2022 elections in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Georgia:

But I have news for the GOP. Your base isn’t that dumb. We all know. We all see what’s happening.

… In the end, we don’t blame communists masquerading as Democrats. We don’t blame rigged and stolen elections. We don’t blame mail-in ballots.

We blame the GOP leadership.

No more!

If GOP leadership doesn’t understand this immense frustration shared by millions of patriots, wait until 2024. Party leaders will sleepily expect conservatives to vote for Republican candidates solely because they have an “R” after their name. But when the ballots are counted, at least the legitimate ballots, they might be shocked to learn what voters really thought: Been there. Done that. Not doing it again.

Robin M. Itzler is a regular contributor to American Thinker. She can be reached at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com.

2000 Mules Documentary Provides Compelling Evidence That 2020 Election Was Stolen

By Debra Heine May 5, 2022 

After the 2020 election, government officials and their allies in the media repeated the mantra that the election was the “most secure in American history,” Dinesh D’Souza pointed out before the premiere of his new documentary film 2000 Mules at Mar-a-Lago, Wednesday night. 

But how would they know that? D’Souza wondered. Even if they couldn’t prove the election was rigged, “it still doesn’t follow that it was the most secure election in history,” he said. “The only way you could prove that would be if you were to compare the amount of fraud in 2020 with 2016, with 2012, with 2008, with 2004, and show that there has been less fraud now than in any of those elections.” D’Souza’s question is a good one.

Did election officials study the security of every election prior to 2020 to make the determination that the 2020 election was “the most secure ever”? Or were they just spinning another false narrative that benefits one side of the aisle?

The movie 2000 Mules handily answers that question.

Using state-of-the-art technology, the film convincingly makes the case that the 2020 presidential election was perhaps the most unsecure election ever, and was stolen from former President Trump.........To Read More.....

• Catherine Engelbrecht Joins Tucker Carlson Following Premier of “2000 Mules” — Tucker Misses Her Most Important Statement (VIDEO)
• HUNDREDS of Patriots Attend Screening of “2000 Mules” at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home and Resort — Crowd Left Stunned as Proof Revealed on Stolen Election — Stacey Abrams Better Find New Work
• President Trump will Show “2000 Mules” at Pennsylvania Rally on Friday Night
• THEY’RE ON THE OTHER SIDE: FOX News Joins Mainstream Media in Boycotting Coverage of “2000 Mules” Documentary on Nation-wide Ballot Trafficking Conspiracy to Steal 2020 Election
•  The Timing Was Intentional: Roe v Wade Leak Was Left's Answer to "2000 Mules" Documentary Release Today that Proves 2020 Election Was Stolen

AG Garland Says He’s “Not Aware” Zuckerberg Poured Over $400 Million To Interfere In The 2020 Presidential Election And Takeover Polling Places

By Jordan Conradson October 21, 2021 508 Comments

 US Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the Justice Department’s mission and policies.  Prior to the 2020 election, Zuckerburg dumped over $400 million to hijack the elections nationwide. Arizona received nearly $3 million Zuckerbucks to run their election and Georgia received nearly $5.6 million Zuckerbucks.  Garland defended the 2020 election and even threatened states who thought about auditing their elections........To Read More...

 Our Group's Take - He's also apparently totally unaware of the rioters/protestors who took over the Interior Dept. Building either, even tho at least 55 were arrested, police were injured badly enough to be taken to the hospital, and so on.  But he's all over the Jan 6th protestors/rioters, even tho a huge percentage of them were invited in by the police, and police actually attacked peaceful protestors - who then in some cases fought back.

 

COVID, a series of accidents or a planned conspiracy?

October 15, 2021 By Peter Skurkiss

With the advent of the Wuhan virus in early 2020, the country has been severely disrupted, metaphorically turned upside down. We've gone from ubiquitous mask wearing to locking down the economy to the release of untested vaccines to now harsh vaccine mandates. And all though this torturous process, freedoms that were once taken for granted in the U.S. have been steadily chipped away. We've even witnessed the 2020 presidential election being stolen. by increasing mail-in voting, extended time for voting, and overriding state election laws by a number of governors and attorneys general. Containing the Wuhan virus was the pretext for this, and it made extensive cheating possible. 

Looking back at what has transpired, a question must be asked: Is this whole COVID mess the result of a series of random accidents and bad decision by those in authority? Or is it a subterfuge that has been planned out in advance? The latter point brings us to conspiracy theory territory............To Read More.....

 

Election Officials Don’t Know What Happened to 15 Million Mail Ballots in 2020 Election

Real data -- from a federal agency

Fri Sep 17, 2021 J. Christian Adams 10 comments

As any casual observer could tell, the 2020 election was a mess. Now we have real data—from a federal agency, no less—that proves it.  Based on data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an analysis by the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows almost 15 million mail ballots effectively disappeared after election officials gave them to the U.S. Postal Service to deliver to voters.  

Gone, like the Bermuda Triangle of the election.

