“Privilege,” according to Vanderbilt University’s Power and Privilege Definitions Handout “is a set of unearned benefits given to people who are in a specific social group. Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural and institutional levels, and it provides advantages and favors to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of other groups.”
Privilege is thus an element in the oppressor-victim dynamic articulated by woke progressive ideology. Those who enjoy unearned benefits are the oppressors, even when the elements of their identity that make them so are baked in, such as in gender and race; they are by virtue of bodies and ancestry automatically enrolled in social groups. As I have noted before on Freedom and Reason, an individual is reduced by this ideology to a personification of a demographic category and this judged on the basis of grouped means.
“In the United States,” the handout tells us, “privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social identity groups: white people, able-bodied people, heterosexuals, cisgender people, males, Christians, middle or owning class people, middle-aged people, and English-speaking people.” But for Christian part (I am an atheist), I am the apex oppressor, for I am a “member” of all of these social groups.
White privilege is a bandaid that doesn’t match your skin color
(Has you ever stopped to consider that, if one cannot earn whiteness, then how are the privileges said to accrue to it is unearned? Race is not an achievable thing; it’s an ascription, one based on socially selected phenotypic characteristics, these characteristics very real. As such, race is not only not unearned, it cannot be abandoned, either. Race is both a social construct and the result of natural history but not a choice. A man cannot shed his race. Nor can he put on another race as if it were costume. Rachel Dolezal, a white women, is not a black woman. She is her body. Nor did she earn her whiteness.)
“Privilege is characteristically invisible to people who have it,” the handout continues. “People in dominant groups often believe they have earned the privileges they enjoy or that everyone could have access to these privileges if only they worked to earn them. In fact, privileges are unearned and are granted to people in the dominant groups whether they want those privileges or not, and regardless of their stated intent.”
The author of the handout is abusing words for the sake of a political project, a project that Wesley Yang calls “successor ideology.” The typical definition of privilege is as follows: “a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.” When the word is used accurately, one expects it will be invisible to most of those on the list, since it doesn’t in fact exist for them.
I do not enjoy white heterosexual male privilege because I am white heterosexual man. Any privilege I enjoy is because I earned it. But the definition in the handout presupposes privileges are unearned. It sets up a situation where, if I say I earned a privilege, let’s say an advantage in purchasing power compared to some other person, it is something that people like me often believe that is not so. If I deny my privilege, then I am fragile and in denial. It is not enough to be non-racist, we are told; we must be anti-racist. And being anti-racist for a white man is admitting he is privileged because of phenotypic features he inherited from his parents.
Taking privilege as a special right, there is in fact no race privilege in America for whites. There used to be, but all laws and policies granting whites special rights (or immunities) were abolished sixty years ago this July 2. Indeed, white privilege became illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. White people can no longer expect to get preferential treatment on the basis of their race. The vast majority of white Americans never lived at a time when they enjoyed a privilege based on race. The only race privilege that existed after that great law was reserved for nonwhites, in particular blacks, who were granted a special right under affirmative action, and now under DEI, to be given extra consideration in a pool of applicants on the basis of race. That is an example of race privilege.
Do males still have privilege? They certainly did before 1964. Of course, today, males have a privilege when identifying as women, when they, as I have put it, step into oppression. In many places in the West today, a man can enter a female-only space only if he says he is a woman. A man can play on a women’s sports team if he says he is a woman. A man identifying as a woman can in some business firms enjoy rules compelling those he works with to misgender him. It’s not an exaggeration to say that, in some places in society today, a man identifying as a woman will be the most privileged person in the room. This contradiction inheres in the logic of successor ideology.
By “cisgender people” the author of the handout means men and women (and their immature counterparts boys and girls). Because of this privilege, women today can’t even depend on their basic rights being respected, for example the right to feel safe in a female-only space. (Sex-segregation is not an example of privilege, to clarify, but of equity. Nor are age restricted spaces a matter of privilege; rather they are a matter of safeguarding. In these cases, objective differences between groups must be considered if equal treatment under the law is a desirable end.)
In a system based on property rights, property and wealth confer privilege. But this is not an unearned privilege. An employee may be legally barred from entering the executive suite, for example, because executives assert a privilege on the basis of property right. My tenure at my university, which I earned, is a property right. Property rights exist for workers, too. The law grants a working man exclusive domain over his property. For how much longer, I can’t say. Some people have more property than others, and thus will enjoy advantages others do not have. But for those not born with a sliver spoon, this is earned.
If by “unearned” it is meant that a privilege is given to an individual solely on the basis of skin color, a physical attribute he did not accomplish, then I admit that I can’t imagine what it would feel like to be placed on a list of “top white leaders” in a given field or metropolitan area, or be awarded “Outstanding Person of Noncolor” by some organization, or be recognized for being the “first heterosexual white man” in a given occupation or office. It’s such an odd thing, seeing people tribalized and tokenized in such a way. It’s recognition for something they didn’t do—something that cannot help. They did not earn the accolade. I’m glad that can’t happen to me.
Is never having to suffer the virtue signaling of social justice warrior one of those features of white supremacy I hear people constantly talking about? Is it another form of privilege that, as a white man, I am treated as an individual and not a personification of an abstract demographic category? (Of course, I am treated as such. I have white privilege, remember?)
Instead of leaning into racialization, would it not be preferable for blacks to be treated a individuals and not personifications of an abstract democratic category? It’s not a bad feeling to be treated as an individual instead of an aggregate. I’d hate the burden of having to be a “credit to my race” (the Woman of Color of the Year Award is just another way of putting that slight). Too bad other people can’t be privileged in that way.
Index crimes are those crimes the FBI deems to be the most serous. There are two types: property crimes, which includes arson, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft-larceny; and violent crimes, includes aggravated assault, homicide, rape, and robbery. The New York Times wants you know as we approach the 2024 election that Index crime rates are falling—and not by a little: “Murder likely fell at record speed last year.” Here’s the chart they supply:
I want the reader to note that not only are the 2021, ‘22 murder rates higher than at any point in the new millennium, but also the newspaper’s own estimate of the ‘23 rate is higher, as well. The New York Times admits that its 2023 numbers are estimates based on 99 cities; that number could be higher or lower. I suspect it’s higher. I will put the matter of the 2023 estimate to the side and work with the numbers I have available, which is the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer (CDE) through 2022.
Keep in mind that the FBI recently shifted from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) model to the CDE, the dash-boarding system based on the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). For most of Biden’s presidency, the FBI was derelict in reporting crime statistics, which was frustrating for those of us who teach criminal justice at colleges and universities and advise law enforcement agencies on national trends. My suspicion is that the FBI was (and still is) foot dragging because of the explosion of crime under the Biden Administration.
It should be clarified that only some Index crime rates have been increasing over the last few years, namely aggravated assault, homicide, motor vehicle theft, and rape (the later likely the result of a more inclusive definition). Other Index crimes continue their historic declines, trends that begin in the second half of 1990s with the historic expansion of the criminal justice apparatus. Given the depolicing trend after 2014, I suspect significant underreporting for many of these crime types (aggravated assault, homicide, and motor vehicle theft are more likely to get through the filter).
Based on other sources of information, I have good reason to believe the recent FBI statistics underreport the incidence and prevalence of serious criminal offending. Based on the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which depends on scientific survey methods rather than agency reporting, both total violent and property victimization rates were substantially higher in 2022 than in 2021. The NCVS finds that there is significant underreporting of crime. The discrepancies indicate that some of that underreporting is from the agencies themselves. Moreover, where as the NCVS covers the entire nation, approximately 75 percent of agencies report their numbers to the FBI.
Based on FBI numbers, it does not appear that crime is drastically declining. I begin with the ten-year trend for violent crime overall as indicated by the FBI’s CDE. Again, as 2023 just ended, these data stop at 2022, which is the last substantially completed year statistically-speaking.
The New York Times frames the recent rise in crime around the death of George Floyd. However, as longer trends indicate, the rise in violence crime begins after 2014, the year of Michael Brown’s death at the hands of a Ferguson, Missouri police officer, an event spawning the “hands up” myth that propelled the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement to the national forefront. BLM organized violent resistance against government authorities resulting in an uprising promoted by the legacy and social media and the Democratic Party. This has been referred to as the “Ferguson Effect.” The origins of the rise in crime is obscured not only because the Michael Brown narrative was debunked but because the way the corporate state prepared the conditions for the uprising was comprehensive and intentional. Using the George Floyd case as the starting point gives the color revolution a more organic feel.
We can see the trend in the rates of aggravated assault, homicide, and motor vehicle theft (MVT) during the same decadal frame. In fact, MVT continues to climb and is now higher than any point after 2009.
* * *
Update (January 16, 2024): The Green Bay Police Department says crime is down from last year and is lower now that at any time before the pandemic. They cite three crime types: personal, property, and crimes against society (which covers non-Index crimes such as prostitution, public drug, drug possession, etc.). All of them are down, PD claims. This isn’t true in my neighborhood, which has seen a rash of burglaries. But I am more concerned about the rate of violent crime (aggravated assault, homicide, rape, and robbery).
