Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, December 27, 2018



Descent into Hell: Identity Politics as the Gateway to Islamic Theocracy


The Left has conveniently forgotten the incident: they knew exactly what Zahalka meant by that. Genuine ideological racism transformed long ago into their worldview and their prerogative, concurrently.
Democratic ideals, social justice and tolerance don’t rule the world anymore. A new ideology – a successor of the failed totalitarian ideologies of the past century — governs the soul of the West, and it’s called Identity Politics.
The product of a vicious love of Red and Brown dogmas, it is pseudo-scientific, and is dividing people into racial-class categories with a rigid hierarchy. White Christians and Jews — exploiters a priori, the embodiment of financial manipulation and conspiracy – are at the lower level of the social pyramid. The second level of this hierarchy is occupied by people with various pathologies (homosexuals, transgenders, disabled) and women, who by default belong to the oppressed class. They resemble the gigantic peasant masses in the writings of Marxists: deprived, but hardly aware of their own unhappiness due to the absence of “class consciousness.” “Proletarian masses” represented by the Third World (from Venezuela to Bangladesh) and suppressed by white imperialism are positioned in the third level.
The top of the social pyramid is occupied by the vanguard of the “global progressive forces” (such as the Communist party or National Socialist German Workers’ party) – embodied by Black American organizations, Palestinians and various Islamic groups.
A human being, as a thinker who is responsible for his own destiny and the fate of others, has no place in this scheme. Instead, there are faceless groups of “beneficial insects” and “harmful insects” (a precise copy of Marxist theory). The former deserve all the support; the latter should be expelled and persecuted in every possible way. Like sheep, a man is born with a stigma which determines his fate.
A Black transgender Muslim will a priori have a more privileged position than a white man, regardless of intelligence and moral qualities. As in Bolshevik Russia, the weaver was a priori better than a former nobleman, and in Nazi Germany, the Aryan criminal was above the “subhuman” — a Jew or Slav.
It is assumed that each group of “insects” must sacrifice itself in the name of universal progress. White heterosexual men should make space for socially oppressed groups: women and the LGBT community, who, in turn, ought to sacrifice themselves in the name of the “World Proletariat,” whereas the “Proletarian Masses” must put themselves on the altar for the benefit of the Labor aristocracy and “Progressive Vanguard.”
Linda Sarsour’s message about the “brave Black Muslim American woman” (Ilhan Omar) – a victim of “people with “dual loyalty” — has a hypnotic effect on the progressive public, and she is well aware of it. In the reflection of Houston Chamberlain’s racial theory, “people with dual loyalty” (“termites” in Farrakhan’s definition) don’t stand a chance…
The following examples will demonstrate how this ideology elucidates modern countless paradoxes of “liberal democracy”:
–    The Dead White European Males (DWEM) term in American campuses;

–    PinkNews’ headline that “US Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than White evangelicals”;

–    Bullying all who disagree with the superiority of marginal groups over heterosexuals (after he dared to support heterosexual families, a cofounder of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, had to step down);

–    The physical destruction of “politically incorrect” books, including children’s literature. In 2007, for instance, the municipal library of Botkyrka (a suburb of Stockholm) burned the entire edition of “Pippi in the South Seas,” written by Astrid Lindgren in 1948, because of “racist” expressions;

–    The total onslaught against the origins of Western civilization and its history. For instance: a publication such as “Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires” by Richard Sugg claims that 18th century British nobility practiced cannibalism;
Ralph Ellis’ research tries to prove that King Solomon was an Egyptian Pharaoh (“Solomon, Pharaoh of Egypt”); and Jesus was the fourth king of Manu, ruler of Edessa in Mesopotamia (“Jesus, King of Edessa”).
Or a “discovery” by Annika Larsson from Uppsala University that the word “Allah” was embroidered on Vikings’ funeral clothes (compared to all this the Soviet agitprop is a kids’ game).
Alan Ereira and Terry Jones (in “Barbarians against Rome”) claim that the Romans were bloodthirsty and evil savages, whereas the ancient Germans and Celts were peaceful, highly civilized communities.
In “Battlefield-1” — a Swedish computer game based on World War I motifs — British, American and even German soldiers appear as black.
USA Today columnist Brian Truitt criticized a lack of diversity in “Dunkirk” — a movie about the British Expeditionary Force in World War II. Could it be that Bernard Montgomery, Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton were black transgender lesbians? Why not?
–    The statement of Prince Charles that gangs of pirates were “fantastic” for aquatic life because the fishermen were too scared to fish in coastal Somalia waters.
Only by understanding the nature of modern synthesis of Marxist and racial ideologies one can explain the inexplicable. The self-forgetful vilification of Israel and complete disregard of the scourge of the Palestinians in the refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon.
Total indifference to the fate of Ukrainians in war zones and moving concern for migrants from peaceful areas of Africa and Asia.
The willingness to accept ISIS militants and the apathy to the fate of their victims: Christians and Yezidis.
Compassion for jihadists in Guantanamo and mobsters from “Black Life Matters,” while cynically ignoring the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda.
The accusation of the “white man” for all mortal sins and the refusal to recognize poorly disguised slavery in the Muslim world.
The denial of Islamic terror side by side the hysterics about marginal “White Terror.”
Feminists’ violent attacks on Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel prizewinner, because of his joke about girls in science labs, while the same feminists defended rapists from Afghanistan, Somalia and Morocco.
Drexel University (Philadelphia) associate professor of politics and global studies George Ciccariello-Maher’s wishes of “White Genocide for Christmas” and expressions of delight for the 9/11 terror attacks from famous intellectuals.
Adoration for all kinds of dictators of the Third World on the one hand, and contempt for the white descendants of the Boers, hunted by the South Africa’s regime on the other.
The adamant reluctance to release the names of Muslim gang rapists and a comparison of Viktor Orban to Hitler.
Claims on CNN that “Islam has always been a part of the American fabric” and “America has always had heroes who were Muslims.” The new heroes are Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (professional basketball player), left activist Malcolm X and the leader of notorious Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Surprised? Not at all. Farrakhan is the personification of a “progressive man of a new type”: he is a Black Islamist, a personal enemy of Jews and whites. If you disagree, than you don’t fully understand theories of race and class.
Only by understanding the pyramid’s structure of the modern totalitarian ideology, the game of leapfrog of absurd facts acquires its own clear logic.
–    Hounding Marine Le Pen for Twitter photos of ISIS’ atrocities and pogroms at the University of Berkeley in “Stormtroopers” style following Trump’s victory.
–    An assignment from a University of Iowa professor to describe the 9/11 terrorist attacks from the perspective of Al-Qaeda, and a UK textbook asking children to ask questions of terrorists.
–    A demand by students from a prestigious London University to eradicate Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant from the curriculum because they are white, and the replacing of Shakespeare’s portrait with the portrait of Audre Lorde, “black, lesbian, mother, warrior, poet,” at the University of Pennsylvania.
–    Havens for all but “Straight white students” on campuses and allegations (by FBI leaders as well) that “white nationalism” is a greater threat to the US than ISIS.
–    A letter from the French Professor Christian de Moliner in November 2017 asking Macron to create a Muslim state within France, Ken Livingstone’s sympathy for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Jeremy Corbyn’s empathy for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizballah.
One will understand the Swedish feminists who wear burkas in Iran and the French court decision to remove the cross from the monument of Pope John Paul II, as well as the training of new migrants to be snipers in Sweden, and the efforts of British leftist groups to disrupt a demonstration against Muslim gangs of rapists.
The deportation from Sweden of Iranian actress and ex-Muslim Aideen Strandsson, who converted to Christianity (the explanation was “It’s not our problem if you decided to become a Christian”; she got asylum in Hungary, thanks to Orban) and the refusal of the British Home Office to give asylum to a 34-year-old Nigerian, Nneka Obazee, a lesbian, and her stepson.