Some of the mail ballots may have ended up on the floors of apartment complexes. Some were sent to deceased registrants. Some went to addresses where the registrant no longer lives. Some may have gone to vacant lots and businesses. Some, having never been requested by the voter, were never returned. In 2020, we put the election in the hands of the people who regularly deliver you your neighbor’s mail.

The data also shows that an additional 1.1 million ballots were sent to the wrong addresses in 2020 – the U.S. Postal Service saying they were “undeliverable.” Think on that. One million ballots went to the wrong house or apartment.  This report proves that mass voting by mail leads to chaos, is ripe with opportunities to commit fraud, and disenfranchises voters...........To Read More....

 

Peacefully and proactively dealing with election fraud

June 10, 2021 By Vince Coyner

Earlier in the week, I asked the question: What if Proof of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud Develops? I mentioned several remedies that have been widely talked about from impeachment to a Pentagon coup to rioting in the streets.

None is an ideal solution. The first wouldn’t correct the problem, the second would turn the United States into a third-world banana republic and the last would bring about a modern version of the bloody chaos that characterized post-revolutionary France. An ideal solution would reverse Biden’s inauguration and inaugurate Donald Trump as the rightful president -- and do so while maintaining our Constitutional Republic.

There is another option that theoretically could do that, one based on concepts familiar to Americans, thanks to shows from Perry Mason to Law & Order: “Fraud vitiates everything” and “fruit of the poison tree.”

In 1878, in United States v. Throckmorton, the Supreme Court held that “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.” In English, fraud invalidates contracts – and an election is nothing if not a contract. Everyone knows if you sign a contract based on fraudulent information, that contract is invalid. That leads to “void ab initio“ which means that fraud from the beginning taints everything resulting from it.

The other doctrine is one we’ve seen TV lawyers use to throw out evidence against their client because it was obtained illegally. The evidence is inadmissible as the “Fruit of a poison tree.” The Supreme Court, in 1939, explained this in Nardone v. United States which holds that, if a tree is poisonous, so too is its fruit. (Hat tip to Andrea Widburg, Donna Palen, and Al Simon)..............

This means that, if fraud is shown, the election is invalid. Biden is not president and every action his administration took is void as if it never happened. Of course, that’s never been done in a presidential election but it’s happened a handful of times in lower elections............To Read More............

What if Proof of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud Develops?

June 8, 2021  By Vince Coyner @ American Thinker 

 

Editor's Note:  I've not received permission to publish this in full, but I think this is a piece that needs wide distribution.  If American Thinker or Vince Coyner object I will take this down and merely link it.  RK 

If the last month has taught us anything, today’s conspiracy theory could easily be tomorrow’s commonsense truth. The speed at which the Wuhan Lab theory as the source of the Covid virus went from “thoroughly debunked” to “Viable” and “Probable” in the media was extraordinary. Indeed, the media scorned the possible source of the most economically destructive virus in history – one that is credited with killing 3 million people – because they didn’t like the then-President of the United States!

Despite the fact that the lab in Wuhan was one of the only places on earth where scientists were studying such viruses, that 3 Wuhan employees went to the hospital in November 2019 with what turned out to be Covid symptoms, that the NIH had actually been funding “gain of function” research in Wuhan focusing specifically on the transmission of such viruses to humans… we were told the Wuhan “China virus” theory was a racist conspiracy theory!

As much damage as Covid did – and far worse, the “lockdowns” used to inflict COVID's damage – that’s nothing compared to the damage another “conspiracy” has done and will do. That, of course, is the “thoroughly debunked” notion that the election of 2020 was stolen, and that Joe Biden is in the Oval Office today because of election fraud. But of course that’s just some tin hat conspiracy theory. We’ve been told that “There’s no evidence of election fraud” and Trump “Lost Nearly 60 Election Fights In Court.” The latter of course is fiction.

Given that we heard similar things for the last year about the origins of Covid, the question is, what happens when proof unequivocally demonstrates that the election was indeed stolen?

The smoke for that conclusion has been around since the wee hours of November 4^th. The stopped counting in key states on election night. Mark Zuckerberg’s wholesale purchase of the voting apparatus in key states and counties. The unconstitutional changes to voting laws that crisscrossed the country… many empowered by the politicization of Covid... And then of course there is the TIME magazine piece that laid out in black and white the “inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election”, chronicling widespread coordination of everyone from the Democrat party, Silicon Valley, BLM, unions, the Chamber of Commerce and various other players to get rid of Donald Trump.

All that has been missing has been the CSI level proof of the fire itself. Of course, given the depth and breadth of the Swamp, it may never come to light. But then it might. Currently in Arizona and Wisconsin audits are being done of the 2020 election.

So let’s imagine that somehow, integrity rules the day, and both states under audit produce rock-solid proof that the election in their states was stolen; what then? Technically, nothing. Arizona had 11 electoral votes and Wisconsin had 10. Together they represent 21 electoral votes and Joe Biden was declared the winner by 74 votes. In order for anything to change there must be a difference of at least 38 votes flipped from Biden to Trump.

