corruption

Newt Gingrich Mentions George Soros, Fox News Hosts Demand He Shutup

Definitely nothing suspicious about this:

Newt: “Look, the #1 problem in almost all these cities is George Soros-elected, leftwing, anti-police, pro-criminal district attorneys who refuse to keep people locked up. Just yesterday, they put someone back on the street who was wanted for two different murders in New York City. You cannot solve this problem–and both Harris and Bidenhave talked very proudly about what they call ‘progressive district attorneys.’ Progressive district attorneys are anti-police, pro-criminal and overwhelmingly elected with George Soros’ money, and they’re a major cause of the violence we’re seeing, because they keep putting the criminals back on the street.”

Deep manly-voiced bossy woman Fox News anchor (off-camera): “I’m not sure we need to bring George Soros into this.”

Newt: “Well he paid for it. Why can’t we discuss the fact that millions of dollars–“

Shrill, smirking, corporate HR Nazi-esque woman: “No he didn’t. I agree with Melissa, George Soros doesn’t need to be a part of this conversation.”

Newt: “….Okay…? So it’s verboten…?”

*long, awkward silence*

*end of segment*

***

What the hell just happened here? These women just completely shut Newt down after he mentioned George Soros.

At least we now have confirmation that Fox News is compromised.

Newt Gingrich is 100% correct, which is why they had to silence him here.

Just days ago, Newt tweeted this out:

Because he’s funding all of them. And if they don’t immediately silence anyone who mentions his name, they run the risk of losing that funding.

Why is all this rioting and looting happening? Why is Antifa running free in major cities? Why isn’t anybody doing anything about this?

It’s not like we don’t have the ability to get this under control. We’re not like Mexico where our law enforcement simply cannot compete with the criminals, and therefore the criminals run a large part of the country.

Our police are perfectly capable of getting this under control. But they do not. And these criminals run free.

It’s because someone is telling the police to stand down, and someone is letting these criminals out of jail.

Soros has been buying off big city DAs for years now.

This article in the Washington Free Beacon is from November, 2017, and it is entitled “George Soros Continues to Quietly Pile Up Wins in District Attorney Races“. It’s about how Soros bought the Philadelphia DA:

Liberal billionaire George Soros has quietly flooded cash into local district attorney races across numerous states in recent years, notching yet another victory Tuesday in Philadelphia.

Larry Krasner, a progressive defense attorney who has joked that he built a career that made him “completely unelectable,” made his way out of a crowded Democratic field of eight candidates before defeating Republican prosecutor Beth Grossman by more than 40 percentage points in Tuesday’s district attorney election in Philadelphia.

Krasner, who has represented Occupy Philadelphia and Black Lives Matter, and has sued the police department more than 75 times, had a major fundraising advantage that was provided almost exclusively by Soros, who has made it a mission to fund district attorney races throughout the country and has notched victories along the way.

The Soros operation is the same in nearly every city: The financier will establish political action committees, pour money into local races, then turn around and shut them down once the election is over.

On April 28, Soros initially cut a $1,450,000 check to the Philadelphia Justice and Public Safety PAC, a super PAC that was established with the sole intent of backing Krasner. The PAC lists its address as the Perkins Coie law office, a Washington, D.C.-based powerhouse law firm that represents a number of Democratic politicians, committees, and interests. Whitney Tymas, who has been involved with a number of Soros PACs, is the operator of the Philadelphia Justice & Public Safety PAC.

Soros gave $214,000 more to the PAC on May 23, bringing the total amount in support of Krasner to $1.7 million, an unusual high for the average district attorney race. This was the first time a PAC had supported a candidate for district attorney in the city.

City DA races never see this type of money spent. Not even in big cities like Philadelphia.

Soros has been doing this all over the country for years now. This POLITICO article is from August, 2016:

The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.

His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

How noble.

Soros has spent on district attorney campaigns in Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas through a network of state-level super PACs and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each named a variation on “Safety and Justice.” (Soros has also funded a federal super PAC with the same name.) Each organization received most of its money directly from Soros, according to public state and federal financial records, though some groups also got donations from nonprofits like the Civic Participation Action Fund, which gave to the Safety and Justice group in Illinois.