Social benefits to ISIS militants by Great Britain, Sweden and France, and the allowing of Pakistani homophobic preacher Hamza Sodagar to enter Britain. He infamously claimed the following: “There are five punishments for homosexual men.
First, probably the easiest one, is to behead them.
The second, is to burn them to death.
Third, to throw them off a cliff.
Fourth, crash them to death with bricks.
And finally, a combination of all of the above, is the fifth.”
(Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than White evangelicals, isn’t it? But let’s remember: each class must consciously sacrifice itself for the sake of the more progressive ones).
The comparing of Trump with ISIS (obviously not in Trump’s favor) by GQ columnist Julia Ioffe on CNN, and the words of Arizona Democrat Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema, that she doesn’t care if Americans enlist the Taliban and fight for it in Afghanistan.
A German police commissioner blaming girls who are victims for being raped by migrants, and the refusal of a left-wing German activist, 24-year-old  Selin Gรถren, to reveal the names of rapists, out of a fear of fueling racism against refugees.
The hosting and rewarding of a young Palestinian terrorist by Real Madrid, and the blocking of Facebook posts about retaliation for homosexuals by Muslims.
Mohamed Atta and Paris’ Bataclan jihad killer Ishmael Omar Mostfai as part of the exhibition in the “Martyr Museum” (along with Socrates and Martin Luther King) in Germany, and the celebration of the Ottoman conquest of the Hagia Sophia by the Florida Museum.
The assertion of the University of California that “only whites can be racist” and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ and Lord Chief Justice Phillips’ support of Sharia law in England.
A call by Georgetown Professor Jonathan Brown — an advocate of slavery in the Muslim world — that “Muslims in America should stand with Black Lives Matter” and the dropping of rape charges for migrant rapists and pedophiles. “Muslim Brothers” such as Obama’s and Macron’s entourage and a campaign of state-owned company Lernia to replace the “standard Swedish language” with a migrant-inclusive accent.
All of this can only be understandable if one knows the concepts of class struggle and scientific racism theory.
Nazism and Marxism of the 20th century cast mankind into hell. In the 21st century, their offspring welcomed a new Golem: Islam.[ideology] In my opinion, the followers of this new ideology are yearning for the triumph of a global caliphate, consciously and subconsciously. Subconsciously, because they need a doctrine robust enough to keep their superficial and feeble souls from self-destruction in a complex and incomprehensible world. Consciously, because due to public relations and apologetic abilities, only Islam, as a universal world system, will ensure their existence — albeit the miserable existence of the “capo,” but still an existence. Nobody needs them anymore.
A Red-Brown mutant inevitably becomes green in our eyes.
Alexander Maistrovoy is the author of “Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger),” available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

https://www.amazon.com/Agony-Hercules-Farewell-Democracy-Stranger/dp/151444402X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pl_foot_top?ie=UTF8
---------------------------

Thursday, September 27, 2018

UN committee's mix



Tuesday, December 12, 2017

"Morality Dilemma"

We Will Not Flag Or Fail

A reader from an Australian metropolis wrote me a little while back to describe the social and emotional difficulties of being a Right-thinking outlier in an overwhelmingly, and so often unreflectively and oppressively, Leftist culture. He needed some bucking up, I thought, and so I offered the following (slightly edited) reply. I don’t think he’ll mind my reprinting it here in the hope that it might offer some comfort to others in the same lonely predicament.
Dear ____,
I understand what you’re going through. I face exactly the same issues in my own relationships, all the time.
It’s very hard to push back effectively. There is a tremendous soggy weight of dogma always pressing down; it’s as if you are caught under a big wet circus tent that you have to lift every time you want to stand up to speak your mind.
Or perhaps the better metaphor is the one I’ve always used in the past: that we are swept along in a powerful stream, and as long as we drift with the current we don’t feel its power. Most people drift along in little groups, focusing only on each other, but some of us look at the banks of the river, and notice that we are being swept away to an unfamiliar landscape far from our home. We plant our feet on the bottom and try to grab hold of the people we care about, but immediately we feel the enormous power of the current, and it is all we can do to resist. Meanwhile our friends just think we’re acting very strangely indeed, and making things very unpleasant for ourselves and for them. It’s so much more pleasant to drift, you see, especially when everyone else is — and as soon as we put our feet down on the bottom everyone else is suddenly moving away with the current. (To them, it seems as if we are moving backward.)
All I can say is to tell you what I do — how I’ve managed to live in such a condition without going mad:
I tell myself that no matter what everyone else thinks, I’m going to look at the world as frankly as I can, gather my own information, and understand it as clearly as I can manage. I read a lot of history, and I learned a while back that if I want to learn the truth about history, I can’t learn it just from people writing about it now; I also have to read the books that were written while it was happening.
I seek out people who are also resisting the current. They are out there, and it is important to know that they are out there.
I refuse to be broken. I am blessed with reason and intelligence and wisdom, and I will not lay them aside. I will believe in myself, and I will be faithful to myself.
I have friends who respect my intelligence. I try to show them a living example of someone who doubts and questions and denies their secular religion, and who is yet still a friend they can respect. This is, I think, the most effective thing I can do: to show them that a decent, intelligent man of firm moral principles can question the things they take for granted and not be struck by lightning.
I want to make them doubt, even just a little, even just for a moment, the unholy doctrine of this new secular religion. If I can do that, if I can make that tiny crack in the wall, the flowing power of Truth will do the rest. I will believe that Truth is real, that it is mighty, and that it will prevail.
And I write. I write for people that, like me and you, need to know there are others out there. And I do it for myself, to bind and organize my understanding.
Okay, that’s enough, I think. Sorry to ramble on so. But you get the picture.
As Churchill said:
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
Best,
Malcolm
P.S. Be of good cheer. The tide may be turning. The great, sustaining comfort is that we are Right, and they are wrong. Magna est veritas!
 http://malcolmpollack.com/2017/12/07/we-will-not-flag-or-fail/