But let’s say even one of those states produces demonstrable proof of election fraud. At that point the Republican legislatures of other battleground states that exhibited strange activity on election night… Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan would be under a great deal of pressure to look into the integrity of their own elections. Suddenly, with an additional 52 electoral votes in play, things look a bit different.

Let’s further assume that the legislatures of Georgia and Pennsylvania determine that there was sufficient fraud in their states to flip the state’s vote to Donald Trump. With Arizona and Wisconsin, those states would bring the total to 57 electoral votes flipped from Biden to Trump, changing the totals to 249 to 289 and leaving Trump with a majority.

What then? Can a state reverse its electoral vote after certification and counting? Can states recall their electors post-inauguration? Can Congress meet and redo the vote count six months after an inauguration? None has ever been done and there is nothing in the Constitution about doing so. Can the House impeach the President for the fraud? Even if the GOP controlled the Senate a conviction would be unlikely because there’s probably little to connect Joe Biden with the actual fraud done on his behalf.

Can the Supreme Court order a new election? While the Constitution gives the Court no such power, in the Bizarro world of modern America that certainly seems to be no barrier. It is unlikely, however, as the Justices had two clear opportunities to resolve this problem and did nothing. When Pennsylvania Republicans sued seeking to throw out the clearly unconstitutional changes to voting law, the Court demurred. Unconstitutional changes such as these are of course the very basis for the Texas lawsuit that the Supreme Court refused to hear after the election. One state allowing their election to be stolen does indeed negatively impact the rights of citizens of another state if that activity results in a fraudulent president who runs the government of the United States under which all American citizens are governed.

Once the fraud has been demonstrated, America is going to find itself in a situation where it doesn’t appear that there is any Constitutional remedy in place. Are Americans simply supposed to acquiesce to the theft and allow the fraudulent president to be the actual president for the next three years?

No. That would be like a thief stealing your identity and looting your bank account and then once discovered, being allowed to keep it because, as we all remember from elementary school, “possession is 9/10ths of the law.” That was wrong in elementary school and it’s wrong in the Oval Office.

What can be done when the Constitution doesn’t address a bastardization of the constitutional process? Does a military junta take control and put Donald Trump back in the Oval Office? Umm… No! Does the 25th Amendment somehow come into play? No, because that would not remedy the situation. Does Biden resign? Unlikely, and again, it wouldn’t remedy the situation.

A Convention of the States as outlined by Article V of the Constitution? Maybe, but that’s a long process and would likely not occur within the timeframe of the next election.

How about a shadow government? Does Donald Trump build a replica of the Oval Office at Mar-a-Lago and show the world what a real president would do in whatever circumstances the imposter president finds himself in?

Do true patriots take to the streets and use violence and intimidation to wreak havoc from sea to shining sea the way BLM and Antifa did last year, and maintain it until the Democrats capitulate?

None of those ideas is an ideal solution. An ideal solution would essentially reverse the inauguration of Joe Biden and inaugurate Donald Trump as the rightful president.

Many pundits are suggesting that Republicans should dig deep and focus on 2022, both at the local and the state level so that the GOP can take back the House and the Senate. While that’s true, it’s not sufficient because it doesn’t address the fraud in the first place.

If it’s possible to steal the presidency with impunity, what office in the nation is beyond reach? The simple answer is none, and that matters because the government has police power and once the Constitution becomes superfluous, the coercive powers of government suddenly have no limits. And for those who say that the Constitution still stands, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It is the citizens’ loyalty to that Constitution and the system built upon it that make it work.

The Shadow Conspirators Who Undermined the Republic

The puppet-master-in-chief lurking in the shadows may still be "leading from behind." The question again: Is the United States still a Constitutional Republic?

By Dennis Jamison —— Bio and Archives--March 11, 2021 @ Canada Free Press

Cover Story | 8 Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

 Nearly one month ago, there was a lengthy piece in Time Magazine that required a serious response in order to help “normal people” make some sense of what was being written beneath the surface or between the lines of propaganda. I offered my viewpoint, but there was way too much embedded in Molly Ball’s article to ignore. I recommended that the article be read despite her annoying, self-congratulatory tone and the attempt at the ideological brainwashing of naive readers. The article titled, “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” should be read by people who love the Republic to become acquainted with how contorted and inverted such people’s conception of justice in this nation has become. However, her article reveals more.

“The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign…”

“The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign…” serves more than a simple roadmap of how people who hated President Trump worked within the shadows (certainly the left- leaning mainstream media would not have called attention to the covert effort to fully undermine election integrity. The writers hired by the elitist media moguls work for pay to misrepresent the truth at best, and at their worst to promulgate propaganda to the masses. They are the enemy of the people despite what Wolf Blitzer, or the other media mouthpieces would like to tell themselves. Molly Ball is one of them who must believe in the cause she touts in the article. Her article reveals some in the inner media circles had the knowledge of what was going on “in the shadows.”  