Green Bay Policy Department Violence Crime. Rate per 100,000 people, by year
This is the trend line for FBI CDE violent crime rate for Green Bay. The blue line is reported crime (the clearance rates track it pretty much). Note that crime increases sharply after 2010. This is when the corporate media rolled out the propaganda terms “systemic racism” and “white privilege.” The crime rate has remains high throughout the period that follows, jumping up during Ferguson and peaking during the pandemic. As you can see, the rate for 2022 was higher than the rate in 2010 and is as high as at any time since 2015. I don’t have access to 2023 numbers, so maybe there is a sharp drop. That’s the claim, anyway. But I doubt it for reasons expressed above. Also, for data for the Ashwaubenon Police Department, Brown County Sheriff, De Pere Police Department, violent crime was up 2022 over 2021. I’ll keep you posted.
Remember when former Vice President Joseph Biden, then the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told a radio host that black voters torn between voting for him and President Trump “ain’t black”? There is a widespread sentiment among progressives that, even if a white person can’t identify as black, being black is more about ideological standpoint and partisan sympathies than it is about ancestry. The race of a black man who strays from the Democratic Party fold is suspect. He’s an “Uncle Tom” or an “Oreo” (with a politically incorrect crème filling). Despite this, the radio host to whom Biden was speaking has now effectively endorsed Biden by declaring that Trump represents the “end of democracy.”
This is something we’re hearing a lot lately. Yesterday, on the view, Whoopi Goldberg begged Liz Cheney, a chip off the block of her father Dick Cheney, the notorious warmonger in charge of death and torture under the Bush Jr. regime, to run as a third party candidate to take votes from Trump because, in her words, Trump “wants to be dictator for life.” Goldberg warned that “if he ever gets in again we’ll never have anymore elections—there will be no more. He will stop it, and he’s very clear about that.” One wonders whether Charlamagne and Goldberg are ignorant or lying (I will leave that determination to the reader), but there is not a single indicator nor even a vague pattern indicating that a Donald Trump presidency spells the end of democracy. On the contrary.
To be charitable, what Charlamagne and Goldberg don’t understand is that the panic they feel urged to express by the voices in their bubble (those who shape the bubble recognize the importance of recruiting cultural figures in the campaign) is not fear of the end of the democracy but terror felt among elites in anticipation of a Trump second term that will initiate the process of deconstructing the administrative-technocratic apparatus (Google “Project 2025”) and expose more profoundly the steering mechanisms of corporate power, including the election rigging system and the deep state. As I have shown on Freedom and Reason, when elites talk about democracy, they really mean the opposite, what Sheldon Wolin refers to in Democracy, Inc., as “inverted totalitarianism” or “managed democracy.”
Elites are terrified that the twin projects of managed decline and transnationalization will be constrained and retarded if Trump is elected again. Although Trump cannot reverse the effects of the projects given the short four-year time frame of the US presidency, delays in the elite agenda increase the likelihood of mass resistance to denationalization by providing time for the populist forces defending cultural integrity and national sovereignty to effectively organize. Moreover, the socialization of mutual knowledge that will occur during a second Trump term will entrench the social movement he represents, and the political realignment in party politics that predicts makes the permanency of populist-nationalism in the West all the more probable.
The campaign to destroy Trump, a little too late it seems to me, is an attempt to nip the realignment in the bud. The corporate state worries about the risk of creating a martyr (which is why Trump is still alive, I suspect), but even the effort to delegitimize him—impeachment, lawfare, electoral rigging, mass mediated hysteria—is a form of martyrdom in late capitalism. Thanks to the anarchy of rapid technological innovation, elites lost control over the narrative. This is the dilemma for elites. The best way out of the mess would be to centralize command over the electoral system and lean in to censorship, which they’re trying, but they’re dealing with an awakened population and Musk’s X (Twitter) and other open social media systems, as well as a vast alternative media network utilizing all traditional formats. This explains the desperation in progressive voices. Goldberg appears genuinely panicked.
The panic of elites should be grasped as a source of hopefulness; if they are this concerned about a second Trump presidency, then they agree with me about how effective a Trump presidency will be in diminishing the hold power elites have on the West. The authoritarians are so scared of loosing the grip on the world that they let the covers slip. They should be scared. It’s imperative that the American people prevail in 2024. We are the tip of the spear. Europe is counting on us. We need a chance to build the resistance. And we don’t have much time. It’s not Trump that’s the threat to democracy. It’s the progressive-transnationalist uniparty and the administrative-technocratic establishment that represent the New Fascism.
Globalists have effectively organized a coup in Poland. What follows? Mass immigration and the digital euro. One of the last bastions of populist nationalism is being readied to fall. Without Brexit, this would have happened to the Britain. The globalist plan is to destroy national sovereignty and incorporate the western proletariat into a neo-feudalist system governed by transnational corporate power.
Last month, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) classified the Saxony state branch of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party as a “threat to democracy” (sound familiar?). This is a major first step towards banning AfD on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Why would Germany need to do that? Because the AfD is very popular. Like the Sweden Democrats, the AfD is populist and nationalist.
Germany is the center of the European project to unwind nation-states through regionalism and thus one of the central powers in the transnational project. What we are seeing in Poland, i.e, that suppression of populist-nationalism, is happening also in Germany. The fascists lost the big battle of WWII only to conquer Europe.
I’ve been telling readers of Freedom and Reason for years that the resistance to globalization has been growing. The migrant crisis woke up a lot of people in Europe (will it wake up America?). Populism has now reached the point where the globalists feel threatened enough to move to openly suppress democracy. This is where the soft fascism of corporatism in its social democratic formation shifts to the hard fascism of authoritarian rule.
The New Fascism has significant differences from the old fascism (which I have discussed at length on Freedom and Reason). These differences, which do not change the essence of the thing, have confused people about the true character of progressive and social democratic politics, which are corporatist with totalitarian ambitions.
As I have explained, progressivism is the antithesis of populism. Progressivism is managerial and globalist. Populism is democratic-republican in character and nationalist. Progressivism is totalitarian and technocratic in ambition. Populism is rooted in individualism and liberalism (which includes modern conservatism), i.e., self-government and national sovereignty.
For years, you have been told by the progressives who have colonized the administrative apparatus that populism and nationalism are very bad things. This was to prepare you for incorporation into the transnationalist system. If you believe populism and nationalism are bad things, or at least avoid openly supporting these ideas because you fear shunning and even canceling, then you will fail to defend your country. This explains the passivity of Americans in face of the millions streaming across our southern border. As a result, the elite are reshaping America with very little popular resistance. People are terrified of being labeled a “nativist,” “racist,” “xenophobe.”
The same authoritarian desire that finds Germany preparing to ban a popular political party is the same spirit that moves the administrative state in America to surveil and intimidate populist-nationalists across the country, the removal of Trump from state ballots, and the waging of lawfare against Trump and his associates.
This is what happens when you run out of hotel rooms. Soon, cities will run out of schools to vacate. Then they will come for your homes. https://t.co/MQ159OlOXc
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” —Noam Chomsky
Narrowing the range of acceptable opinion and debate (beyond what is needed for the protection of the dialectic) is a crucial feature of the system of cognitive control that lies at the heart of the system of domination. We see this with religious systems, where thought that lies outside the doctrinal parameters is punished as blasphemy and heresy. But we also see this thought-control tactic in today’s public university, where speech that lies outside the doctrinal parameters of DEI is punished as “Islamophobic,” “transphobic,” and other secular euphemisms for blasphemy and heresy.
This is the problem with the progressive conception of inclusion that lies at the heart of DEI programming: any ideological system that promotes itself as a desirable and comfortable space for those it clamors to include (this for the purpose of establishing political hegemony) must at the same time be exclusive of those speech acts that are supposed to make the desired targets uncomfortable, a determination made by the commissar. Thus those who dissent from the doctrinal parameters must be disciplined or excluded in some fashion. We see this in the proliferation of safe spaces and affinity groups.
The rules of inclusion are okay for private clubs where affinity is protected by right to associational freedom. A mosque doesn’t have to allow infidels into the building. It may also sex-segregate its spaces based upon the terms of its doctrine. That’s religious liberty. It is not however okay for public spaces or private spaces that provide public accommodation to practice inclusion based upon ideological prescription or proscription. These spaces must remain open to all individuals regardless of their opinions.
A private club for lesbians may exclude men. This is the same right as a church that precludes women from the role of cleric or that refuses to marry same-sex couples. This does not prevent anyone from criticizing these practices; however, the freedom of association permits individuals to make private spaces based on affinity and set the rules of those spaces. However, a club open to the public, i.e., an establishment of public accommodations, cannot impose such rules, as these would constitute civil rights violations. The only basis upon which public accommodations can be segregated are biological ones, such as exclusion based on age and sex—rationally justified, of course.
One of the reasons this is proving so difficult for so many people to understand is the decades-long socialization of an ideologically determined conception of diversity, the result of the effectively exclusive control over public spaces enjoyed by progressives. Progressive ideology is antithetical to the liberalism that established the free republic. The irony is not lost on me that liberal tolerance for diversity of opinion is part of the reason progressive ideology could have this effect; however, liberals have done a poor job in defending the principles of a free society. Part of the trick played by progressives involved conflating progressivism and liberalism (a similar trick has been played with the acronym LGBT), but that is no reason to fight against the tyranny of narrowing the range of acceptable opinion.