It is very hard to keep quiet or even to keep your sanity when all about you people are spouting nonsense. They say the canyons in California are burning because of global warming but the evidence is manifest that the canyons have always burned or at least have been burning for many hundreds of years. What has changed is that 21st century man is living in those canyons now and he is not adapted to the environment and he wants the fires to stop so he concocts a ridiculous theory that the fires are due to too many cars on the local freeway.
Similarly crime goes up and all the criminals are immigrants. Does he conclude that importing criminals is a bad thing or that these people are the products of a culture that may work fine for nomadic herdsmen but is ill adapted for 21st century urban life? No he concludes that the victims of crime are [due to] racist and xenophobic [attackers who are] thus foolish and malicious.
There is poverty, crime, and indolence among his people. Does he determine that they are getting the wrong incentives from government or the wrong feedback from society? No the problem is not that we reward absentee fathers and dole out money and benefits to those able-bodied people who do not work. The problem is racism. The poor dears would join the middle class but for a cabal of white men who prefer they stay poor and dependent. That theory itself is racist because it presumes the folks on the dole are not making a rational and intelligent decision.It assumes they have not done a cost-benefit analysis (or perhaps are incapable of doing one) and come to the conclusion that the welfare state works well enough for them. The effort to pull oneself out of dependency does not offer sufficient reward to make it worthwhile.
Thinking is a curse. It can isolate you from the herd and leave you vulnerable. Nobody likes the guy shouting “just stop a minute and consider”. He rocks the boat and disturbs the force.
------------------



I can understand that for many people it comes as a shock to discover that they are “going against the flow”.
That is where I have the advantage.
I have always objected to “going with the flow”. I hate the feeling of being crammed into the box which dogma of any kind (especially totalitarian leftist groupthink) assigns me.
I am all for thinking critically, not accepting anything at face value.
Tell me to do something and my immediate desire will be to do the
absolute opposite.
Growing up it was “cool to drink alcohol”. Every time I went out my friends would tell me to drink this or that alcoholic beverage till I found one I liked. I naturally refused. “Come on, we’re drinking, fit in by drinking too.” I simply refused. Orange juice is my drink, or perhaps coke zero.The more my friends pressed, the more I dug my heels in.
Don’t get me wrong, friends drink and I don’t object. Why should I object? So long as I can drink my fruit juice or my soda or water, they are welcome to their hooch.
And that experience has paid off for me time and again.
Some people want to impose their views on you, a sort of mental straitjacket and refuse you the right to think for yourself. Nothing irritates me more than the presumption that they have the right to consign me to an enforced intellectual slavery, where they stand over me cracking the whip and lashing me for not repeating their mantras.
It’s the height of arrogance.
I’d rather be around people who are happy to allow me some space to be myself just as I have the courtesy to let them have some space to be themselves…
Which is why the scolds of the totalitarian left strike me as such screechy crashing bores.
---------------------
It’s all about the pill you are taking.
What pill do you take? The red one… or the blue one…
Once taken you can never untake it.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