After the Louisiana and Mississippi races, Soros next piled money into two of the biggest jurisdictions in the country: Houston’s Harris County (his lone losing effort so far) and Chicago’s Cook County, where he funded one of several groups that helped Kim Foxx defeat incumbent state’s attorney Anita Alvarez in a high-profile primary campaign dominated by the 13-month delay between the police shooting of Laquan McDonald and the indictment of the police officer involved.

As if the “13 month delay” is supposed to be inherently a bad thing? Were they supposed to send the officers to prison for life without a fair trial? Actually, that’s a rhetorical question. The left would probably answer yes.

Kim Foxx, you probably remember, was the Chicago DA who let Jussie Smollett off the hook.

While Soros has spent heavily in 2015 and 2016, a broader national push into local prosecutor campaigns is expected to intensify in the next few years, thanks to longer-term planning and candidate recruitment. A Safety and Justice group has already organized in Ohio, according to campaign finance filings there. But it has not yet disclosed raising or spending any money.

And intensify it has. What you’re seeing now in 2020 is the payoff–this was the end-goal of Soros’ plan to “overhaul” the “justice” systems of big cities in the US.

The St. Louis prosecutor who threw the book at the McCloskeys? Soros-funded:

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who was boosted by Soros in her campaign, drew controversy when she announced her office was bringing felony charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who brandished guns outside their home as protesters marched by in June.

Wonder why San Francisco is out of control? Soros-funded DA:

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin, another beneficiary of Soros-tied contributions, recently defended the movement to defund police. In a discussion with Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., earlier in July, Boudin questioned whether money going to police was “the most effective” use of taxpayer dollars.

Soros is behind all of it:

In a Washington Post op-ed he co-wrote with Baltimore DA Marilyn Mosby, [Philadelphia DA Jerry] Krasner threatened to have federal officers arrested and charged if they overstep their authority in his jurisdiction, after officers in Portland were accused of using excessive force.

Should Trump send federal agents who engage in the same illegal vigilante activities, unlawfully assaulting and kidnapping people, they will face criminal charges from our offices,” Krasner and Mosby said.

In Contra Costa County, Calif., District Attorney Diana Becton – also backed by Soros – changed how her office handles police shooting cases, removing deputy district attorney Barry Grove from his role as the main prosecutor in such cases, switching to a team approach, according to the Mercury News.

Becton also announced earlier this month that she was filing hate crime charges against Nichole Anderson and David Nelson, White people who were allegedly caught painting over a Black Lives Matter mural.

This is the end-result of Soros’ efforts. It goes on and on.

US Attorney General William Barr raised the alarm on Soros-funded DAs back in December of last year:

“There’s this recent development [where] George Soros has been coming in, in largely Democratic primaries where there has not been much voter turnout and putting in a lot of money to elect people who are not very supportive of law enforcement and don’t view the office as bringing to trial and prosecuting criminals but pursuing other social agendas,” Barr told Martha MacCallum. “They have started to win in a number of cities and they have, in my view, not given the proper support to the police.”

Last month, two Virginia prosecutorial candidates ousted incumbents in local Democratic primaries — after Soros’ Justice and Public Safety PAC poured nearly a million dollars into their campaigns.

He backed Parisa Dehghani-Tafti to beat Arlington County Commonwealth’s Attorney Theo Stamos, and supported former Justice Department employee Steve Descano in his race against Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond Morrogh. Campaign finance reports show Dehghani-Tafti received $583,000 and Descano received $392,000 just from that PAC. Meanwhile, Stamos and Morrogh raised $162,000 and $242,000, respectively, for their entire campaigns.

The money gave Tafti and Descano a significant financial advantage over the incumbents, despite their lack of experience. The Washington Post reported that while the two challengers have never prosecuted a case in a state court, they beat candidates with more than 60 years of experience between them.

It’s all starting to make sense now.

Most normal Americans have got to be wondering right now, “Man, how and why did things suddenly get so bad in so many of these major cities?”

Soros is the why and the how.

But apparently you’re not allowed to mention that on Fox News, which is funny because most of the articles I cited in this post were from Fox News’ website.

Don’t Expect the Media to Call the Election on Election Night

The media will not declare a winner on election night. I can almost guarantee that. Well, unless Biden wins on election night. Then it’ll be a wrap, a done deal, and any talk of waiting for mail-in ballots to be counted will be treated as “rejecting the results of the election,” “undermining the democratic process,” etc. etc.