For progressives, who articulate a type corporatist philosophy, diversity in public spaces is achieved when a space includes representatives of the various tribes that exist on the grounds of gender, race, or other categories—real or invented. According to rules established by superficial pluralism, progressives determine which tribes are recognized, as well as the rules of who counts as tribal members. (For example, Dylan Mulvaney, a man who says he is a woman, can be woman, whereas Rachel Doleful, a white woman who says she is black, cannot be a black woman.)
In contrast to progressives, liberals understand diversity in terms of freedom of opinion, with public spaces, including those private places of public accommodations, existing as spaces that foster the maximization of the heterogeneity of thought by eschewing—indeed by outlawing ideological parameters. Liberals do not engage in the reductive act of seeing people as tribal representatives but rather treat individuals as existing under a singular rule of law and judged by ethical rules that exist universally. Neutrality in public spaces is necessary for the free exercise of our fundamental rights.
If there is an emergent tribal diversity in a public space, the liberal, the true pluralist, tolerates this, of course; at the same time, it must be acknowledged, that, if diversity of opinion is prioritized, then there is a risk that some individuals will avoid those spaces because they find the opinions expressed there disagreeable or offensive.
To be sure, this is the problem of the avoidant; the intolerant are wont to avoid spaces where their intolerance cannot be imposed on others. However, this risk is not merely an acceptable one—it’s the reason free spaces exist; those who do not wish to hear opinions with which they disagree or find offensive don’t have to enter those spaces. They have no right to impose their sensitivities on others, but rather enjoy the right to remove themselves from the presence of disagreeable or offensive speech.
This is sometimes posed as a dilemma, as if there are competing rights to speak freely and not hear objectionable things. But there is no right to be free from objectionable utterances if they are not harassing or intimidating, which are to be determined objectively not subjectively. Everybody has a choice to tolerate opinions they find disagreeable or offensive. If you are offended by something somebody says, that it is your responsibility.
For a liberal, a safe space is a space where any opinion can be safety expressed. This is essence of the free speech right. When I cannot be disciplined or punished for my utterances, then I enjoy a safe space. For progressives, a safe space is a space in which the range of opinion is constrained. Utterances that stray beyond the parameters of acceptable opinion are disciplined or punished. For the liberal, such spaces are unsafe spaces. Indeed, such spaces are potentially unsafe spaces for anybody depending on what speech parameters are emplaced.
Finally, the progressive conception of speech is a license for violence. If an utterance is offensive, and one has a right to be safe from offensive utterances, those who insist on making offensive speech threaten the safety of those who are offended by their utterances. In defending one’s safety, extreme measures are justifiable, including the resort to physical violence. We see this in such slogans “Speech is violence” and “Punch a TERF.”
Where can those who mean to punish people who make such utterances find their prey? In the First Amendment Zone. But remember, comrades, you also have a right to self-defense. You, too, can get physical.
USA Today ran a story yesterday, Can Congress overturn presidential election results? Here are changes since Jan. 6, 2021, authored by Riley Beggin, about changes made to the Electoral Count Act of 1887 after what Biden called the “Trump’s mob” “broke into the US Capitol building as Congress convened to help formalize the results of the 2020 presidential election, interrupting the proceedings for hours even as some Republican lawmakers moved to reject the election results in key swing states.” Interesting how the possibility that the riot was instigated to stop the rejection of election results in swing states escapes Beggin. Of does it? The wording “even as some Republican lawmakers moved to reject the election results” suggests otherwise.
Vice-President Mike Pence announces that President-elect Joe Biden had won the presidency after Congress completes the counting of the Electoral College votes.
The changes made to federal election law got little fanfare at the time, but the “serious threat challenges to state certifications present” prompted an effort among lawmakers to address what they characterized as “ambiguities” and “uncertainties” surrounding the electoral count process. Subsequently, legislation was crafted to bring “clarity” to the system, with the ostensive aim of preventing a recurrence of the chaos witnessed on January 6, 2021—that is, to prevent the challenging of what Beggin refers to throughout as “valid election results.” Valid according to whom? The establishment and the corporate media, of course. That the change in the law was meant to make it harder for Congress to challenge election rigging and fraud should be obvious to everybody who grasps the nature of power and propaganda in the epoch of the corporate state.
The legislative changes were smuggled through Congress to the President’s desk in the year-end spending bill Biden signed in December 2022. Three elements of the new law are important for readers to know about (there’s a fourth concerning alternative slates of electors, but that gets us too far into the weeds, so I may take that up on another day).
First, a revision to the law “clarifies” the “ceremonial role” of the Vice-President in the process. “Clarification” is a way of changing the Vice-President’s role without debating that the character of the authority the Vice-President may have had at the time. It fixes history by building into the law the presumption of a ceremonial role. Second, the law creates an expedited court review process for electoral challenges from presidential candidates. If the review process continues as it has, i.e., dismissing cases for lack of standing, then expediting the process allows the establishment to more quickly establish a headwind against doubts about the integrity of an election. Third, the law raises the threshold to object to a state’s election results from one senator and one representative to one-fifth of both the House and the Senate, a change that effectively negates the point of the 1887 law. This is a step towards dismantling the Electoral College. as well as towards effective federal assumption of state and local elections.
Beggin notes that the “experts” (i.e., anti-Trump academics Beggin reached out to) acknowledge that the implemented changes have significantly reduced the risk of Congress or the Vice President overturning valid election results. “It is much better than it was; it was totally arcane. This reform really does provide a lot of important clarification and takes away some of the risks that we saw unfold on January 6,” said Rebecca Green, an election law professor at the College of William and Mary. “There are grave risks, but I think they’re a bit different than the risks that we faced in 2020,” notes Matthew Seligman, a legal scholar at Stanford University.
What are these grave risks? Beggin notes that, since 2021, Trump’s influence within the Republican party has strengthened, and a significant portion of his supporters express skepticism about the accuracy of election results. The decentralization of the electoral system and the intensified grip of Trump on the Republican party raise concerns about potential challenges to valid election outcomes in the upcoming years. Because the law effectively negates the role of Congress and the Vice President, the experts Beggin talked worry that efforts to influence election outcomes will concentrate more on state and local elections. The decentralized nature of the electoral system creates numerous potential points for legal disputes. Given how deep the tentacles of the establishment go, it is doubtful they will have much to worry about, but the desire for centralized authority is obvious—and antithetical to the federalized system the Founders established.
Beggin writes that the events of January 6 marked a pivotal moment in US history, prompting legislative changes aimed at fortifying the electoral process. However, as the nation heads into another election year, she warns, the uncertainties persist, and the spotlight shifts to potential vulnerabilities at the state and local levels. The irony is that the vulnerabilities at the state and local levels have been the focus on grassroots Republicans trying to shore up the electoral system, and Republicans have been thwarted in their efforts by state and local officials, including by establishment Republicans. The systems is rigged.
Biden has given his second major speech treating half the nation as fascists and thugs (it’s a long-standing project; see my January 30, 2021 essay Cancelling Half the Nation: Progressives Reach for One-Party Rule). This time the President eschewed a setting befitting a Leni Riefenstahl production, but kept that spirit in words. His told the audience that Trump is the ringleader of an unpatriotic and violent mob bent on destroying the Republic. He’s talking about tens of millions of America.
President Joe Biden speaks at Montgomery County Community College January 5, 2024 in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.
By “trying to rewrite the facts” of January 6, Trump is “trying to steal history the same way he tried to steal the election,” the President stormed. “Trump’s mob wasn’t a peaceful protest; it was a violent assault,” he insisted. “They were insurrectionists, not patriots. They weren’t there to uphold the Constitution; they were there to destroy the Constitution.”
Everything Biden said yesterday is part of the Big Lie. Trump’s speech delivered on the Ellipse on January 6, wherein he encouraged his supporters to “peacefully and patriotically” march to the Capitol to give words of encouragement to the representatives who intended to challenge the certification of the November presidential election results, a statement in which Trump enumerated numerous grievances, was a textbook example of a man and the citizens around him properly exercising the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from the Ellipse, near the White House, on January 6
Here’s a convenient reminder of the First Amendment with the relevant clauses highlighted: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” I would like to think I didn’t need to share this text with readers, but given how widespread the ignorance is about the fundamental law of this nation, I have to.
As did Congress when it impeached Trump for exercising his First Amendment rights, Biden is telling you that the First Amendment is a threat to democracy—unless those who wield it (and then some) are allied with Biden and the Democrats (see the riots of 2020). Never forget that Biden’s administration works with Big Tech companies to censor speech. Never forget that its Biden’s national security apparatus that harnesses and intimidates citizens for their political and religious beliefs.
As for the riot, as I wrote in my December 22, 2023 essay The Continuing Campaign to Unperson Donald Trump, “Tossing into the crowd flash bang grenades, and firing upon the throng with rubber bullets and canisters of tear gas, the police instigated the violence outside the Capitol, while officers on the other side of the building invited protestors inside, where they milled about admiring the place and mostly staying within the velvet roped queue. Officers even invited the protestors into the chambers where legislators debate and vote—protestors adorned in patriotic garb and paraphernalia. Elsewhere, a Capitol police officer murdered a veteran.”