THE END OF EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY





THE END OF EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY

By Thierry Baudet



Thierry Baudet, leader of the new Dutch political party Forum for Democracy / Facebook
https://gatestone.eu/the-end-of-european-democracy/
[This seems like the extension of NAFTA of Canada, USA, Mexico, like wise with Australia New Zealand, and sort of thru the TPPA and of course the UN is aiding and pushing other rulings, agreements, rights etc.......All done with a subtlety and flexibility that allows the frog to be bought up to cooking temperature,
There is a lot of money, honor, prestige at stake and they will fight to; 1 keep the nose in the trough,  2 and follow their aggrandizement philosophy.]
In his dystopian classic, The Managerial Revolution (1941), the American political scientist James Burnham coined the concept of “controlled democracy“. According to Burnham, the civil democracies of the second half of the 20th century would – more or less gradually – be overgrown with backroom bureaucratic networks that make the actual decisions, all far away from the electorate and public debate.
While this would slowly but surely erode the democratic mandate of governments, Burnham explicitly didn’t expect that this would lead to the dissolution of the European nation state – in name, that is.
“The many nations that are in fact being absolved will remain existent in name; they can function as administrative subdivisions, but have no sovereignty.”
Elections will also remain in place; they will provide managers valuable insights into the preferences of the consumer-citizen, while at the same time functioning as an exhaust valve to possible opposition forces. Burnham predicted a form of political theatre in the guise of sham elections between candidates who happen to be like-minded on every fundamental subject, who are paid to debate in front of clueless spectators in mock parliaments, while the results were known in advance – after all, the actual decisions have already been made.
Not only did James Burnham’s work serve as the most important inspiration for George Orwell’s 1984, chances are Burnham also had a decisive influence on Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann – the founding fathers of the present day European Union. For after they tried to openly guide their “United States of Europe” through national parliaments, they chose, after the French parliament (while loudly singing the Marseillaise) voted down their plans in 1954, to use exactly the gradual and stealthy approach described by The Managerial Revolution to achieve their goals.
These Eurocrats label their strategy as “functionalism“, behind which the idea is that due to the so-called “spillover effect“, inevitably, ever more power ends up being centralised. One ‘function’ automatically forces another ‘function’. So: you sell open borders as a nice convenience, and after a while, you act surprised when they force you to adopt a centralised immigration policy. You present a monetary union as a facilitator of trade without having to hand over national sovereignty; and when the (inevitable) credit crisis presents itself, your push through a centralised budgetary system.
In the mendacious words of Monnet himself:
“We wish the community to take shape in a gradual process of change. Attempts to predict its final form are a contradictio in terminis.”
While he previously proclaimed to strive towards a federal European state, now all of a sudden it was an ‘open future’ he was after. He even went as far as to claim that it’s harmful to ask too many critical questions:
“Trying to anticipate the results will only smother ingenuity. Only by persevering, forwards and upwards, will new horizons present itself.”
In an attempt to provide some sort of philosophical justification for the European project, the German-American administrative scientist Ernst Haas wrote at the end of the 60’s that:
“We don’t have an alternative. We must seek refuge in graduality, in detours, in functionalism, if we wish to integrate the region. The functionalist who trusts in graduality and detours to fulfil his goals, must choose a strategy that unites the masses and alienates as few people as possible. Only with small steps and without a clear and logical plan, can he move in the right direction. For if he was to take great leaps, he would lose the support of many.”
Haas explains that walking down this path makes integration seem “almost self-evident” until it morphs “from mere customs union into an economic and political union.”
And that’s exactly the way it all went. Behind the seemingly spontaneous cooperation between national democracies resides a continental super-state ― built step by step and hidden in the immeasurable corridors of Brussels’ vast bureaucracy, in Commission meetings and shady administrative backrooms, in guidelines that sometimes come into effect years after they were written and in strategic agreements of the “Committee of Regions”. The wiggle room for member states has practically been reduced to zero.
Examples
An example. Last summer the Dutch parliament ratified the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The organisations GeenPeil, Civil Committee EU and Forum for Democracy subsequently collected over 300.000 signatures in under six weeks, forcing an advisory, non-binding referendum on the matter. It was held on April 6, 2016, and resulted in an overwhelming 61% against the treaty.
Then something rather odd happened. The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte stated even if The Netherlands revoked its ratification, the treaty would still be implemented. In other words: the entire national ratification process had been one big sham.
All those debates about the usefulness and necessity of the treaty had been little more than window dressing. Of course, the member states still use national parliaments and national ratification procedures; of course, they won’t fully abolish the institutions that deliver the democratic bread and circuses, but they have been reduced to mere symbols. It is, exactly as Burnham coined it, a form of  “controlled democracy“.
A few months later, another poignant example presented itself. The Dutch parliament was given a few hours (!) to study one hundred pages of EU directives on a centralised pension system. The parliament was asked if it would allow the Dutch Finance minister to approve this grand scheme that would place over 1200 billion euro in Dutch savings under Brussels’ control.
And as was to be expected, the parliament just went with it. An MP highly critical of the plan, Pieter Omtzigt (Christian Democrats), commented that it had simply been impossible to study the consequences of this plan, in such a short amount of time. And as it turned out, hitting the brakes was not longer an option either. The Netherlands no longer had the right to veto in the EU departments where such matters are decided!
One cannot help being reminded of the stringent teacher who assigns a student his homework and says: “This is your task, alright? Do we have an understanding?” The question is merely rhetorical – and is as humiliating to the student who has nothing to offer but his artificial concurrence, as it is to the peoples of this continent.
Meanwhile, national leaders are being co-opted by offering them future EU-positions accompanied by very high (and mostly tax-free) paychecks, a driver and other exquisite working conditions – without the possibility of being relieved by their annoying electorates.
During his national career, the Dutch Finance minister, Jeroen Dijsselbloem was appointed as the head of the Eurogroup ― right at the moment, The Netherlands was about cause trouble by doubting yet another EU bailout package for Greece. A more severe conflict of interest was hard to imagine, since Dijsselbloem had now become both prosecutor and judge. But anything is possible in Eurotopia; and even before the ink of his signature had dried, he abolished the parliamentary work group tasked with exploring exit strategies in case of a next euro crisis.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Universities and civil society
Civil society too has been gripped by the EU. Oxfam, World Wide Fund for Nature, One World Action and hundreds, if not thousands of other ‘charities’ receive annual EU subsidies – and who will bite the hand that feeds him? And to make matters worse, there’s the ‘professional associations’ like the ‘European Union of Journalists’, the ‘European Women’s Lobby’, the ‘European Cyclists’ Federation, and so on – all an integral part of Brussels’ management system, and of course they propagate the virtues of EU expansion almost round the clock.
[seems like global warming, climate change, is also another way of obtaining taxes, under carbon trading/taxes schemes. Surely direct honesty, debate, discussion to solve any environment problems, leading to commonsense answers, or just simply mitigation, or just go with the flow.]
In universities in the meantime, the EU project is being propagated by professors in the Jean Monnet chairs, creating a pensรฉe unique so visceral that employees at economy faculties frequently whisper my way that it’s categorically impossible to publicly criticise the euro. It would rule out promotions or future appointments, not to speak of research grants.
Does anyone truly expect a critical sound from the European ‘Horizon network‘ (which is allowed to spend billions in previously national research grants)? No, they would rather have one study the perils of ‘nationalism’ and ‘xenophobia’, as criticism of open borders is called in today’s Orwellian newspeak.
Multinationals
The EU has also revealed itself as the big corporations’ best friend. Even though it presents itself as an anti-cartel institution, it actually facilitates the formation of cartels by sitting corporate lobbyists right next to the so-called ‘expert groups’ of the European Commission who draft guidelines and regulations that enable multinationals to expand their operations throughout the EU, while at the same time excluding competition from smaller businesses by making entry conditions next to impossible. 
The prohibition of the slaughtering of animals on farms, with the official goal of “the protection of public health”, for example. The bio-industry thrives on it, while it kills smaller bio-friendly entrepreneurs. Think of strict regulations for bed&breakfasts regarding sanitary facilities and pets, making it harder for them to compete with large hotel chains.
Think of regulations for window-cleaners and condoms, vegetables and fruits, raw milk cheeses, white and yellow car headlights, vacuum cleaners above 1800 watt, coffee machines and vitamins. If you look closely it’s always a small club of large multinational companies pushing out the middle and small level companies with regulations seem to serve some kind of abstract purpose. Animal welfare, women’s emancipation, or something vaguely environmental.
Big business and big government thus go hand in hand and form a conglomerate of managers who pass each other the ball. This is also why Goldman Sachs executive Draghi’s transfer to the European Central Bank (ECB) went so smoothly, while the ex-president of the European Commission seamlessly transferred to Goldman Sachs. It’s why ALDE’s party leader Guy Verhofstadt cashes 190.000 euro a year as an advisor to investment funds with interests in shale gas (in Ukraine among other places) and why European Parliament member is also a commissioner at Mercedes-Benz.
Can one still be surprised that the automobile industry ‘together with the European Commission’ succeeded in creating legislation that was very advantageous to… diesel engines? While Japan was experimenting with electric cars, during the 90’s Volkswagen had a whole arsenal of TDI diesel engines for sale. A whole body of regulations was drafted to ‘protect the environment’ since diesel engines emit less CO2 than gasoline engines. But in the meantime, diesel does pollute more than twenty times as much as gasoline. The consequence of this EU stimulus package: the market share of diesel engines grew from 10% in 1995 to over 50% in 2012.
[then twisted by VW computerisation for getting past  emission measurements]