It is safe to assume that if Ball knew what was transpiring, there were some within the inner circles of the media moguls who knew and condoned the nefarious activities. Ball was paid for her glowing account. According to what citizens were expected to believe:

The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result  could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Such an account is actually an account of a network of conspirators on the left who did want to stop a Trump victory and an account of how they plotted to undermine a federal election—one way or another. Those were the words of Nancy Pelosi as she made the public threat that Donald Trump would not be POTUS “One Way or Another.’ It may have been for the best that the election was stolen, otherwise one would hate to dwell on what the ‘other’ method of removing the president from office may have been. U.S. history demonstrates that the Democrats made good on a plot to deal with President Trump, “One Way or Another”. The anniversary of that dark episode is just one month away.

The criminals who stole the election benefited by being elected via fraud or electronic vote tabulation manipulation

Despite the propagandist point that the conspirators did not aim at Trump, the Democrat Party leadership had been aiming to get Trump out of office “one way or another” since before he even took office. The reality is well documented by their own attempts time and again to rid the United States of the scourge of Donald Trump and his band of dastardly “deplorables” any way possible. This reality was also demonstrated by two other documented efforts: 1) the farcical impeachment of a private citizen, and 2) the concerted focus on marginalizing Trump supporters. The evidence of this is sourced from those on the Left as well as those in the Never Trumper camps. These are the two broad groupings that Ball referenced as working together for the sake of preventing the “failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.”       

That is precisely what the conspirators orchestrated: a failure of the sacred right of a free people to have their voices heard in a fair and honest election. Ball’s attempt at whitewashing the theft of a federal election, and all the leaders of both political parties accepting the results of a stolen election should give everyone pause to consider whether the United States is still a Constitutional Republic, or whether it is not. Either the public has been lied to by the mainstream media, by ‘journalists’ like Ball and her comrades, or the public has been lied to by the alternative media sources who have revealed alleged fraud in several ways. 

Yet, assuming the worst, and truth exists,  it is not what people want to know, the more relevant question is: Who are the ones who benefited from such an outcome? It is not hard to connect the dots. The criminals who stole the election benefited by being elected via fraud or electronic vote tabulation manipulation. Their accomplices in the media are attempting to justify it. Those who were labeled “conservatives,” which translates to “Republicans,” or translates to Never Trumpers, who were part of the conspiracy, are also complicit with undermining the sacred right of a fair and honest election. And, the criminals who were elected are swiftly working to undermine all future elections by passing HR1.

One question regarding the AFL-CIO is how long have they been tampering with elections?

Yet, Ball’s “Secret History of the Shadow Campaign…” reveals more specifics about the conspirators. Molly Ball admits that “much of this activity took place on the left…” On the surface, the primary organizer, or “architect” of the conspiracy was Mike Podhorzer, the senior adviser to the president of the AFL-CIO, now the largest union federation in the U.S. It is ironic that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka criticized Joe Biden’s actions on his first day in office to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline. But, one should assume that Trumka was behind the conspiracy if his senior advisor was the shadow “architect” of the theft of the election. Trumka’s well-documented ‘criticism,’ was anemic and amounted to a weak attempt to appear he was standing up for the workers who lost their jobs. Trumka went so far as to reveal the consistency of his conspiracy as he defended Biden saying that “he believes Biden regrets his handling of the executive order.” Biden may still not even know he signed such an executive order.

One question regarding the AFL-CIO is how long have they been tampering with elections? It is understandable that a chief advisor like Podhorzer would have been trusted with such a mission. Big Labor has been organizing to influence elections legally as well as illegally for a number of years. Additionally, labor unions in general have had socialist ties dating back to the early 1900s. Who else would gain by a conspiracy to undermine a national election? The Socialists. Who else participated in this conspiracy to steal the election besides the unions? The Socialists. Maurice Mitchell, who is the national director of the “Working Families Party” was quoted in Ball’s article as praising Podhorzer: “Pod played a critical behind-the-scenes role in keeping different pieces of the movement infrastructure in communication and aligned.”

Whose socialist-laden legacy was being threatened by Trump?

The “Working Families Party” was created by Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson‘s 1988 presidential campaign. But, before he founded a more ‘sanitized’ aspect of a Marxist political party, he founded the Marxist-driven “New Party” in 1992. Their objective was to get leftist or socialist candidates elected to public office in as many states as possible. Their hope was to push the “Democratic” Party much further to the left, with the ultimate goal of establishing a Marxist party platform. This was an attempt to create an umbrella under which disparate and disenfranchised Marxist groups could collectively gain political power. It was somewhat successful in initially attracting many members from the Democratic Socialists of America and ACORN. One of their most famous members was Barack Obama, whom the New Party helped to elect to the Illinois Senate in 1996. 

Whose socialist-laden legacy was being threatened by Trump? If readers have been connecting the dots, clever patriots may now have a much more clear picture of the chief conspirator. The puppet-master-in-chief lurking in the shadows may still be “leading from behind.” The question again: Is the United States still a Constitutional Republic?

Dennis Jamison -- Bio and Archives

The Deep State's victory could be temporary

March 9, 2021  By Robert Curry 

Donald Trump forced its hand; the Deep State had to cheat to win.  And this was not the sort of cheating we have grown accustomed to, like the relatively modest cheating in Illinois and Texas that got Kennedy "elected" in 1960.  No, this was brazen cheating on a spectacular scale.