I continue in that essay: “Whatever the details, that the police instigated a riot at the Capitol that day does not make the political rally that occurred in Washington DC earlier that day an insurrection. However you define the thing, Trump didn’t cause it. He insisted to the assembled that they ‘peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard.’ He invoked the people’s right to petition the government when he said moments before, ‘We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.’”
If you believe Trump perpetrated an insurrection, then you have convinced yourself of something far outside of any reasonable interpretation of the evidence. But let’s assume, as ridiculous as the insurrection clap-trap is, that everything Biden said in his speech is true. Does anybody really believe that Trump remains in office after January 20, 2021? How do an unarmed people with a small rabble among them keep the Capitol they never took? Assume they had taken the Capitol, do people really believe Trump doesn’t order the military to take back the Capitol? Assume military personnel risk their careers and protect the rabble, do people actually believe the military continues doing so after January 20 when Biden assumes the Office of the Presidency?
For your convenience, here’s the oath our soldiers take upon enlisting: “I [state your full name], Do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God (optional).”
Upon entering office on January 20th, having been certified President on January 6, and swearing his oath to the Constitution, Biden becomes the Commander-and-Chief of the armed services. Do people really believe that his order to the military—the first order of his presidency—to remove the rabble from the Capitol will go unheeded?
A coup does not happen with a dozen or so people smashing windows at the Capitol and maybe a thousand people milling about inside their Capitol, people “armed” with flags and standards and patriotic swag. A coup doesn’t involve sending back to a few states certifications that appear to be the result of widespread election rigging and fraud. For more than a hundred years, Presidents didn’t assume office until March 4 (this date remained in effect until the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933). Democracy is not lost while Georgia checks its certification. On the contrary, democracy is lost when Georgia doesn’t check its certification (see Is There Evidence Joe Biden Won the 2020 Election?).
There was no insurrection. Trump did not incite a riot. The President voluntarily left office on January 20, 2021. There was a peaceful transfer of power. At any point along this chain of incontrovertible facts in asserting he contrary Biden and the Democrats look like complete fools. Assuming for the sake of argument that some of what Biden said is true, in its totality, granting the wild scenarios that must be assumed for the narrative to have any power at all, the propagandistic intent is so obvious as to alert a reasonable man to the possibility that the moral panic over January 6 and the persecution of those peacefully present at the Capitol that day is noise to distract the people from the fact that the republic is already lost—or that it will be if Democrats prevail in 2024.
President Biden delivers a prime-time speech at the Independence National Historical Park on September 1, 2022 in Philadelphia.
“Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is what the 2024 election is all about,” Biden said in his speech. “The choice is clear. Donald Trump’s campaign is about him, not America, not you. Donald Trump’s campaign is obsessed with the past, not the future. He’s willing to sacrifice our democracy to put himself in power. Our campaign is different.”
Here Biden’s speech writers are unaware that they said the quiet part out loud and thus put the lie to punch line. For Democrats, Donald Trump’s campaign is about him. Democrats want the public to obsess over the past because they desperately need the public to not see the future the Party has in store for them. Democrats are terrified of Trump in power because they won’t be. They will be unable to stop investigations into November 3, 2020 and January 6, 2021. They will be unable to prevent the deconstruction of the permanent political stratum in Washington. A Trump presidency risks the power elite losing control of the military-industrial complex and the forever wars they monger. Even the national security state is at risk. It means the invasion of our country by military-age foreign males will, potentially dashing their plans for the disorder they need to finally establish a one-party corporate state.
In a very real sense, everything is at stake on November 5, 2024. For Democrats, political control over the corporate state apparatus they depend on for the managed decline of the Republic and for advancing the transnational agenda, as well as for their personal enrichment, is at risk if the democrats lose the election. For the rest of us, the greatest republic in the history of mankind is put in peril.
What follows is a summary of election fraud in five swing states in the 2020 Presidential Election. The states are Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan. This information comes from the Trump campaign (here’s the source document). I’m not going to put this in my own words, but rather will share images from the document Kanekoa the Great’s text extractions, which I am lifting from his X (Twitter) feed, links to which I will share above each section. There are many ways to view this material; I want to post it here for posterity and because I get asked all the time whether I think the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
Lead Stories put a fact-check label on my Facebook post about the report
I am also putting this on Freedom and Reason because I know some people aren’t on X (Twitter) and don’t want to be on X, and, if they are on X, might find navigating these threads cumbersome. Furthermore, I shared it on Facebook yesterday, but, as I predicted, Lead Stories put a face-check label on it. I’m not placing quotes around the material, so assume that everything after this paragraph is verbatim from the Trump campaign document and Kanekoa the Great’s text extractions. Do visit the thread on X to read the conversation.
* * *
Introduction: It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.
Ongoing investigations in the Swing States reveal hundreds of thousands of votes were altered and/or not lawfully cast in the Presidential Election. Joe Biden needed them. On Election Night Nov. 3, 2020, President Donald J. Trump was sailing to reelection with landslide leads in numerous battlegrounds. In Georgia, President Trump was up by 12 points, and over 335,000 votes, with 56 percent of the vote in at 10:17 p.m. In Wisconsin, President Trump was leading by 121,380 votes and 5 points at 12:12 a.m., which Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted was “not a small margin.” In Pennsylvania, President Trump was leading by 659,145 votes at 12:38 a.m., a full 15 points. In Michigan, President Trump was leading by 293,052 votes and 10 points.
The election was over. However, precincts in Atlanta, Detroit, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Milwaukee kept counting until the results reached the desired outcome, which was the opposite of the will of the voters. Georgia went from having a total of 4.7 million votes, already a record for the state, according to Brad Raffensperger’s count on Nov. 4, to certifying almost 5 million. This was 300,000 more votes than what the top elections official claimed were cast in the Election.
Getting to this result in Georgia, and other states, created an irredeemably compromised Election, filled with violations of the Constitution, unlawful ballots, widespread broken chain of custody, electronic manipulation, and missing and corrupted election files that made it uncertifiable—and impossible to recreate the results.
President Trump was right to voice his objections to what had unfolded before the country’s eyes. Republican poll watchers were denied access to the counting in multiple jurisdictions and ballots were counted in secret in the middle of the night without media or observers present. Countless irregularities emerged, including reports of ineligible voters, voting machine anomalies, “water main breaks,” improbable percentages of ballots for Biden, and more.
Since, investigations across the country have uncovered an avalanche of irregularities, unlawful activity, manipulation of election records, destruction of evidence, and fraud. The findings, which are outcome determinative, are detailed in the summaries of the Swing States.
GEORGIA
🚨JUST IN – President Trump Releases Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States
Introduction: It has often been repeated there is “no evidence” of fraud in the 2020 Election. In actuality, there is no evidence Joe Biden won.
• Fulton County, Georgia, the most populous county in the state, has no digital record of all in person votes cast in its original results.
• Not a single ballot purportedly cast during early in-person voting was witnessed to and signed off by poll managers, as required by Georgia election rules. Seals were broken and memory cards removed from tabulators for the results of these 315,000 votes, which were printed out on different machines than the ones that tabulated them. This prevented the reconciliation of how many votes were cast on each machine.
• The ballot images of these votes, along with the rest of in-person ballots cast on Election Day, were destroyed.
• The vote in Georgia was counted three times: the original machine count, a statewide hand recount, and a second machine count. Each time the state, and Fulton County, reported three different results.
• Fulton County did not count the same ballots during the original count and the machine recount. There are 19,541 distinct ballots that appear in one machine count but not the other.
• Thousands of fraudulent “presidential only” ballots were injected into the second machine count, with huge margins favoring Joe Biden. Ballots that are blank except for the presidential contest were counted in batches together, with the pattern appearing in at least eight counties, including Fulton. This means Georgia did not have the votes to justify its original Election “results.”
• The second machine count was over 17,000 votes “short.” Fulton County was instructed to “reconcile” the results by the Secretary of State, and recertified its results without divulging the extent of the vote deficiency to members of the Fulton County Board of Registrations and Elections.
• “Thousands of bogus votes” were ultimately added into the Election results via the second machine count. This includes 20,977 unsubstantiated votes of unknown origin. The results were missing 17,852 ballot images, and included 3,125 duplicate ballot images that were counted twice.
• At least 2,871 ballots were counted two or three times in the second machine count, totaling 6,118 questionable votes.
• Eighty-eight percent of Fulton County’s precincts reported a different total number of votes between the first and second machine count.
• The only electronic votes that survived from the first count were the mail-in ballots, since they were tabulated on the high speed scanner their ballot images were automatically uploaded to the election server.
• Ninety percent of these approximately 148,000 absentee ballots cast in Fulton County cannot be authenticated. Ballot images for 132,284 mail-in votes have no .SHA file, which is created automatically when a ballot is scanned and used to authenticate the digital image of the vote, lacking evidence they were scanned and tabulated properly, or even cast by a real voter.
• 104,994 ballot image files of these mail-in ballots from the original count contained identical modified time stamps, suggesting electronic manipulation.