If Trump is winning and declares victory, the media will point out that Biden refuses to concede, and since Biden is a Democrat, the media will portray Biden as reasonable and in the right. The media always takes the Democrats’ side no matter what, as you and I know.

You can get away with just about anything if the media has your back.

The media will not be treating the results like they normally do. They will not be saying “with 87% reporting in Michigan, we are projecting Donald Trump the winner” etc. They will portray election night as merely the beginning of the vote counting process. They’ll get viewers in the mindset that things will not be settled that night, even if Trump is up big.

The media and the Democrats will be working together. They’ve got a plan for how election night is going to go down, and they foreshadowed it yesterday with the “Red Mirage” stuff about how it’s going to appear Trump won big on election night, but then in the week following the election, mail-in ballots will slowly trickle in and pull Biden ahead of Trump. They will wait to see how many votes Biden needs in the key swing states, then they’ll get to work “counting” the mail-in votes. Their whole scheme to steal this election hinges on mail-in ballots, which are rife with potential for fraud.

For instance, how can election officials prevent people from voting twice? If I send in a mail-in ballot to one precinct, then vote in person on election day at another precinct, how are they going to catch the duplicate vote?

Former Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R) brought up this question in early August. An AP News article entitled “Elections official refutes claim that people can vote twice” actually provided few reassurances that there are safeguards in place to prevent people from voting twice, other than “it’s a felony to do so,” so obviously that settles it.

Here’s a few excerpts from the article:

Heller said that among his concerns was someone casting a vote by mail and then showing up at the polls to cast a ballot. Heller said he asked Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske what would happen if someone voted twice.

“I said, ‘That’s a felony. It has been for decades. What happens then?’ She says ‘Nothing,’” he said.

“We have an attorney general that won’t prosecute it,” Heller went on. “We had a former attorney general that was a Republican that refused to prosecute. So you can vote more than once.”

Cegavske’s office did not respond to questions about her conversation with Heller, but Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Wayne Thorley said, “Nevada has many protections in place to ensure elections are fair and accurate, including safeguards that ensure no voter is allowed to cast more than one ballot in any given election.”

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford’s office said it “takes allegations of voter fraud extremely seriously” and “while voter fraud is rare, it undermines trust in our election system.”

What exactly are those “safeguards”?

Voters who are mailed a ballot in Nevada can only vote in person after they physically surrender their mailed ballot or sign an affirmation under penalty of perjury stating that they have not already voted, Thorley said.

This would seem to be a sensible solution: if you’re coming to vote in person on election day, then you have to bring your mail-in ballot that was mailed out to you prior to election day. No ifs, ands or buts. If a person shows up to the polls on election day and doesn’t have their mail-in ballot, sorry, take a hike.

But then there’s that exception to the rule: “or sign an affirmation under penalty of perjury that they have not already voted.” It’s that big “or” that’s the problem.

How will they know if you’ve already voted by mail? There would have to be a central vote-counting location where all the votes in the state are counted, and where names are recorded. It has to be digitized with all voters’ names crossed off the list after their ballots are counted, that way the system can throw out duplicate ballots.

And does anyone have any confidence that Democratic prosecutors will prosecute people who try to vote for Democrats more than once? Given this plus the backdoor option of “signing an affirmation under penalty of perjury that they have not already voted,” it’s hard to have a lot of confidence in states’ abilities to prevent double voting.

In 2017, the Government Accountability Institute (“GAI,” lol) conducted a study on duplicate voting in the 2016 election and found 7,271 instances of inter-state duplicate voting (meaning someone who voted in two states) and 1,200 instances of intra-state duplicate voting (meaning someone voted twice in the same state). Since the GAI was only granted access to voter rolls in 21 states, they extrapolated the figures out to the whole country and estimated they would have uncovered around 45,000 cases of duplicate voting, both inter- and intra-state combined.

45,000 fraudulent votes would not quite have been enough to swing the 2016 election, but it would have been damn close, as it was decided by just 79,646 votes between Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (10,704 in MI, 46,745 in PA, and 22,177 in WI).

But the 2016 election also didn’t have anywhere near the number of mail-in ballots we’re going to see this November. In fact, no election has ever had the number of mail-in votes we’re about to see this November. Most states are mailing out ballots to every single registered voter on their rolls for this election. This has never happened before.