The Deep State went all in this time.  The results of an honest recount will astonish the world.  If we get an honest one, I predict that it will reveal that Trump actually got close to 80 million votes and Biden got around 64 million.  That's a landslide in anybody's book, which means that 2020 was a turning point election, a turning point in American politics.  Donald Trump, the avowed enemy of the Deep State, won a great victory, a victory that threatened the Deep State's hold on power.

> I readily admit that these numbers are the result of a back-of-the-envelope calculation by yours truly, admittedly no math wizard, but I ask you to record and remember these numbers anyway.   If and when we get a real recount, hold me accountable for them, please. .........To Read More.....

Another Bungled CDC Study on Restaurants and Masks

Robert E. Wright  – March 8, 2021@ American Institute for Economic Research 

Yes, the world may end tomorrow. Or the day after. Or in a billion years. The claim is not false, at least not for a few days, but it is trivial in the sense that it offers no set of causes or probability estimates. The problem isn’t that the earth ending tomorrow is as unlikely as the also not false claim that the New York Knicks may win the Stanley Cup someday, the problem is that the mechanisms by which either could occur are not carefully specified.  

If used to start panic, the claim that the world may end tomorrow is irresponsible to the point of possibly being self-fulfilling because if widely believed many people would commence pillaging and raping, or at least not working. Food and fuel would go undelivered, the Interlink would go down, and … you get the picture.

Most often, though, writers use “may” and “might” as weasel words. I know, because I have done it myself. If the “predicted” event comes to pass, the author can claim prescience. If it doesn’t, the author points to the hedge word so as to pretend not to have been wrong.

Sophisticated readers understand the “may” game but many readers apparently are not sophisticated enough to prevent news media from using it to sway readers toward editorial goals. So, for example, headlines blare “Easing restrictions may lead to an increase in Covid cases or deaths.” Right, and the media may be trying to manipulate people into pressuring leaders. Or maybe the reporter is a moron. Tough calls, all.

So I call not for cancelling “may” and “might” but rather for weighing probabilistic claims on the basis of evidence, logic, and theory. That the world may end tomorrow because a rock the size of Idaho is hurtling toward it and here are the mathematics of its speed and trajectory compared with that of this planet, the physics of gravity, and so forth is a much weightier proposition than the world may end tomorrow because it has to end sometime.

The same goes for Covid predictions. Arguing that lifting restrictions may cause a death spike because that is what happened under similar circumstances elsewhere is much weightier than the usual fare, which assumes that lockdowns reduce deaths and hence that ending them must increase them. 

The CDC is now citing a new study that shows that Covid “case” and death rates were lower in US counties with mask mandates and higher where on-site dining was allowed. The study is flawed because it doesn’t account for seasonality, position along the epi curve, the age or morbidity structure of the population, or lots of other things. Even with simplifying assumptions biasing the results in the desired direction, the difference the researchers find, even at the upper end of their estimate, is on the order of a few percent. Keep in mind that cases that don’t lead to hospitalization or death are good because they produce natural immunity. 

Any extra deaths are of course tragic so if Covid deaths were the only consideration this study would trigger the need for more research to parse out any actual causality between mask mandates (vs. voluntary masking) and restaurant closures (vs. individual adjustments like early bird dining for seniors only). While statistically significant (i.e., not likely random), the magnitude of the results suggests that masking and especially restaurant restrictions are much too costly, especially with vaccine rollouts continuing apace. It’s high time that bungling government public health bureaucrats stop placing most of the pandemic mitigation burden on service sector employers and employees.

Keep in mind that may work backwards in a sense too. Simply because X has not led to Y in the past does not mean that X may not lead to Y in the future, especially if X dramatically changes. So when I see The New York Times arguing that voter fraud will be minimal in the future because it was minimal in the past, I wonder if the editors of that once august newspaper are stupid, or if they simply believe that everyone else is? (I incline toward daft on Covid and condescending on election reform but have insufficient information to make the case.)

People weigh the expected costs and benefits of their behaviors, including criminal activities. If the expected benefit of the behavior increases and/or the expected costs decrease, then the prevalence of the activity will increase, regardless of past behavior. For example, nobody designed phone apps until the 2000s because the cost of doing so was very high and the benefit nil because nobody owned phones capable of running them. Now lots of people make phone apps because they are cheap to program and the markets for them are enormous.

Same thing goes for election fraud. Various states have changed election laws in ways that make fraud easier and cheaper while the increased growth of state power has palpably increased the benefits of fraud, electoral victory. So as Tom Fitton (esp. pps. 244-66), myself, and others predicted (though only as to sign, not degree), ballot harvesting/selling increased in 2020 and will increase yet more as people learn how to better engage in it (i.e., costs decrease) unless something is done to raise the cost of ballot fraud, either by rolling back some of the recent reforms like “Opt-out” Automatic Voter Registration and Universal Mail-In Ballots or developing new checks against abuses.