• Fulton County does not know “how many voters cast votes” and its “lack of basic accounting controls make it impossible to determine who really won” in 2020, according to Philip Stark, a University of California, Berkeley professor who invented risk-limiting audits. Stark noted, “The electronic records of the election are not intact.”
• 376,863 ballot images are missing from the first machine count, which includes all in-person votes in Fulton County.
• None of the 315,000 votes cast during early voting in Fulton County were witnessed to and signed by the poll manager and two poll workers, as required by state election rules. The closing tapes for these votes are all unsigned, showed more tabulated votes than the tabulators had recorded as scanning in their protective counters, and recorded improbably low percentages for President Trump. For example, President Trump received only 0.9 percent, 2.4 percent, 3.7 percent from some of the tabulators, as if he was a third party candidate, or in a third world country. The anomalies indicate ballots were not scanned on the tabulators that printed the closing tapes, making the closing tapes fraudulent.
• Tabulators used in Fulton County during early voting had their seals broken, and memory cards were reprogrammed and inserted into different scanners to count absentee ballots, in violation of election rules. This made it impossible to reconcile the true number of votes tabulated on the machines from the start of the Election to the end of counting.
• 235,000 absentee ballots were requested and accepted too early, prior to the lawful date 180 days before the 2020 Election, which was May 6, 2020. These votes should have never been counted in the 2020 Election.
• 4,081 false votes for Joe Biden were included in the hand count audit results for Fulton County. The false votes were the result of 36 accounting errors, which were confirmed by Governor Brian Kemp’s office and investigators working for Secretary Brad Raffensperger, yet they have never been removed from the official hand count results. These errors alone would reduce the margin to 7,698 votes.
• The hand count audit included 3,935 unaccounted for votes due to 11 missing batch sheets in Fulton County. Differences from the original count to the hand audit total at least 15,690 votes, which is more than the entire election margin alone. This includes the 4,081 false Biden votes, plus “missing” votes discovered in Gwinett (1,642), Fayette (2,755), Floyd (2,700), Douglas (293), and Walton (284) counties that were likely due to machine counting errors.
• Thousands of “pristine,” unfolded absentee ballots were counted during the hand count audit in Fulton County, according to at least six witnesses, which is the subject of ongoing litigation. These absentee ballots had no folds, and went 98 percent to Joe Biden, had “been added in a fraudulent manner,” witnesses said.
• Fulton County certified 59,143 in-person votes on Election Day, despite the fact that only 14,152 people had voted as of 5 p.m. on Nov. 3, 2020. Evidence suggests the in-person vote total on Election Day was inflated by approximately 37,000 votes, as records show no rush to the polls during the final two hours of voting, and a screenshot of the in-person Election Day results shared by a government contractor showed only 21,843 people voted at the polls in Fulton County on Nov. 3.
• Fulton County ordered over 1 million absentee ballots days before the 2020 Election, without any envelopes and the time necessary to mail. There were only 808,680 active voters in Fulton County as of Nov. 1, 2020, meaning the county had more blank mail-in ballots than the number of registered voters, and ordered them after the vast majority of mail-in ballot requests had already been sent to voters by Runbeck Election Services.
• An estimated 30,000 to 92,670 illicit votes were trafficked in Georgia, as part of a massive ballot trafficking operation discovered by True the Vote. The group identified 242 traffickers in Georgia who engaged in 5,662 ballot drops into drop boxes, making an average of runs per trafficker. Over 40 percent of the illicit drops that were captured on camera were recorded between the non-voting hours of midnight and 5 a.m.
• There were over 364,000 ineligible voter registrations on the rolls during the 2020 Election and likely 67,284 votes were cast from voters with invalid residency.
• Massive manipulation of the Georgia voter rolls surrounding the 2020 Election has been uncovered. This includes 1,500 Voter IDs that received credit for voting in 2020, but were not on any voter rolls from 2020, some appearing for the first time on the voter rolls on Nov. 4, 2021, a year after the Election. Other findings include manipulation of inactive voters to cast ballots, “gifting” Nov. 3 votes up to 2 years after the Election, and casting votes on ballots previously rejected, cancelled, or not even turned in.
• In 2020, there were absentee ballots issued to “Bangkok Thailand, Ga.,” “Denver, Ga.,” “Detroit, Ga.,” “Los Angeles, Ga.,” and other fraudulent addresses that do not exist. Ballots were fraudulently cast in 2020 from addresses listed as “Bronx, Ga.,” “Hilton Head, Ga.,” “Louisville, Ga.,” “San Diego, Ga.,” “New Orleans, Ga.,” “French Creek, Ga.,” “Virginia Beach, Ga.,” “Vicksburg, Ga.,” “Baltimore, Ga.,” “New York, Ga.,” and “Sarasota, Ga.,” all with zip codes out of state.
• 43,907 drop box ballots violated chain of custody requirements in DeKalb County.
• 59,000 of the 79,460 drop box ballots in Fulton County were not immediately transported to the election registrar, in violation of State Election Board rules.
• An estimated 355,000 ballot transfer forms for drop box ballots are missing statewide.
• Over 100,000 tally sheets for Fulton County were missing from the hand count audit, and remained missing for months after the Election.
• In early January 2021, Ruby Freeman asked for an attorney because she wanted to “go live on every platform” to divulge information about how “the USB ports” were used in the 2020 Election. The expert cyber report by Professor J. Alex Halderman explained how external USB ports with election-changing malware can be inserted into Dominion machines by anyone with access, including election workers.
• The presence of a “QR code mismatch” error within the Dominion tabulators that systematically undercounts votes was found in 65 out of 67 Georgia counties where records were available. The error was present in system log files for tabulators used in elections in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
• The election results in Georgia in 2020 are not only unreliable, but were electronically altered, and are unsupported by the state’s own election records. The appearance of tens of thousands of unconfirmed ballots in subsequent hand and machine counts suggest reconciliation happened after the Election, meaning after it was clear what margins were needed to win.
• Fulton County election officials admitted in early 2021 they do not engage in any reconciliation until weeks after Election Day. This means the number of voters showing up at the polls during each day of voting is not checked with the number of ballots tabulated each day, a basic process to ensure the number of ballots and voters match, and cannot be manipulated later.
• “We can’t start reconciling that until usually a couple days before certification,” said then-Fulton County Elections Director Richard Barron, during a January 2021 Board meeting. “Because we have to get that report from KnowInk. I think KnowInk sends those to the state or KnowInk sends those directly to us. But those aren’t compiled then, on Election night. So we don’t have any way to balance those then. That’s like the post-election process that we do.”
* * *
WISCONSIN
JUST IN – President Trump Releases Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States
WISCONSIN🚨
• Wisconsin was called by 20,682 votes.
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin law, in a 4-3 decision issued in… pic.twitter.com/w8PBPKItlu
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled drop boxes are illegal under Wisconsin law, in a 4-3 decision issued in July 2022.
• Wisconsin Election Commissioner Meagan Wolfe unilaterally declared ballot drop boxes could be used to vote in 2020 elections, even though “WEC’s commissioners never voted to adopt this memo.”
• Ahead of the November 2020 Election, Wolfe encouraged clerks to use “creative solutions” to deploy drop boxes, that she said could be “unstaffed.” There were 528 drop boxes used in the General Election, and a total of 1,969,274 absentee votes cast, including 1,346,731 votes cast by mail, and 653,236 in-person.
• In a concurring opinion to the ruling finding drop boxes to be unlawful, Justice Rebecca Bradley writes, “If the right to vote is to have any meaning at all, elections must be conducted according to law. Throughout history, tyrants have claimed electoral victory via elections conducted in violation of governing law… in Wisconsin elected officials “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
• “The right to vote presupposes the rule of law governs elections. If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful and their results are illegitimate.”
• Justice Bradley concluded “thousands of votes have been cast via this unlawful method,” using drop boxes, “thereby directly harming the Wisconsin voters.”
• “The illegality of these drop boxes weakens the people’s faith that the election produced an outcome reflective of their will,” Justice Bradley writes. “The Wisconsin voters, and all lawful voters, are injured when the institution charged with administering Wisconsin elections does not follow the law, leaving the results in question…Electoral outcomes obtained by unlawful procedures corrupt the institution of voting, degrading the very foundation of free government. Unlawful votes do not dilute lawful votes so much as they pollute them, which in turn pollutes the integrity of the results.”
• In the city of Milwaukee, nearly half of all its votes were cast by mail, totaling 217,424 ballots. The city deployed 15 drop boxes, with election officials claiming the drop boxes would be “under 24-hour surveillance.” However, after the election, not a single municipality in the county produced video surveillance of drop boxes in response to open records requests. Various responses included, “No records exist for your request,” “No video from requested time frame,” “No such records exist,” and “No security camera.”
• The election integrity group True the Vote identified 107 ballot traffickers in Milwaukee County between Oct. 20 and Nov. 3, 2020, who each made 20 or more visits to drop boxes. Each trafficker made an average 26 visits, and as many as 15 in one day, and made multiple visits to non-governmental organizations.
• The 107 traffickers made a total of 2,824 trips to drop boxes during the 2020 Election, with a majority of visits occurring after 8:00 p.m.