The problem with this is that most states don’t have up-to-date voter rolls. That GAI study noted that there are tens of millions of improperly registered voters:

In 2012, Pew Research found 24 million (one in eight) voter registrations were either invalid or significantly inaccurate. About 1.8 million deceased voters were discovered on state voter rolls, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. These findings alone do not equate to voter fraud, but show a system rife with error and vulnerability

24 million incorrect voter registrations. That was from 2012, so hopefully those incorrect voter registrations have been purged from the rolls. But since 2012 there have no doubt been more deceased voters kept on the voter rolls, as well as people who have moved. This stuff has to be continually cleaned up, yet we have no assurances that it has been even as states prepare to mail out ballots to every last registered voter on their rolls.

As I read more of the GAI study, they detailed the system they used to detect duplicate voters:

GAI partnered with Simpatico Software Systems and Virtual DBS, Inc.to perform the state-to-state voter roll comparisons and duplicate voting matches. Simpatico is a U.S.-based company specializing in large-scale database analytics. Among other projects, it works with state governments by applying waste and fraud analyses to health and human services programs to achieve program integrity and taxpayer savings.

It’s great that they have technology to identify duplicate voters, but the million dollar question is, will this Simpatico software be used on election night this year and in the ensuing days to ensure there are no duplicate votes? The GAI used this software after the 2016 election was already in the books to retroactively search for voter fraud. I’m sure it helped to clean up voter rolls in preparation of 2020, but if this software or something like it is not being used during this election, it opens the door to widespread duplicate voting due to the massively increased numbers of mail-in ballots. This year it will be much easier than ever before to vote twice.

In 2016, the states didn’t mail out ballots to every last registered voter. This year, mail-in voting will be way up from 2016. The Florida primary, which was just a couple of weeks ago, saw over 2.1 million mail-in ballots compared to 1.3 million in 2016. However, in last month’s primary, there was no statewide race to boost turnout–i.e. Senator or Governor. Plus both the Democrat and Republican presidential nominations had already long been decided by the time last month’s Florida primary vote rolled around. In 2016, there was a Senate race and the Presidential nominations for both parties were still right in the thick of things, meaning turnout for 2020’s primary was lower than 2016’s–which in turn means we can expect a far greater number of mail-in ballots for November’s general election than the 2.1 million mail-in ballots filed for the August primary.

This GAI study was commissioned by President Trump in May 2017, not long after he took office. Thankfully Trump had the foresight back then to get to work cleaning up the voter rolls in preparation for the outrageous fraud Democrats were certain to be scheming up for 2020.

Unfortunately, however, the GAI study was only a study. We have no assurances that the instances of likely voter fraud identified by the study were ever addressed, since that’s up to the individual states. We have no assurances that the states followed the GAI study’s recommendations on cleaning up their voter rolls.

If the voter rolls are not meticulously kept up to date and accurate, then sending out mail-in ballots to everyone on the voter rolls becomes a massive opportunity for fraud. We could have not only duplicate voting but dead people voting, people voting on behalf of someone else who has moved, or “ballot harvesters” altering or destroying others’ ballots.

Ultimately we just have to hope the states can handle the mail-in voting process. Florida, for instance, mentioned in the Fox article above, has a great Republican governor who I’m sure Trump trusts to make sure there’s no funny business. You never know what kind of bullshit they’re going to pull down in Broward County–remember in 2018 that hilariously corrupt Democrat Brenda Snipes who was blatantly trying to steal the governor’s election from DeSantis and tilt it to the secretly homosexual meth-head Andrew Gillum? There’s still plenty of corrupt local Democratic officials to worry about in key states like Florida, but at least we have a Republican governor in office.

Not the case, however, for key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, unfortunately. On top of that, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Maine and Virginia all have Democratic governors as well.

As far as the main swing states go, it’s Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire and Georgia with Republicans in office. I hate that the election might boil down to which states have corrupt or legitimate governors, but that’s where the Democrats have gone as a party. You can trust them about as far as you can throw them.

I hope my worst fears about the 2020 election go unrealized. I hope the mail-in fraud and dirty tricks are mostly limited to deep-blue cesspools like California, New York and Illinois, which won’t really affect the election much since those states are going Biden either way. I hope Republicans in swing states are on the ball when it comes to having legal teams ready to file injunctions in case, for instance, any Broward Bullshit goes down again.