Losing grip by watering down
In addition, it’s critical to understand that all these processes and systems are not controlled from one central place – the trick is that European sovereignty is very hard to pin down. To the contrary even, one could say that European sovereignty has been watered down and diluted so much that it spread and branched out like vapour. Almost everyone has lost its grip on it.
The European Commission initiates legislation, the European Council debates (records are classified). The EU Council of Ministers has its say, and don’t forget the EU Court of Justice, counselling bodies of national politicians, formalised lobbies and the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Oh, and of course, there’s the European Parliament with its 751 members ― who can hardly communicate amongst one another due to language barriers ― claiming to represent 600 million Europeans. Enfin, the result of it all is a nightmare that no one actually controls and that no one can reform.
But now for the astonishing part: even the greatest europhile would admit to all this. In an exceptionally cynical manifestation of Orwellian newspeak – again – this is called the “democratic deficit“. They look very serious and serene and repeat: ‘yes, you’re right, there’s a democratic deficit‘.
Brilliant! As if it’s some sort of temporary flaw that can easily be overcome. A cash flow problem that just needs a small credit injection. A lack of vitamins. A mild form of sleep deprivation. Something, that in any case, will soon recover. A disbalance that will soon balance itself out.
But as Burnham’s analysis of the managerial revolution illustrates: the EU’s abolishment of democracy is neither temporary nor overcomeable.The EU is not so much undemocratic as it is anti-democratic. A democratic EU is impossible. The plans by Monnet and Schumann that were voted down when presented honestly in 1954, would suffer a similar fate in 2017. Nobody wants to live in a United States of Europe. Europe is not a country. We don’t speak the same languages. A population of 600 million is too large for a functioning and transparent democracy.
Politicians lie
Government leaders, parliaments and politicians are pretending. They have to pretend the EU isn’t a super state and never will be; they must pretend they have a grip on EU decision-making; that EU officials are democratically elected and owe accountability to an electorate that can remove them – in Copernican terms; they must pretend as if they orbit the common voter. But that’s no longer the case. Mainstream politicians have been incorporated into the continental system. The EUdoesn’t orbit nation states – the nation state has become a satellite in the blue yellow galaxy of the EU.
In 1964 George Orwell wrote an elaborate critique of Burnham’s thinking. Eventually, he proposed, the reign of the managers cannot sustain itself because 1) it’s a closed circuit which will produce minds too weak to uphold the system, and 2) the human inclination toward liberty is too strong, and, due to modern communication, won’t let itself be chained.
While Orwell would expand on Burnham’s dystopian vision in his novel 1984, which is situated in a world where the power of the manager is complete and eternal, his political philosophy is a starting point of hope. The practical translation of which is: the referendum.
Referenda
All over Europe, we see the call for a plebiscite, for direct participation in public affairs. The people are signing petitions by the masses. It’s become impossible for politicians to ignore, so they reluctantly promise their electorates a direct say. Despite the EU still claiming to be a force of democracy by and for the people, referenda are the management system’s Achilles heel. A public uprising can be put down; a new political movement can be incorporated, but referenda are beyond the grasp of bureaucratic rulers.
One referendum, of course, doesn’t win the war. In 2005, the French and the Dutch both overwhelmingly rejected a European constitution. A few years later, that same constitution was still pushed through, albeit under a different name; the treaty of Lissabon. What followed was a ten-year silence until in 2015 the Greeks had a referendum in which they rejected proposed new austerity measures.  The EU decided to dethrone prime minister Papandreou and replace him with the unelected former vice-president of the ECB, Papademos.
How much longer do Eurocrats hope to maintain this state of affairs? The second Dutch referendum – on the treaty with Ukraine – cannot be ignored completely. The British choice to leave the EU will have severe consequences. Hungary held a decisive referendum on EU immigration quota. The Italian referendum was a victory for anti-EU forces. Finland is considering a referendum on the euro and the Czech president last year considered a referendum on leaving the EU altogether – the so-called Czexit.
The coalition of free nations has thus far been led by Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. With Great Britain as a fourth member, it’s starting to look like a winning team. Through British negotiations, the alternatives to a continental super-state will start to take shape; a vastly more attractive form of cooperation based on freedom, sovereignty and democracy.
Now is the time to pull through and bring down this managers’ empire. Now is the time to replace this controlled democracy by governments who are accountable to its citizens, and act in our interests.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Over the top? Voter fraud? ID?

Voting fraud and ID issue
I think Trump is right. It is common knowledge that vote-rigging on a massive scale has been achieved in favour of the Democrats in some parts of the USA. Double voting, multiple identities, dead voters, illegal immigrants, etc etc.
I think Trump understands the nature of the political war that the Left has long since been waging. Taking on the MSM head-on is part of this. No-one on “the right” had ever thought this possible before. The default consequences is media talking heads effectively running the country, including through the terms of caretaker “centre right” governments who simply continue the left’s long-term agenda for them so as to be able to say they “won”.
The Left has come to assume that there would never be any push-back, hence their arrogance and over-reach on such basic things as voter fraud. I would put money on it that a proper investigation will reveal rotting skeletons all over the place.

 Is there proof of voter fraud?
---------------------------

In DNC campaign worker/contractor Scott Foval’s words:
https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs?t=42
Foval worked as the deputy political director for People For the American Way and the national field director for Americans United for Change (AUC), two progressive 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations. He also worked as a contractor with Democracy Partners, a political consulting firm.
---------------------------------------

Why is “requiring ID” ever “racist”????
This is classic lefty bait-and-switch political argument.
It is like saying proper policing is “racist” because a disproportional amount of the criminals caught are of a particular race. The remedy according to the left, is to stop policing and especially stop policing the racial minorities involved. This is actually effectively a license to commit crime.
“ID” is simply a sensible part of a properly functioning trust-based society. Abolishing any requirement for it would lead banks offering credit facilities, for example, into loss-making and bankruptcy, because they would become a target of organised opportunists. Is “the vote” so unimportant that we don’t need to bother about preventing fraud through simple ID measures? Abandon this requirement on whatever pretext, and as with the other examples, the outcome will be systematized fraud. Not by any particular race, either.
If you don’t have “ID” in this day and age, you might as well go and subsist in the wilderness somewhere. Don’t expect to be granted credit, granted tenancy of a living quarters, granted public library membership – or a vote. What’s so dam hard about that?