• In 2020 there was a surge of “indefinitely confined” votes in Wisconsin, resulting in 220,404 votes cast from individuals who were exempted from showing voter ID. This surge of suspect votes was due to Democrat election clerks giving advice that was deemed illegal after the election, instructing voters to identify themselves as disabled during the COVID pandemic to avoid voter ID laws.
• Indefinitely confined voters, who are supposed to be physically unable to go to the polls due to age, disability, or illness, increased by an astounding 393 percent in Dane County from 2016 to 2020; 492 percent in Racine County; 281 percent in Milwaukee County; and 287 percent in the state overall.
• There were just 56,978 indefinitely confined votes in 2016, and roughly 70,000 43 in 2019. In 2020, however, there were 220,404 votes cast using indefinite confinement status. Over 77 percent of these individuals had never been listed as indefinitely confined before. The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau identified 48,554 people who voted as indefinitely confined in November 2020 who had never provided photo identification or did not have photo identifications on file with clerks, which is more than twice the vote margin of 20,682.
• Scott McDonell, the Democrat clerk of Dane County, which encompasses the area of Madison, told all residents they could identify themselves as indefinitely confined because of COVID, specifically citing it as a way to get around the Voter ID law.
• McDonell previously blamed Wisconsin’s voter ID law for President Trump’s victory in 2016, claiming in a 2018 Twitter post that “thousands of voters [were] deterred from voting due to [the] ID law.”
• In 2020, McDonell urged all voters to declare themselves indefinitely confined in order to obtain an absentee ballot and “skip the step of uploading an ID” in the April 2020 primary election. Once a voter is identified as indefinitely confined, they continue to receive absentee ballots automatically for subsequent elections. “I urge all voters who request a ballot and have trouble presenting a valid ID to indicate that they are indefinitely confined,” McDonell said in a Facebook post.
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in December 2020 that the pandemic “did not render all Wisconsin electors ‘indefinitely confined,’ thereby obviating the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an absentee ballot,” and the clerks’ “interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous.”
• The Wisconsin Election Commission ordered nursing homes to violate the law by not allowing Special Voting Deputies (SVDs) inside their facilities, which led to election fraud where incapacitated elderly residents had votes cast in their name with the assistance of nursing home staff.
• An investigation by the Racine County Sheriff found the Wisconsin Elections Commission “shattered” state election laws. Nursing homes saw an “unusual surge in voting activity,” and at least 8 cases of felony voter fraud were found in one nursing home, accounting for nearly 1 in 5 families of residents.
• The Wisconsin Election Commission admitted it was “essentially telling the clerks to break the law” by ordering the sending of absentee ballots to nursing homes and barring Special Voting Deputies inside the facilities.
• An interim report released by Special Counsel Michael J. Gableman raised “serious and legitimate questions that the certification of Wisconsin’s election results may have been undertaken in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner.”
• Gableman claimed “Democracy in the Park” events in Madison involved numerous possible violations of the law, “calling into question the validity of over 17,000 absentee ballots.”
• These outdoor events to collect mail-in ballots were the subject of numerous complaints, and it is “not clear that all of the workers at those events were properly deputized and trained, swore and filed the mandatory oath of office, or documents related to absentee ballots were properly handled.”
• The Office of the Special Counsel also claimed evidence of “undue influence by well-funded private groups, who leveraged large grants to certain Wisconsin cities in order to co-opt our election apparatus to their benefit.”
• The report confirms at least 17.5 percent of election clerks “were not properly trained,” and that “exploitation of elders” occurred in nursing homes.
• In one example, Maryl Barrett, who was 104 years old and did not recognize her own children, had a ballot cast in her name in the 2020 Presidential Election.
• The Office of Special Counsel’s second interim report found nursing homes in Milwaukee, Dane, and Racine counties with 100 percent turnout due to the Wisconsin Election Commission’s order.
• The special counsel said it possessed evidence of nursing home facility staff and directors who “assisted residents in completing ballots; assisted residents in obtaining absentee ballots; pressured residents to vote; collected completed ballots from residents; forged signatures of residents; illegally returned residents’ ballots to the municipal clerks by mail, by placing the ballots in drop boxes, and/ or delivering them directly to the clerks; pressured and/or assisted incompetent persons to complete and cast ballots in the November 2020 election, up to and including persons who have had their right to vote take away by court order due to mental incompetence.”
• The second interim report also detailed an $8.8 million “election bribery scheme” involving Mark Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life and the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Racine, Kenosha, and Green Bay. “In the agreement, the Cities took CTCL’s money to facilitate in-person and absentee voting within their respective city.”
• The “Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan” developed for CTCL facilitated grants to major Wisconsin cities to deploy drop boxes for mail-in ballots, including $50,000 to Green Bay, $40,000 to Kenosha, $50,000 to Madison, $58,500 to Milwaukee, and $18,000 to Racine.
• Whitney May, the director of government services for CTCL, posted numerous anti-Trump posts on social media, including telling people “don’t vote for Trump” in 2016.
• Internal emails from election officials in Green Bay revealed Michael SpitzerRubenstein, a former Democratic Party operative, served as a “de facto elections administrator and had access to Green Bay’s absentee ballots days before the election.”
• The Office of the Special Counsel referenced this case, and has evidence that this grantee, which was funded by CTCL, was “directly involved in all aspects of management of election officials, was entrusted with the only sets of physical keys to the city’s central count location, managed the transportation of ballots, and instructed the counting of unlawful ballots that had arrived at the central count location beyond the lawful time window.”
PENNSYLVANIA
JUST IN – President Trump Releases Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States
PENNSYLVANIA🚨
• Pennsylvania was called by 80,555 votes.
• Months after the election, there were 121,240 more votes than voters, according to the Pennsylvania… pic.twitter.com/QFo5azJ9iE
• Months after the election, there were 121,240 more votes than voters, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State. By law, Pennsylvania cannot certify an election with this type of discrepancy.
• Republican lawmakers, led by State Representative Frank Ryan, were tracking the vote discrepancy in real time in the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) system. Ryan, a certified public accountant, initially reported that there were 170,830 more votes than voters in the Presidential race, more than twice the margin in Pennsylvania. “These numbers just don’t add up, and the alleged certification of Pennsylvania’s presidential election results was absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in error,” the lawmakers said.
• The Pennsylvania Department of State’s office called this “obvious misinformation,” while admitting the “only way to determine the number of voters who voted in November from the SURE system is through the vote histories,” which they said Philadelphia, Allegheny, and other counties had still not completed — an admission the election was certified without ensuring the number of voters and votes matched in the SURE system. The election was certified on Nov. 24, 2020, and the Department of State’s statement came on Dec. 29, 2020.
• The SURE system was checked and downloaded weekly with updated voter histories from the general Election until all the counties uploaded their vote histories, which was not completed until February 2021. At this time there were still over 121,000 votes that did not have a corresponding voter in the SURE system.
• The statement by the Department of State “that the voting would reconcile, once the counties completed their SURE uploads, was incorrect,” according to Verity Vote. “When the final county finished uploading their voter histories and closed the election in SURE, it was February 1, 2021, which was the same day that [Secretary of State Kathy] Boockvar announced her resignation. At the time that Philadelphia closed the election in SURE, the voter histories showed that the county accepted at least 7,944 ballots that could not be associated with a registered voter.”
• Pennsylvania credited 71,893 people for voting who returned mail-in ballots after Election Day, and these individuals were included in the voter history files. This includes 50,285 received between Nov. 4 and Nov. 6; 11,570 received between Nov. 7 and Nov. 11; and 10,038 that were received on or after Nov. 12. Boockvar claimed only 10,000 ballots were received between the close of the polls on Election Day and Nov. 6.
• While 71,893 people received credit for voting by mail, these votes purportedly did not count. Even while including these voters in the total number of who participated in the Election, Pennsylvania still came up 121,240 voters short.
• According to the Department of State data, there were 7,035,746 ballots cast in the 2020 Presidential Election, including all write-in votes, over-votes, and under-votes. “After all counties closed the election in SURE, only 6,914,556 voters were credited with participation in the 2020 General Election. This reveals a voter deficit of 121,240.”
• In Philadelphia, hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were unlawfully counted in secret, in defiance of a court order, while Republican poll watchers were thrown out of buildings where voting took place.
• U.S. Attorney Bill McSwain was told to stand down and not investigate election irregularities by Attorney General Bill Barr. McSwain said he was instructed to not discuss the allegations of voter fraud he received, and to pass any “serious” investigations along to then-State Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who promised days before the election that President Trump “is going to lose.”
• Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook poured over $25 million into the administration of the election in Pennsylvania in 2020. Over $10 million went to the Democrat-controlled jurisdiction of Philadelphia, which included $5.5 million on “ballot processing equipment” and $552,000 for drop boxes.
• A lawsuit filed in Delaware County revealed video evidence of election officials discussing destroying election evidence from the November 2020 Election. “It’s a felony,” one official says after talking about the need to “get rid” of voting “pads and second scanners.” Sources involved in the litigation alleged the Delaware County officials violated numerous election laws and that the destruction of records was “done to ensure records eventually provided actually matched the election results that were reported in Nov. 2020.”