Rick Scott’s campaign in 2018 laid out the blueprint for putting a stop to the fraudulent schemes: they filed a lawsuit against Brenda Snipes because she did not disclose how many ballots there were left to be counted in the days following the election. Fortunately the law requires that number to be disclosed, at least in Florida. Republicans in all of the key swing states must be all over this, otherwise Democrats will keep “counting” ballots until they find enough to win.

Be prepared for the worst on election night. The media will almost certainly refuse to call the election for Trump even if he’s up big. They’ll claim there’s too many mail-in ballots left to be counted.

That’s when the real fun will begin.

Hmmm: CARES Act Paid Hospitals With COVID Patients Over $21 Billion, $77k per Patient

The government is “incentivizing” (i.e. bribing) hospitals to inflate their COVID patient numbers. It’s part of the CARES Act:

covidincentives.PNG

That first round of $12 billion to 400 hospitals comes out to $30 million per hospital, so long as the hospital reported 100 or more COVID patients.

How did they calculate that figure? They started with a baseline of nearly $77,000 per COVID patient and then just multiplied it by the number of patients:

EfPAQZwUwAAP5aZ

More reason not to trust the official case figures.

Chicago Tribune’s John Kass: George Soros Owns the Prosecutors in the Big Cities That Are in Chaos Right Now

I grew up in the Chicago area and my family subscribed to the Tribune for many years, so I’m familiar with John Kass of the Tribune, although I’m sure most people around the country are not. I don’t know if Kass describes himself as a conservative, but as far as Chicago journalists are concerned, he’s easily the most conservative and “right-wing” of them all. He is consistently the lone voice of reason against a leftwing echo chamber.

Well, now The Mob is trying to #Cancel him for asking the Wrong Questions about the big city lawlessness we’ve seen for the past two months:

“Columnist John Kass has defied “cancel culture” at the Chicago Tribune after members of the journalists’ union attacked him for criticizing left-wing billionaire George Soros and his backing of “progressive’ prosecutors across the country.

Last week, Kass wrote about “an overwhelming sense of lawlessness” in Democrat-run cities, and noted: “[T]hese Democratic cities are also where left-wing billionaire George Soros has spent millions of dollars to help elect liberal social justice warriors as prosecutors. He remakes the justice system in urban America, flying under the radar.”

The Chicago Tribune Guild, the union representing journalists at the paper, wrote a letter to the paper accusing Kass of promoting the “odious, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that billionaire George Soros is a puppet master controlling America’s big cities” and demanded that he, and the newspaper, apologize’

The paper demoted Kass from his position as “lead columnist” on page 2and attempted to justify its actions by saying it was part of an overall reorganization.”

Who said anything about Jews? Anytime anyone criticizes Soros, his paid-off minions shriek “ANTI-SEMITISM!” even when nobody mentioned anything about Soros’ Judaism.

Kass addresses the slanders against him in a column published today:

“My July 22 column was titled “Something grows in the big cities run by Democrats: An overwhelming sense of lawlessness.” It explored the connections between soft-on-crime prosecutors and increases in violence along with the political donations of left-wing billionaire George Soros, who in several states has funded liberal candidates for prosecutor, including Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

Soros’ influence on these races is undeniable and has been widely reported. But in that column, I did not mention Soros’ ethnicity or religion.

You’d think that before wildly accusing someone of fomenting bigoted conspiracy theories, journalists on the union’s executive board would at least take the time to Google the words “Soros,” “funding” and “local prosecutors.”

As recently as February, the Sun Times pointed out roughly $2 million in Soros money flowing to Foxx in her primary election effort against more law-and-order candidates.”

Kim Foxx, of course, is woman responsible for letting Jussie Smollett off the hook.

“In August 2016, Politico outlined Soros’ money supporting local DA races and included the view from opponents and skeptics that if successful, these candidates would make communities “less safe.”

From the Wall Street Journal in November 2016: “Mr. Soros, a major backer of liberal causes, has contributed at least $3.8 million to political action committees supporting candidates for district attorney in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas and Wisconsin, according to campaign filings.”

The Huffington Post in May 2018 wrote about contributions from Soros and Super PACs to local prosecutor candidates who were less law-and-order than their opponents.

So, it seems that the general attitude in journalism is that super PACs and dark money are bad, unless of course, they’re operated by wealthy billionaires of the left. Then they’re praised and courted.

All of this is against the backdrop of an America divided into camps, between those who think they can freely speak their minds and those who know they can’t.”