Or, we need to roll back the scope of government so that the benefits of electoral fraud decrease. I am not holding my breath on that one, though, until we figure out how to reduce humanity’s paternalistic tendencies.

Print

READ MORE

Robert E. Wright

Robert E. Wright is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.

He is the (co)author or (co)editor of over two dozen major books, book series, and edited collections, including AIER’s Financial Exclusion (2019).

Robert has taught business, economics, and policy courses at Augustana University, NYU’s Stern School of Business, Temple University, the University of Virginia, and elsewhere since taking his Ph.D. in History from SUNY Buffalo in 1997.

Get notified of new articles from Robert E. Wright and AIER.

SUBSCRIBE

 

 

Video of the Day: Larry Elder Debunks 2020 Election Integrity

Mike Lindell posts 'Absolute Proof' documentary on 2020 election

'Once you guys see what I've seen you’re gonna be so excited'

By Art Moore  5, 2021

 

One of President Trump's most fervent supporters, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, released on Friday a two-hour video documentary titled "Absolute Proof" presenting the claim that fraud and irregularities affected the outcome of the 2020 election.

It's available on a website Lindell created and was scheduled for airing on the One America News cable network three times on Friday, at 1 p.m., 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern time. 

"Everyone needs to share it with everyone you know, because anyone that sees it, even if it's nine Supreme Court justices, everyone will say, 'Wow, this is an attack on our country,'" Lindell said in an interview Wednesday with The Revival Channel on YouTube.

"Once you guys see what I've seen you're gonna be so excited," he said..........To Read More....

 

2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits — the Facts

By John Droz, jr., Physicist, North Carolina 2-1-21 

It’s beyond exasperating to keep hearing the cacophony of chicanery about the 2020 Presidential election-related lawsuits. 

 The Left’s message to the public is that there were no consequential 2020 Presidential election malfeasance, irregularities or illegalities — supposedly because the courts objectively and thoroughly investigated those claims, and ruled them to be unfounded. 

Neither element of that assertion is even remotely true. 

To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a List of Lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc.

We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.) 

To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary. (If we didn't do justice to any of these, please let me know and I’ll issue an update.) 

Another idea we implemented was to color-code the decisions — to make it easy for the reader to segregate the various outcomes. 

Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”.

So what are the takeaways? 

To begin with our list shows that there have been sixty-five (65) lawsuits filed that are relevant to the 2020 Presidential election. (Note 1: we are counting an original filing, plus additional appeals as one single case. Note 2: other lawsuits are possibly undiscovered.)

The results to date are:

a) Six cases have been withdrawn or consolidated. (These are not wins or losses to either side.)

b) Twenty-four cases have been stopped from proceeding (dismissed) due to legal technicalities (standing, timing, jurisdiction, etc.). These have nothing to do with the merits of the case and should also not be considered wins or losses for either side. 

That more than a third of the lawsuits were not allowed to proceed to an evidentiary hearing is more of an indictment that many judges appear to be afraid of opening this pandora’s box. Considering the importance of election integrity to our country, it’s a shame for them to hide behind subjective legal technicalities. How is that in the interest of the citizens in our country? 

In any case, this leaves us with thirty-five (35) lawsuits relevant to the 2020 Presidential election where a judge has ruled (or hopefully will rule) on the merits. The results so far are: 

c) Sixteen cases are completed (adjudicated). These are where the court heard arguments, considered evidence (where applicable), and then formally ruled on statutory issues (e.g. the legality of a state’s election process), etc. Of these: 

 i) Nine cases were WON by Trump, et al, and

ii) Seven cases were lost by Trump, et al.

d) Nineteen cases are still active and have not yet been decided — so the ultimate winner and loser of these cases has not been determined.

So, Trump (et al) have WON the majority of 2020 election cases fully heard, and then decided on the merits!Is that what the mainstream media is reporting.

Note that despite all the noise about fraud, only three (3) of these lawsuits materially dealt with voter illegalities (citizens voting twice, votes from deceased persons, etc.). Interestingly, all three of these cases are still open. 

Further, just three (3) lawsuits addressed voting machine inaccuracies (purposeful or accidental). One of these was dismissed (due to jurisdiction), one was ruled against (although no discovery was granted), and one is still open (discovery was granted). 

The likely explanation for so few cases in these two areas is that legally proving fraud or voting machine manipulations are very time-consuming processes, that require substantial investigative work and documentation. There simply wasn’t enough time to do this prior to key points in the process (like the Electoral College). Additionally, it’s likely that any machine algorithms would be erased by the time a forensic investigation takes place. 

Our view is that the public needs to be much better educated regarding the election integrity issue — and having a more accurate understanding of the lawsuit component is a key part of that.

PS — Here are some other 2020 Presidential election analyses by the same team: Pennsylvania Report, Michigan Report, Voting Spikes Report

You Know There Was Industrial-Scale Election Fraud. What Can Be Done?