• Delaware County received $2.2 million from Zuckerberg’s Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which it spent on “recruiting and training a sufficient number of poll workers; setting up drop box locations for voters to return ballots,” and other Get Out the Vote efforts.
• The election integrity group True the Vote said Philadelphia was the worst offender it witnessed when investigating the widespread ballot trafficking scheme operating across multiple Swing States in 2020. They identified 1,155 ballot traffickers who each visited at least 10 drop boxes and five non-governmental organizations. Some ballot traffickers made hundreds of trips to drop boxes.
ARIZONA
JUST IN – President Trump Releases Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States
ARIZONA🚨
• Arizona was called by a margin of 10,457 votes. • Maricopa County accepted 20,500 mail-in ballots after Election Day 2020, including 18,000 – more… pic.twitter.com/wf0JrcqV6C
• Arizona was called by a margin of 10,457 votes. • Maricopa County accepted 20,500 mail-in ballots after Election Day 2020, including 18,000 – more than the entire election margin – on Nov. 4 picked up from the U.S. Postal Service. By law, ballots must be received no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day, which was Nov. 3.
• “The 20,000 ballots recorded as incoming from the USPS on and after November 4 were of sufficient quantity to change the result of the 2020 General Election in Arizona,” according to Verity Vote.
• The findings were based on Maricopa County’s official Elections Department records, which were withheld from a public records request for nearly seven months. The records showed 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4; 1,000 received on Nov. 5; and 1,500 received on Nov. 6.
• The 18,000 mail-in ballots received on Nov. 4 and subsequently counted represented a significant spike in ballots received, higher than every single day total since Oct. 29, 2020. The receipt of mail-in ballots had steadily declined from 14,500 ballots on Oct. 29 to 10,500 on Oct. 30; 6,000 on Oct. 31; 1,500 on Nov. 1; 1,000 on Nov. 2; and 2,500 on Nov. 3.
• In the 2020 General Election, 420,987 ballots failed signature verification standards, “thus the election was openly vulnerable to fraud,” according to an ongoing analysis conducted by We the People Arizona Alliance and presented to the state legislature.
• The initial analysis of 380,976 ballots, using official state records and official signature verification training techniques, identified 181,378 ballots that should not have been counted, or nearly half of all reviewed.
• This includes: 1,870 blank envelopes, some of which were approved on Nov. 5 and Nov. 8; 542 with a signature other than the voter; 2,104 scribbles; 128 duplicate voters processed; 48,117 unreasonably different control signatures; 1,875 where the signature did not match until after the election; 36,034 control signatures that do not match the voter; 4,433 unusable control signatures; 47,366 that failed Secretary of State standards; and 38,909 egregious signature mismatches, where not one point of a signature matched any on file.
• In the case of the 1,875 votes, the ballot envelopes did not have a signature match on Election Day, but “matching” signatures were later put on file for the voter on either Jan. 28, 2021, Feb. 3, 2021, or Feb. 8, 2021. There were 783 signatures digitally inserted on Feb. 3, 2021 alone.
• Since the findings were presented to the Arizona State Legislature, the number of egregious mismatches found has increased to 76,354, over seven times the election margin. This is an error rate of 9.30 percent of ballot envelopes reviewed.
• Throughout the signature verification analysis, which remains ongoing, analysts have consistently found 20 percent do not meet the Secretary of State’s standards, and 9 percent are egregious violations. Extrapolated to all 1.9 million mail-in ballots in 2020, 176,700 ballots “should have been rejected for improper signature verification due to egregious signature mismatches.”
• Maricopa County has no documented chain of custody for 740,000 ballots from the 2020 Election.
• Out of the 923,000 early vote ballots accepted at vote centers or drop boxes, only 183,406 ballots are accounted for on ballot transport forms. More than 80 percent of the ballot transport forms have no ballot counts.
• Without proper documentation of how many votes were cast at the time they were cast, it is impossible to verify the origin and true total of ballots in a given election. “Without this count, there is no way to determine if the transport staff retrieved one ballot or one thousand ballots,” according to Verity Vote. “Keeping a proper chain of custody is more than a best practice – it is essential to encouraging trust in our democracy,” according to the Election Assistance Commission.
• Of the 1,895 early vote ballot transport forms, 48 did not have the required two witness signatures attesting to the ballot transfer, including some with no witness signatures at all. “As a result, the public is not assured that both parties witnessed the transfer of ballots,” as required.
• Millions of files of 2020 General Election data and security logs were deleted from the Elections Management Server and purged on critical days, including the day before the Arizona audit of the 2020 Election began on Feb. 2, 2021.
• The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors admitted they purged the system and moved election data after they received a subpoena, in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives.
• Two precincts in Pima County had over 100 percent turnout for mail-in ballots, and 40 precincts had over 97 percent returned.
• The national mail-in ballot return rate was 71 percent, but in Pima County the mail-in ballot return rate was 15 percent higher, and 19 percent higher than all the counties combined in the entire state of Arizona. One precinct with 99.5 percent mail-in turnout had 9,812 ballots counted. Another precinct with 100.6 percent turnout had 2,182 ballots returned, but only 2,170 mail-ins were ever sent. These two precincts total 11,994 ballots, which alone is more than the margin needed to alter the outcome of the Presidential Election.
• In all, there were 264,000 votes from precincts in Pima County with over 92 percent turnout for mail-in ballots.
• Significant anomalies were discovered for mail-in ballot returns in Pima County. In precincts with anomalous high turnout of over 92 percent in Pima County, mail-in ballots started flipping from 6 percent Republican for Biden to 40 percent of Republicans voting for Biden.
• The election integrity group True the Vote identified more than 202 ballot traffickers in Maricopa County who made 4,282 individual drop box visits during the 2020 General Election.
• Two individuals were charged and plead guilty for ballot harvesting in Yuma County, Arizona during the 2020 primary election.
• A computer scientist testified that an algorithm similar to what is used in cruise control or self-driving cars was present affecting the early votes in Pima and Maricopa counties in the 2020 General Election, with the ability to “reach and maintain a predetermined setpoint (outcome) despite unplanned disturbances.”
• Walter C. Daugherity, a senior lecturer emeritus in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University who developed courses in artificial intelligence, expert systems, programming and software design, analyzed the Cast Vote Records, finding, “ballots in Maricopa County and Pima County were artificially processed through the tabulators tracking a ProportionalIntegral-Derivative (PID) type control function in a closed-loop feedback system.”
• Daugherity, who has received over $2.8 million in grant funding and was previously consulted as a computer expert by the New York Times, Washington Post, IBM Federal Systems Division, the Texas Department of Agriculture, U.S. Customs Service, as well as classified work, discovered “significant and systematic decline in the cumulative ratio as counting progresses,” in the early mail-in and in-person votes for the Presidential Election results in Maricopa County and Pima County.
• For example, the “first block of ballots being 75 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 74 [percent] for a candidate, the next block of ballots being 73 [percent] for a candidate, and so on, systematically declining all the way to Election Day.”
• Daugherity’s expert opinion is that the downward sloping line in the sequence that votes were recorded indicated a strong control. The cumulative ratio of Biden to Trump votes for all cast vote records before Election Day in recorded order for Pima County declines from over 300 percent to 157 percent by Election Day.
• “Such a uniform and predictable pattern is so statistically implausible that it would not occur without artificial manipulation,” according to Daugherity. The data’s lack of independence cannot be explained by the preference of Democrats voting earlier than Republicans.
MICHIGAN
JUST IN – President Trump Releases Summary of Election Fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election in the Swing States
MICHIGAN🚨
• Michigan was called by 154,188 votes.
• A record 5,579,317 votes were cast and certified in Michigan in the 2020 General Election, the highest… pic.twitter.com/atOCKOpyEq
• A record 5,579,317 votes were cast and certified in Michigan in the 2020 General Election, the highest turnout in 60 years. To date, Michigan has never shown 5,579,317 voters listed for the 2020 Election in its Qualified Voter File, the state’s database for all voter registration records.
• As of December 2023, Michigan has 271,566 more votes than the number of voters listed in its Qualified Voter File for Nov. 3, 2020, more than one and a half times the Election margin.
• In data obtained from the Secretary of State’s office on nearly a monthly basis since the Election, the most voters ever recorded in the Qualified Voter File was 5,511,303 voters in April 2021. This means Michigan’s own election records showed 68,014 more votes than voters. However, the number of voters listed in the Qualified Voter File has been in flux ever since December 2020, and always short of the voters needed to reconcile the total votes cast. A complete list of voters from 2020 has never been provided.
• The number of voter IDs listed as voting in 2020 has steadily declined since February 2022. As of December 2023, there was a total of 5,307,751 voters listed as voting on Nov. 3, 2020 in the Qualified Voter File. Voter history files continue to be removed from the record, resulting in 271,566 less vote history records than necessary to reconcile the results.
• Each month voter histories from the 2020 Election are being manipulated. Thousands of unique votes are removed from the voter history files, and other unique votes added. Since December 2020, 270,559 voter histories for 2020 have been removed, while 103,128 have been added.
• Individual voter histories are constantly changing, including the history of the state’s Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer, whose voting history is missing votes throughout 2020.