Far from backing down, the Great John Kass doubles down. The Mob is used to easy victories, where its victims surrender at the first sign of trouble. Kass not doing that will probably cause the Mob to back-off.

Anytime Soros’ malfeasance gets exposed, he orders his minions to start hurling around the accusations of ANTI-SEMITISM!

Keep fighting the good fight, John Kass. The more vicious they are to you, the more of a threat they perceive you to be.

The worst thing you can do is bow to the mob. I know it’s easier said than done when your job is on the line, but the only way the mob can shame you is if you feel ashamed.

The Democratic Presidential Nomination Race is Being Rigged Before Our Eyes

Democracy is dying in darkness, but since there’s no way to blame Donald Trump for it, the media is uninterested.

As you probably know, Monday night’s Iowa Caucus (which kicked off the presidential primary season) was anything but ordinary. Usually on election night, early returns start coming in as early as 7-8pm CST. But not Monday night. On Iowa Caucus night, the nation waited and waited for the results to begin trickling out, but there was nothing. By 9pm and 0% of the vote reported, it was clear something was amiss in Iowa.

Then came the announcement at around 9:05pm:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.22.51 AM.png

“Out of an abundance of caution,” the Iowa State Democratic Party was undertaking “quality control” measures and would not be releasing the caucus results anytime soon. No time frame was given for when the results would be released to the public.

Immediately people began pointing out the obvious: they’re rigging it against Bernie, again.

The comments began pouring in in response to the MSNBC tweet:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.49.51 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.01 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.11 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.50.27 AM.png

By Tuesday morning, the #2 trending hashtag on Twitter was “#PeteTheCheat,” in reference to Pete Buttigieg, who bizarrely delivered a victory speech late Monday night despite 0% of the results having been reported:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.57.57 AM.png

Things had taken a turn: it wasn’t Biden for whom the Iowa Caucus was being rigged–it was Pete Buttigieg. How would he know to deliver a victory speech on Monday night despite 0% of the vote having been reported?

Well, that’s because there’s a strong possibility “Mayor Pete” was part of the reason the voting results weren’t available on Monday night. What made the 2020 Iowa Caucus different from all previous Iowa Caucuses was that this year, the Iowa State Democratic Party decided to use an app called “Shadow” to coordinate and calculate all the vote totals. It was this app “Shadow” that “failed” (many would say it succeeded, depending on your perspective) and threw everything into chaos.

It turns out that Buttigieg’s campaign gave thousands of dollars to Shadow:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.04.56 AM.png

I just want to add: why did they give the app such an obviously sinister name like “Shadow”? A movie villain wouldn’t even be this blatant about it.

At around 4pm on Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic Party announced that it had 62% of the votes counted and finally released the partial results. They showed Bernie and Buttigieg neck and neck for the lead, with Joe Biden a distant fourth behind those two and Elizabeth Warren.

Finally, on Thursday night, the full results of the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus were released:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.32.15 AM.png

The final results showed Buttigieg with a 0.1% margin of victory over Bernie Sanders. Keep in mind this result shows the percentage of delegates won. As far as the final popular vote went, Bernie was ahead of Buttigieg by several thousand. But it’s the delegates that actually matter.

This was quite a remarkable turn of events for Mayor Pete given that the final polls from Iowa in the run up to Caucus Day showed him far behind Bernie. The RCP average had him at around 16, with Bernie in the lead at 23%:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.13.11 AM.png

Only one polling outlet had Buttigieg in the lead prior to the vote, while the rest showed either big Bernie leads or decent Biden leads:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 12.14.10 AM.png

The fact that Buttigieg managed to make up so much ground over the course of a couple days is a testament to the scrappiness of his campaign and its exceptional get-out-the-vote efforts. And absolutely nothing else, okay?

Not only did Mayor Pete overcome what was by most accounts a sizable polling deficit just days before the Caucus vote took place, but last night he just so happened to be on-air at CNN when the news broke that he won on Thursday evening:

EQJJUVfWsAAh0dF.jpg

That Pete Buttigieg is one lucky fella, huh? It’s almost as if. . .