He’s just actually properly fighting the political war that the right should have been fighting all along. The left have got so arrogant because of lack of real push-back, that it is common knowledge they are into voter fraud on a massive scale.
----------------------
Again is there proof of voter fraud?
----------------------------------
......... is the sort of McCain-esque, Cameron-esque, Key-esque “righty in name only” who would say “let it go” on the CAGW fraud, “let it go” on the Treaty fraud, “let it go” on enviro and nuclear lies, “let it go” on urban train set and tram subsidies, “let it go” on anti-smacking, “let it go” on middle class welfare, “let it go” on urban planning and house prices, etc etc. Under this approach, “centre right” governments are in the same relationship with the Left as the Vichy government in France was with the Germans 1940 onwards. Basically acting as puppets while pretending they “didn’t lose the war”.
----------------------------
Is there enough proof of voter fraud, and is it on a  grand scale?
----------------------
Ultimately everyone to the right of Karl Marx becomes an “extremist” if the left is allowed to keep ratcheting the standard to the left indefinitely.
What I am talking about is blatant lies and frauds from the left going unchallenged by the mainstream “right”, because they have become addicted to virtue-signalling and gaining the approval of MSM talking heads. Historical revisionism is one example, with NZ’s colonial history a classic case. CAGW is another. Enviro propaganda generally is another. Multi-cultural relativist pandering is another.
The USA has a Trump who has stood up and said “the emperor has no clothes” while there are still enough people with enough common sense to actually respond.
----------------------------
I would have thought that looking for electoral fraud, and if found, doing something about it, would be regarded as a very good thing
------------
If found?
------------------------
Exactly! Doing nothing about the systematizing of vote fraud by the Left, just because your side won this time and still has won sometimes in spite of the scale of the fraud, is ridiculous. The systematic fraud certainly won’t do anything other than get bolder and bolder otherwise.
------------------
If fraud is possible (and especially in States without voter ID you will never convince me it’s not possible) it must be guarded against. And you won’t find it without looking for it.
----------------------
Many years of searching has already confirmed that voter fraud is virtually non-existent.
Remember G W Bush firing the US attorneys who refused to waste their time chasing this phantom?
----------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth-10-cases-where-its-all-to/
1. Dead people voting in Colorado.
2. Illegals found voting in Virginia; only discovered after they self-reported.
3. Some Pennsylvania citizens voting twice.
4. Voter rigging triggers probe in Texas.
5. Indiana voter fraud investigation grows to 56 counties.
6. Three under investigation in Oklahoma for voting twice in the presidential primary.
7. Election fraud in Kentucky.
8. Underage voters found voting in Wisconsin’s presidential primary.
9. Voter registration cards sent to illegals in Pennsylvania.
In Georgia, where I have property, I recall stories after the 2012 election of some crossing into North Carolina, where non-photo ID is only vaguely required, to vote again.
But I guess you’d know more about it than I, so I shall defer to you.
............
10. Illegal voters uncovered in Philadelphia; half had previously voted.
------------------------------------------------
Why would needing to prove your identity with photo ID before you can vote be a bad thing?
--------------------------------
Because that would be unconstitutional.
The US Constitution specifically leaves to the states, voting and enrollment.
----------------------
Yes, but the federal govt can influence the states in many ways. Like the way they deny funding to universities (nominally independent) who don’t do things they want. Or, for a right wing example, the way they deny funding to groups that support abortion, even if they do many other good works as well
--------------------------
The voter-fraud issue is probably bogus, but either way he gets criticised – as you have with this post, or if he does not do anything, then his critics will accuse him of failing to keep an election promise and crying “wolf” during the election campaign.
So he may as well keep the promise. He keeps faith with his supporters, adds to his credibility, and does not waste his time trying to appease or woo those who are implacably opposed to his cause, success and administration.
Good and sensible politics. And I’m no fan of Trump
-----------------------
The issue for me Kimbo is consistency.
If the Dem’s do it its wicked evil and corrupt.
If the Don does it is virtue of the highest order.
Personally I have no problem with the actual action of vote investigation. It’s the pathetic partisan BULLSHIT that has reached eye level.
From both sides!
------------------
No disagreement from me! Out goes Obama, in goes Trump, and their detractors and supporters switch positions and arguments, and rationalise the actions of their new champion or nemesis to equally ridiculous degrees.
-------------------
Criticised either way but also, either way he wins. A review will uncover some voter fraud, even if not much. Or maybe much. He can say – told you so, I will fix it. Democracy and patriotism and all that.
If there is some GOP fraud uncovered, he can say – I’m agin fraud regardless of where it falls. I will fix it. Democracy and patriotism and all that.
Followed by – and Americans, that is why the process in the Constitution was so farsighted and right.
What downside could there be?
---------------------
At least he will fix the system so he has a fair shot at the next election. Voter ID and registration has to be enforced. They might be able to round up a few wanted criminals and illegal aliens at the same time.
-------------------------
You may find that that sort of reasoning could have voter ID laws declared unconstitutional. It is the USA, after all!
------------------
we’re obsessing about the Don , here goes again. It’s all about his ego.
‘Malone has met Trump and did one business deal with him many years ago. “He is very bright. The only thing bigger than his brain is his ego. His ego will drive him to try and be the best president the country has ever had and to win.
“For him, every negotiation is a chance to win. It’s all about winning. He’s trying to assemble a team that wants to win.”
------------------
The Don is very clever. Investigate find some instances of voter fraud tighten up the rules around registering to vote and the voting process itself and the illegals who support the Democrats dont get to vote.
Problem solved!!!!
And the beauty is the premise is that only those who qualify by the law get to register and to vote.
So whats the opposition to that premise.
-----------------
Blacks can’t afford ID’s so it’s racist.
This is the literal reason Democrats give.
----------------------
A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”
“These results suggest that by instituting strict photo ID laws, states could minimize the influence of voters on the left and could dramatically alter the political leaning of the electorate,” the study concluded.
The question of whether photo IDs are difficult to obtain has become central to cases across the country, where government and civil rights lawyers are challenging new state laws.
--------------------------
 There are a couple of things there, ABS, none of which support your claim that the contention is that blacks can’t afford IDs. That might be one part of it, but there are more factors.
It basically comes down to why and how restrictions are imposed. For example, if you are requiring drivers’ licenses as IDs to vote for communities that have a very low level of vehicle ownership then you might ask why that standard is being imposed
---------------------
Simple solution: Tie in Voter ID with Social Security number. Every citizen has one. 1 number, 1 vote. I bet these people have no problems registering for welfare and food stamps or coming up with the required ID to get these.