January 25, 2021 By Jay Valentine

 

  Don't believe your lyin' eyes, and certainly do not believe the scores of fellow citizens who, under oath, signed affidavits and testified about the fraud those lying eyes witnessed. 

Put this behind you.  Move on.  Just forget it. But you can't.  You probably want to, particularly as your spouse complains about how tense you seem these days.  Fraud is an ugly thing, even when it happens to someone else.  When it happens to you, or at least to the guy you were voting for, even if you did not like his tweets, it is a bit more personal.

Children are born with a fear of loud noises.  It is one of their only innate fears.  They do not fear hot stoves; they do not fear loaded pistols; they do not fear that pot of boiling water.  They learn about those dangers soon enough.  Children are also born with a sense of justice.  It is inherent, innate, in there somewhere.  Everyone, or about everyone, has it.  Angry voices make them cry.  Witnessing someone harming an animal is horrible to them.  It should remain so.  Something immediately angers a child when someone cuts in line.  That innate sense of justice, right and wrong, is why you remain tense and your spouse tells you so.  It is why you just cannot get over it. 

There's another reason.  It is uglier..........It doesn't have an endpoint............To Read More....    

It doesn't have an endpoint............To Read More....

 

• WATCH: Sen. Rand Paul Shreds George Stephanopoulos for Being a Liberal Hack
•  Christie: ‘Shameful’ Republicans Keep Pushing Election Lies to Score ‘Political Points’ with Trump Base -  Christie said, “This election was not stolen. All of the facts point in that direction.”...(My Take - He's a disgrace!  RK)

 

Protect Election Integrity - Censor Anyone Who Questions the Election

Daniel Greenfield December 19, 2020 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Google's YouTube announced that “supporting the integrity" of the election required it to censor anyone alleging that "widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election".

By historical presidential election, Google meant this one. Democrats are still free to allege that they would have won in 2000 or 2016, if it hadn’t been for the chads or the Russians.

A huge tech monopoly closely tied to the Democrats, which was sued by the Trump administration over its illegal abuses, censoring critics of the Democrat election fraud is protecting and supporting something alright, but that thing is very definitely not integrity.

Election integrity, like fact checking, is one of those curious terms whose meaning was ‘Orwellianized’ in the last decade. Fact checking used to mean media organizations checking their facts before they published a story. Now the media has mostly done away with internal fact checking and uses fact checking to describe its efforts to censor conservative media.

Election integrity traditionally meant verifying the integrity of the process, but is now being used to mean silencing anyone who questions the integrity of the election. In both cases a term that meant protecting the integrity of an internal process has been turned inside out to mean covering up for the corruption of the internal process by censoring its outside critics.

That’s the new integrity.

At last count, 72% of Republicans, and 1 in 3 Americans, don’t trust the election results. That means silencing a hundred million people to protect thousands of election workers.

Protecting the integrity of the election means clean voter rolls, voter IDs, and elections that take place under predetermined rules put into place by state legislatures. It does not mean telling critics that pointing out the lack of integrity in the election is a threat to election integrity.

The threat to election integrity is coming from inside the system.

One basic difference between free and unfree societies is that free societies have internal checks and balances, while unfree societies only have external ones. A free society assures the integrity of its elections and its facts by keeping its facts and elections open to examination, while an unfree society protects its processes against outside criticism by threatening its critics.

American elections now happen under the grim shadow of networks of organizations that vow to “protect election integrity” by making sure that Americans aren’t “misled” by “disinformation”.

Typical of these is the Election Integrity Partnership, funded in part by billionaire Biden donor Craig Newmark, which predictably claimed that “election disinformation” was coming from Trump supporters. Its list of “repeat offenders with large audiences” consists entirely of Trump supporters. Calling people you disagree with “repeat offenders” is typical of the lefty discourse that criminalizes dissent by describing opposing views as “disinformation” and then an offense.

It's easy for conservatives to laugh off such corruption, much like Poynter's Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership being embedded in the fact checking machine, whose head also doubles as NPR's public editor, but legally treating lefty views as embodying truth and facts and conservative views as representing disinformation has serious consequences.

Even beyond YouTube and social media censorship in the marketplace of ideas.

The entire election integrity industry whose work involves closely monitoring political speech by ordinary people is operating under the theory that the biggest threat to elections comes from people. The Democrat obsession with Russian bots in the last election was almost wholesome compared to their current obsession, not with bots, Russian or otherwise, but with Americans.

Election integrity now means a stasi-like focus on identifying and punishing public speech. The threat, as in most totalitarian societies, was never really from outside: it was from Americans.

In 2020, Dems mostly ceased pretending that the issue was bots or foreign agents, instead the election integrity industry amplified by the media claimed to be very worried about people sharing “disinformation”. Big tech firms approached the election boasting about their massive effort to stem all the “disinformation” in order to protect the integrity of the election from people.

But if people can’t be trusted to discuss political issues, how can they be trusted to vote?

Our elections are only as free as our ideas are. Any system that doesn’t trust people to debate ideas isn’t about to trust them to actually make the decision about implementing those ideas.

The suppression of questions about the integrity of the election is the best reason to question it.