• A complete list of voters was requested via a Freedom of Information Act request in December 2021 and took nine months for the state to fulfill. Two datasets were provided, and neither matched. The first dataset fell 22,146 voters short, while the second dataset was 120,883 absentee ballots short.
• Democrats threatened Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers and doxxed children in order to certify the 2020 results. Monica Palmer, then the chair of the Wayne County Board of Supervisors, cited the fact that 70 percent of Detroit’s mail-in ballot counts were still “out of balance and unexplained” from the August primary as a reason why she initially voted against certifying the 2020 Election results. Palmer was “bullied and threatened” and “feared for her safety” due to threats she received for voting no. A Democrat Michigan State representative-elect attacked Palmer over her certification vote, and revealed where her children went to school, saying, “I want you to think about what that means for your kids.”
• Officials in Detroit illegally blocked Republican poll challengers’ access, covered the windows, called the cops, and denied lawful challenges in order to count ballots in secret.
• Affidavits and video evidence revealed thousands of ballots were delivered through a back door of the TCF center, the central counting facility in Detroit, at 3:30 a.m. on Election night.
• A report seeking to “debunk” issues of fraud released by the Michigan State Senate Oversight Committee confirmed a “large volume” of ballots were delivered to the TCF center with no chain of custody in the middle of the night.
• An estimated 289,866 absentee ballots were identified as sent to people who never requested them, “something that would be illegal,” according to the senate committee.
• Mark Zuckerberg gave Michigan $16.8 million through his nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life.
• Detroit received $7.4 million to “dramatically” expand the vote for Democrats. The grants financed drop boxes “to facilitate the return of absentee ballots,” like the ones that came in the TCF center after midnight.
• The election integrity group True the Vote uncovered the same pattern of widespread ballot trafficking between NGOs and ballot drop boxes in Michigan. Numerous instances of ballot stuffing were caught on camera in Detroit, including video where a woman can be seen going to a drop box, and abruptly returning to her car after realizing the stack had no signatures. The woman then signs the ballots, and deposits the illicit ballots she had just signed into the drop box.
• Secretary Jocelyn Benson made unlawful changes to signature verification rules for absentee ballots, ordering election workers to presume all were legitimate. A judge ruled Benson’s order was invalid, but not until months following the election, and just 0.1 percent of mail-in ballots were rejected in the November 2020 Election for all signature issues. The rejection rate for mismatching signatures was just 0.04 percent, as only 1,400 out of 3.4 million ballots were rejected.
• Secretary Benson has lost in court six times for issues related to the 2020 Election.
• A fraudulent voter registration scheme was discovered in October 2020 and documented in a police report in Muskegon County and hidden for nearly 3 years after the 2020 Election.
• A city clerk in Muskegon witnessed a woman drop off between 8,000 and 10,000 voter registrations at the clerk office on Oct. 8, 2020, many appearing to be fraudulent. The incident was reported it to the Muskegon Police Department one week later. Eight thousand new voter registrations in Muskegon would amount to over 20 percent of the city’s population of only 38,000 residents.
• An ensuing investigation confirmed thousands of voter registrations in the same handwriting and many invalid or non-existent addresses. The suspect told Michigan State Police that she was being paid $1,150 per week to “find unregistered voters and provide them with a form so they can get registered to vote or obtain their absentee ballot.” The police found “dozens of new phones” and “hundreds of pre-paid payment cards” during the investigation.
• A Department of State analyst consulted in the investigation confirmed a quantity of voter applications were “clearly fraudulent” and others were “highly suspicious having either erroneous or are missing key pieces of information.” Others appeared to be legitimate.
• The organization behind the scheme was GBI Strategies, a firm hired by numerous Democrat campaigns. GBI Strategies was funded by a super PAC called “Black PAC,” which paid the firm $11,254,919 to register voters for Joe Biden in 2020. Employees of GBI Strategies were paid $15 an hour or $120 a day, according to the police report.
• GBI Strategies was believed to be operating not just in Muskegon, but throughout Michigan and in other Swing States.
• Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office contacted the Muskegon Police Department and asked Michigan State Police to assist with a joint investigation. The Michigan police then turned their investigation over to the FBI.
• Andrew Kloster, deputy general counsel at the United States Office of Personnel Management during the Trump Administration, said he was made aware of the investigation into GBI Strategies before the 2020 Election and attempted to raise the issue for further investigation. He was informed there were “standing orders not to deal with election matters” in the offices of the White House counsel office and Attorney General Bill Barr.
• The investigation was not made public until 2023, after the police reports were obtained through a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request.
Somebody asked me whether what progressives are trying to accomplish with their social programs was communism. No. Corporatism. Totalitarian monopoly capitalism. It’s the new fascism. Corporatism = corporate power + administrative state + technocratic apparatus + public unions.
The hi-tech surveillance state (AI generated)
In my last essay I talked about the custodial state of the inner-city neighborhood of America. Managing the redundant black population is the long-standing pilot program. Democrats have created a strata that votes for a living (instead of works for a living) and knitted together a rainbow coalition conditioned to hate whites and the West. That’s the political/social angle of mass migration and multiculturalism.
It’s the way the monarch manages the tribes. It’s a Third World wet dream.
Next pieces to emplace: digital currency, social credit scheme, universal basic income. Make people dependent on government. You will own nothing and be happy. The executives will use your living room for meetings. Better keep it clean. You know the thing.
It’s a neo-feudalism model. The working class will become the new serfs managed by a hi-tech custodial/surveillance state apparatus. It will have some appearance of state socialism; but instead of an administrative elite, the ultimate source of power and control will be transnational corporate class (TNCs) and big finance.
What are progressive Democrats trying to accomplish by depolicing crime-ridden inner cities? This policy has resulted in, or is at least associated with, the deaths of thousands of blacks, disproportionately young men (see the work of Roland Fryer and Rafael Mangual). Such casualties are preventable when there are adequate police force levels in high-risk communities. What is the actual goal of what Randall Kennedy called “racially selective underprotection” in his 1997 Race, Crime, and the Law when deliberately practiced in these neighborhoods?
An American ghetto
What are progressives trying to accomplish when they remove standards in college admissions and employment opportunities? What is the goal of recruiting individuals on the basis of their skin color instead of on the basis of their accomplishments and talents? What do you think progressive Democrats are trying to accomplish by establishing a custodial state in which around 80 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and in poverty, two of the major factors in the relative lack of merit and talent in this demographic? Why would progressive Democrats create and perpetuate the criminogenic conditions that result in the grim reality that five percent of the population perpetrates more than half of the homicides and robberies in America?
What do you think progressive Democrats are trying to accomplish by opening the southern border and inviting millions of mostly young military-age men to cross over, and then busing and flying them to cities all over the country, setting them up with room-and-board? And what of the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children authorities have lost track of? Why do Democrats want to extend the franchise to those who enter the country illegally or overstay their visas? Do progressive Democrats really want cheap foreign labor to drive down the wages for the workers they claim to represent? Of course they do. They want this and all the rest of it. Yet, according to exist polls, 87 percent of black Americans voted for Joe Biden in 2020.
For most of my life I labored under the false belief that, of the two major political parties, the Democrats were better for blacks than were the Republicans. This was because I was born into a Democrat family, and the career path I chose, the academic path, was a path of structured reinforcement in partisan attitude. I awakened in steps—not nearly as fast as I should have—to see that the corporate state progressives have sought since the late-nineteenth century, and institutionalized in the 1930s, was assembled from the remnants of the slaveocracy the Democratic Party had represented before and during the Civil War. This was the same party that maintained the urban ghettos and established the custodial arrangements there that oversee millions of warehoused and redundant workers, now disproportionately black and brown, the promise of melting pot upended by Kallen’s salad bowl.
Progressives go one about racist Republicans, but Republicans don’t run the inner-city neighborhoods where black men kill each other on a daily basis. Conservatives aren’t responsible for the conditions that give rise to such pathologies. Indeed, their communities remain orderly and safe. While it is true that I only voted for a Democrat for president twice in the past thirty years, I had for much longer than this enjoyed conditions largely governed by Republican politicians without supporting that party at all.
Reflecting on my political choices, I seek a political party that will stop spending money on forever wars, secure the southern border and deport those who illegally enter the country, oppose multiculturalism and promote colorblind individualism (equality before the law), abolish policies and programs rooted in identitarian politics, end government surveillance of citizens, stop interfering with the people’s rights to free conscience, speech, assembly, and association, safeguard children from unscrupulous doctors and those who seek to indoctrinate them, defend and preserve women’s spaces and sex-based rights, defend the right of the people to be armed and to defend their persons and property, secure elections in which only citizens vote, deconstruct the permanent political class (the administrative state), dismantle the technocratic (regulatory) apparatus, and restore in the federal government the balance of powers identified in the Constitution.
The Republican Party is far from perfect, and the establishment—the donor and permanent political classes—remains a powerful force in party politics, but the party is changing in the right direction, especially in the House. However, no political party could be more antithetical to the political wants I have identified above than the Democratic Party. Whomever I vote for in 2024, it won’t be a Democrat. A big reason for this is because black lives matter. Not as a slogan. As a moral imperative.
freedom and reason 