--------------
 To vote you have to be enrolled first, which requires a list of identity items.
To be enrolled you have to satisfy them that you are:
US Citizen
Resident of that state
Over 18
---------------
States set the rules for enrolments. I was looking at California
Tell me a state that doesnt ask for multiple forms of ID ?
---------------------
The fraud typically happens after enrolment. Opportunities for fraud include:
1. Enrolling in multiple states
2. Voting multiple times on a single enrolment
3. Voting on behalf of someone else (someone who is dead, who has moved away, or who is choosing not to vote)
You’re focusing on enrolment, the GOP are focusing on what you need to do to actually vote, not to enrol.
--------------
Enrol in 1982, then vote every election since? Even though you’re dead? What id does someone who is voting on your behalf need to provide to prove they’re you? I think you’re turning a blind eye to many opportunities for fraud.
-----------------
There is no history of widespread voter fraud in U.S. elections. Leading Republicans, including the top Republican in Congress, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, have rejected the claims.
Federal investigations of voter fraud are rare. A five-year probe initiated by Republican President George W. Bush’s administration turned up no evidence of voter fraud and ended in resignations and more investigations for the Department of Justice, which enforces federal voting rights laws.
-------------------
Project Veritas = has video of Dem operative explaining how they (Dems) BUS people from location to location to location – to VOTE MULTIPLE TIMES.
True The Vote = court case(s) in at least 1 (or more) USA states where Dems voted MULTIPLE TIMES.
There’s 2 for you. This is the “common knowledge”.
Left was ‘assuming’ the Right was doing WHAT THEY DO.
------------------
Project Veritas has been debunked so many times that anyone using its fake videos as evidence of anything automatically loses the argument.
----------------
Democrat operatives who resigned because of the Veritas vids that they didn’t need to after all, 
I’m sure they’ll be very grateful mm, maybe you’ll get a write-up in the WaPo, after all, that’s not “fake news” at all, is it.
----------
“Debunked”??? Like the hockey stick, say?
I love the left’s ability to kid itself it has debunked something. I guess when the entire MSM helps maintain the illusion, you get arrogant. This is now changing, and not before time.
-------------
We are in an age where people are getting the chance to make up their own minds about things instead of getting fed fake news by a hegemonic MSM.
As the blurb for Veritas says, if you are of the left, you are on notice. What you are saying and doing in your echo-chambers and bureaucratic fraud-fests may now be getting covertly videoed by a citizen journalist. Bring it on.
----------------
Heres the direct text out of the California National Voter Registration Act – Subsection 4 Page 20″
“Voter Registration Cards where the voter indicates he or she is not a U.S.
Citizen:
The VRC asks the applicant if he or she is a United States citizen. The voter may check either “Yes”, “No”, or not check either box. If the voter indicates, by checking the “yes” box, that he or she is a U.S. citizen, the registration should be processed normally. If the voter indicates, by checking the “No” box, that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, the registration may not be entered on the voter rolls. The elections
official should send the voter a returnable card or letter requesting clarification as to whether or not the voter is a U.S. citizen. If the voter returns the card indicating that he or she is a U.S. citizen, the VRC should be entered on the voter rolls. If the card is returned and the voter indicates he or she is not a citizen, or if
no response is received from the voter, then the voter shall not be registered. If the voter does not check either the “Yes” or “No” box, and the registration is otherwise complete, the registration should be processed normally and entered on the voter rolls.”
In other words if you refuse to confirm or deny your US citizenry, you are still registered to vote.
--------------
So why is he so obsessed over trying to claim he won the popular vote also, when he clearly didn’t.
Because this is a direct attack against the core of party politics, it will hit the establishment GOP and the Democrats.
Trump is a populist and when he attacks party politics he wins. This is him laying some groundwork for victory in 2020.
--------------
I suspect there is massive voter fraud. The reason Democrats are so happy for illegal immigrants to come into the United States is that they want them to vote. I suspect that they are voting and in places like California they are voting big. I suspect the mainstream media don’t care about this and don’t want to know about this.
The very same people who were wrong about Trump in the election I reckon are wrong now on this issue.
Scott predicts that there will be an investigation and it will show that thousands and thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants will have voted for Hillary Clinton in places like California.
---------------
Well I think it is great that Trump is getting the evidence to confirm that he did not get a majority of the popular vote.
His ego is such that he will not believe this otherwise. Pride and hubris and all that.
That said a lot of this is politics as usual – GOP activists claim there is a problem with illegal voting by their opponents and thus a need for voter ID (but specifying a form that many inner city urban residents do not have – licenses).
But the only positive outcome to this (ego and or GOP partisanship) is if there is development of a better electoral process.
----------------
It’s not a distraction, it’s well calculated. The Republicans are keen to get on with voter suppression and Trump is laying the groundwork by scaremongering about voter fraud
Nonsense – the States run the elections, not central Government and it is clear there are huge problems with the process in some states if not all
One obvious one is people enrolled to vote in two different States and we know people have been bussed to vote in States where they don’t live.
There are probably thousands of people registered in both New York and Florida and it is this phenomena that accounts for Florida being a swing state or contributes to it
Looking into these things is sensible
-------
Is it not amazing that so many people are stumped by Trump doing things that make no political sense yet make tremendous practical sense?
It’s almost as if Trump is not a politician and wants to actually cleanse out decades of politically motivated detritus.
I guess all worshipers of the establishment (left and right) find all this terribly confusing.
Long may it continue, their tears help wash the shit away.
----------------
I agree. What’s more the electoral fraud issue is quite clever. If he goes looking and finds none, he can say the system is great, and he’s checked. If he finds fraud (which I think he will) then liberal heads will expolde everywhere.
“I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states,” Trump tweeted Wednesday — apparently unaware that his daughter Tiffany Trump, Chief White House Strategist Stephen Bannon and Treasury Secretary pick Steven Mnuchin were all reportedly registered to vote in two states during the 2016 election.
------------
I think you got this one wrong DPF. The GOP has long campaigned on voter fraud. The ideal time is when the left is complaining about voter fraud big time. They can hardly complain now, can they?
-----------
a) A very large illegal population concentrated around California and other south west states,
b) A study looking at Hispanics showing that 13% of a group that are definitely not allowed to vote are currently registered to vote,
c) An EXTREMELY LARGE motivation to vote, and vote for Clinton, because Trump was actually going to take action against illegals.
d) No less than President Obama telling illegals to go ahead and vote because “The privacy of the ballot box is paramount”. (I wish he could have been impeached for that.)