A free liberal society defines integrity as the integrity of the process while illiberal ideologues define it as the integrity of the outcome. The shift from the integrity of process to integrity of outcome has destroyed the integrity of most of the country’s institutions and the public’s trust.

The highest principle of integrity of process is sticking with the facts and following the rules, but integrity of outcome’s only principle is a cause so righteous that none of the rules matter.

Shifting from process to outcome led to a media that was not just biased, but that has zero regard for the facts or the truth, but insists that it’s right because it has the right principles. This preference for picking the outcome you want and then forcing the process to follow pervaded not just the media, but every political and many of the non-political institutions in American life.

That corrupt willingness to dispense with the rules is why so many question the election.

In the last four years, conservatives have witnessed a string of government officials coming forward to undermine a sitting administration, while others leaked from behind the scenes. Before the election, Democrat state officials in charge of the election vented their hatred for President Trump on social media while promising that a Biden victory was forthcoming.

Now some of those same officials are furious that Republicans are challenging the integrity of the elections they supervised. Guns don’t kill people and elections don’t defraud themselves.

Tech companies and the media have reduced the election to a sacred idea whose integrity may not be challenged, but Republicans aren’t challenging an idea: they’re challenging public officials. And tech companies stepping in to protect “election integrity” are not, at this late date, preventing voters from being “misled”, but protecting the officials they support from scrutiny.

Only unfree societies protect the integrity of public officials from the outrage of the public. And only a corrupt oligarchy selectively intervenes to protect its officials in the name of “integrity”.

Election integrity isn’t achieved by suppressing criticism of election officials. That is how you get corruption. And how conspiracy theories, right or wrong, are spawned on an unprecedented scale. Real integrity comes when public officials are held to a high standard by the public.

Free countries can have contested elections. Unfree ones, by definition, can’t.

Contested elections are healthy things. As long as you contest them the right way. Throwing around accusations of election fraud is as American as apple pie. Even most liberal historians agree that there were at least two “historical” presidential elections, as Google puts it, whose outcomes were corruptly determined. And a number of others were legitimately in dispute.

The unhealthy way to contest elections is accusing the winner of being a Russian spy, and launching investigations of him and his associates based on that smear. That’s how elections are contested in places like, well, Russia. Just make sure to substitute American for Russian.

The oligarchy has spent every minute since the election crying that contesting an election is illegitimate, a threat to what it calls “democracy”, and must be stopped to save our country.

Free countries aren’t that fragile. Unfree ones are very fragile.

Every time you hear another media screed about the threat posed by “disinformation”, you’re hearing an admission that their rule over this country is totalitarian and very fragile. And when you hear them lecture about the need to protect “election integrity” by suppressing critics, you’re hearing an admission that they rig elections whenever they can and are afraid you’ll find out.

Any faction that spends this much time protesting its integrity, doesn’t have any to protest.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Tags: Big Tech, recent, US Election

Share This:Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Nobody Believes This Election Farce

November 11, 2020 By J.B. Shurk

 

I object to the way the Democrats stole this election.  This was just a straight-up smash-and-grab job.  No creativity or panache whatsoever.  Shouldn't the Hollywood Party be capable of putting something together that's a little more...I don't know...believable?  

"So here's the premise.  We're gonna run an Alzheimer's patient who's been repeatedly humiliated by scandal in his party's presidential primaries since 1987, who probably thinks he's still running against Bush and Dukakis, and who can't remember what office he's campaigning for at any given time.  And we're gonna cover his face in a black mask and have him challenge voters to parking lot fistfights." 

"Okay, okay, sounds like a funny gimmick."  

"No, no, it's a drama.  Think King's Speech meets Forrest Gump.  Every time he says something inexplicable, he'll blame it on a childhood lisp...or the Russians.  He'll campaign exclusively from his basement and only then to remind people to be afraid of a Chinese-made virus that's somehow the fault of European white imperialism."  

"You're kidding.  That's it?"

"Oh, and he'll constantly promise to hike gas prices back over four bucks a gallon at the pump."

"So he loses in a rout, then?"

"Oh, no, Americans will find the eighty-year-old so charismatic and hip that he'll receive more votes than any presidential candidate in American history."

"Wait a second — so you're saying that the Republicans will play the 'stupid party' in this script, stumble over their own feet, and lose to a dimwit?" 

"No, all the Republicans will be big winners in the House, Senate, in the state legislatures across the board.  Even their presidential candidate will receive almost ten million more votes than during his previous winning election.  But our guy is just such a compelling candidate that Americans in a handful of battleground states will be drawn to vote for him in numbers never seen before.  It's kinda like the ending to Field of Dreams — you know, "the people will come," and all that, except our guy really won't know whether he's in Iowa or the afterlife.  Oh, and he'll have a coked-out son who's a national security nightmare, in the pockets of the Chinese communists, and forever losing his laptop in strip clubs overseas while in a blacked-out stupor."

"And the son goes to jail?"

"Oh, no, he becomes attorney general.  Really inspiring stuff."..............More