e) Extremely lax voting laws in California that rely on people acting on their honour to say if they have citizenship or not (So we’re trusting people who have already proven that they are criminals to honestly say they aren’t citizens), and then getting a ID that allows them to vote. Note that in the Podesta e-mails, he actually says (incorrectly) that illegals are allowed to vote in California.
and then
f) The massive difference in the popular vote in the other 49 states (not including California) where Trump won, and the vote in California,
and then think that illegal immigrants weren’t voting in HUGE numbers.
This is a fight that has to be undertaken and undertaken NOW. We need to make sure that only USA citizens can vote in USA elections
----------------
a) A very large illegal population concentrated around California and other south west states,
b) A study looking at Hispanics showing that 13% of a group that are definitely not allowed to vote are currently registered to vote,
c) An EXTREMELY LARGE motivation to vote, and vote for Clinton, because Trump was actually going to take action against illegals.
d) No less than President Obama telling illegals to go ahead and vote because “The privacy of the ballot box is paramount”. (I wish he could have been impeached for that.)
e) Extremely lax voting laws in California that rely on people acting on their honour to say if they have citizenship or not (So we’re trusting people who have already proven that they are criminals to honestly say they aren’t citizens), and then getting a ID that allows them to vote. Note that in the Podesta e-mails, he actually says (incorrectly) that illegals are allowed to vote in California.
and then
f) The massive difference in the popular vote in the other 49 states (not including California) where Trump won, and the vote in California,
and then think that illegal immigrants weren’t voting in HUGE numbers.
This is a fight that has to be undertaken and undertaken NOW. We need to make sure that only USA citizens can vote in USA elections.
----------------
California is far stricter than that, they ask for 4 items for voting, one is :
eg Photo Drivers License, you have to satisfy this list
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/dl/dl_info#BDLP
Only the original or a certified copy of one of the following documents is acceptable:
US Birth Certificate (certified copy from state or local vital statistics office)
US Certificate of Birth Abroad or Report of Birth Abroad
Federal Proof of Indian Blood Degree
USCIS American Indian Card
Birth Certificate or passport issued from a US Territory
US Passport
US Military Identification Cards (Active or reserve duty, dependent of a military member, retired member, discharged from service, medical/religious personnel)
Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship
Northern Mariana Card
USCIS US Citizen ID Card
Permanent Resident Card
Temporary Resident Identification Card
Canadian Passport/Birth Certificate
Non-resident Alien Canadian Border Crossing Card
Valid foreign passport with a valid Record of Arrival/Departure (form I-94)
“Processed for I-551” stamped in a valid foreign passport
Permanent Resident Re-entry Permit
Refugee travel document.
Any non US citizens would have the details showing they are non citizens from above
--------------
“In theory”.
-------
That’s the rules for getting a driver’s license. Which in turn is the document the Republicans think you should produce in order to vote. So you’re saying that California already does the thing that Trump wants? In which case, why the excitement about Trump suggesting it? Or are you just obfuscating again in your usual way?
----------
Claims of large scale voter fraud are perennial in the U.S and have never been substantiated.
Small efforts have been discovered demonstrating an ability to uncover such fraud, but never on a large scale.
And it’s been looked for…
Lorraine C. Minnite, Rutgers University-Camden; Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132 percent!
I imagine Trumps, and by extension the Republican parties, plan is not unlike the never-ending investigations into Clinton and Benghazi et al – they’ll use the investigation as a stalking horse to find any little thing they can hang on opponents as click bait for hungry news services to pick over, and ignore anything that doesn’t satisfy that ambition, creating an impression of something bad simply by dint of unending investigation, leaks and manufactured scandal.
--------------------
Trump might actually check on the credentials of the people doing the investigation. Bush was a typical centre-right pushover, no idea of what he was up against. Didn’t even pardon Scooter Libby.
--------------
And that’s the fake news version that GW Bush didn’t push back against, probably because the Republican establishment was trying out an experiment in winning the other side over by being “nice”.
Libby was convicted on the “evidence” of one person’s word versus his – a lefty journalist’s. What is not at doubt is that the identity of the agent was leaked by Richard Armitage, a Democrat hold-over (see how niiiiice the Bushies were?) who was never prosecuted for it. That also happens to be not what Libby was sentenced for: he was sentenced for “perjury”. On the grounds of the word of a lefty journo against his.
According to him, the journo mentioned the agent’s identity first (and this with Libby not knowing at the time that Armitage had told the journo) and all Libby did was respond something like “oh, so you know about that”? On this basis the journo “co-operated with a prosecution” to get a public case made against the whole Bush Admin, by creating dots that didn’t exist, for the MSM to “connect”.
This is how even jury-based justice can be perverted by political narratives from the MSM scum, not to mention enabled by one of their own bearing false witness. It could just as easily have been the journo sentenced for “perjury”. The prosecution went the way it did solely because of the fake-news, contrived narrative it served. Libby was scandalously wronged. Whoever persuaded Bush not to pardon him, is the epitome of the “in name only” syndrome that has been a plague of right-wing parties in the west for a decade or more. The left now has its knickers in a knot because there is a Republican POTUS who is not one of their eunuchs.
-------------
What Trump needs to do is make Federal votes count only if they’re on paper and counted publicly.
No e-votes.
And this is his first move in bringing that in, in time for 2021.
The question is: is he just going after the Dems (who every informed person knows is the most guilty)? But if he was going to just do that why would he investigate more than just this last election (where corruption has been particularly rampant on the Dem side)? Which he has said he is doing:
I think in terms of registration, where you’ve got folks on rolls that have deceased, or moved, or registered in two counties…this is not just about the 2016 election, this is about the integrity of our voting system,” Spicer told reporters when asked about the upcoming investigation.
So he’s going after more than that, more than just the Dems.
I wonder if he’s looking to discredit both major parties. He knows he’s going to have problems in Congress. The only time he’ll get anything passed is when it happens to coincide with what one of the power centres happen also to want. But any other time…
Throughout his campaign he reached over the media to the people. He continues that with Twitter. Maybe this is the opening salvo in another appeal to the people, this time exposing with transparency what has in fact been going on, just previously being covered up by both involved parties. Because they do hold their democracy sacred don’t they, and anyone who damages that, well.
-------------
Worth reiterating. Direct from section IV page 20 of the California Voter Registration Act
“If the voter does not check either the “Yes” or “No” box, and the registration is otherwise complete, the registration should be processed normally and entered on the voter rolls.”
I wonder if others from other countries are able to vote?
An interesting thread,