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.22.18 AM.png

Buttigieg’s surprising victory in Iowa has unsurprisingly boosted his polling numbers in New Hampshire, where he’s now in a virtual tie with Bernie for the lead according to freshly-released polling data:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 2.24.18 AM.png

The damage has been done. Bernie supporters are furious, and now Buttigieg is surging in the polls due to the momentum from winning Iowa. People like a winner, and so it should be no surprise that more and more people are climbing aboard the bandwagon.

Monday’s Iowa Caucus is now ancient history, despite some serious red flags being raised about its results–beyond just the Buttigieg-Shadow connection:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.29.47 AM.png

Even the New York Times admits that there are enough “errors” in the numbers that, given the slim margin of victory for Buttigieg, the results of the Iowa Caucus probably aren’t even accurate. There were dirty tricks aplenty:

Screen Shot 2020-02-07 at 1.30.09 AM.png

But these cries will fall on deaf ears, because though the voting tallies may have been wrong (meaning fraudulent), the Right Candidate won. So it’s on to New Hampshire.

Keep in mind, however, that winning the Iowa Caucus does not automatically make you the favorite to win the party nomination:

  • In 2016, Ted Cruz won Iowa on the Republican side. Hillary won Iowa on the Democratic side, but we all know the 2016 Dem primary was rigged (more on this in a bit).
  • In 2012, Rick Santorum beat out Mitt Romney by a mere 34 votes to win Iowa.
  • In 2008, Barack Obama famously won Iowa and gained a ton of momentum in the primary fight against Hillary. But on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee won Iowa with 34% of the vote while John McCain finished a distant fourth with just 13% of the vote.
  • In 2004, John Kerry won Iowa.
  • In 2000, George W. Bush won Iowa, as did Al Gore.

So in the five elections since and including 2000, between both parties, five times has the candidate that won Iowa gone on to win their party’s nomination: Hillary 2016, Obama 2008, Kerry 2004, and both Bush and Gore in 2000. Three times we’ve seen a party nominee fail to win Iowa: Trump 2016, Romney 2012 and McCain in 2008.

Actually, now that I look at it, it’s clear that winning Iowa is far more important on the Democratic side than it is on the Republican side. Every Democratic nominee since 2000 first won in Iowa, while only one Republican nominee since 2000 won Iowa (George W. Bush in 2000).

Why is this? I have no idea. Maybe it’s because the Democrats rig their primaries. Maybe it’s simply because the best candidate tends to win the most states, Iowa included. It could be any number of reasons.

But clearly the Democratic Party feels Iowa is important, as evidenced by the fact that they blatantly rigged the election against Bernie and in favor of Buttigieg.

My question is this: why has the Democratic Party Establishment kicked Joe Biden to the curb in favor of the 38-year-old homosexual mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana? Is he really their best hope of defeating Trump?

The obvious answer would be that Biden is unfit to run for President given his obviously deteriorated mental facilities. The guy is falling apart; half the time he doesn’t even know what day of the week it is. It’s not a stretch to say this is the reason the Democratic Party Establishment–which he himself is a part of, or perhaps was a part of–is bailing on him.

Speaking of Biden, his media hype has officially collided reality. For a while I’ve suspected his candidacy was not nearly as popular with the voters as the polling suggested. I think his polling success was based mainly on a combination of his name recognition relative to the other candidates, as well as outright rigging of the polls by the media outlets conducting them because Biden is the Establishment’s Choice.

I’ve never felt like Biden was the true front-runner in the Democratic race, either he was a placeholder or the pre-determined nominee. But he’s no longer the front-runner. Polling in New Hampshire–the next primary on the calendar–shows Biden projected for another fourth-place finish. He’ll probably win in South Carolina, but even that could be in doubt now. It would appear Biden is cooked.

The only reason I want to talk about Biden is in relation to Buttigieg, specifically how Buttigieg replaced Biden as the apparent Chosen One in the eyes of the Party Establishment.

There are rumors that Buttigieg is CIA: somehow, this small-town mayor from Indiana received the endorsement of over 200 “foreign policy and national security professionals,” including former CIA Deputy Director David Cohen among many other CIA, State Department, Pentagon and NSC officials from the Obama-era That’s odd.

And how did Buttigieg become so popular in the first place? Why is no one talking about how unprecedented it is that the mayor of a town in Indiana has suddenly built a national profile for himself and has become one of the front-runners to win the Democratic nomination for President? You don’t just do that all on your own; it can only be done by having friends in high places.

There’s something up with Buttigieg. I don’t know exactly what it is, but for some reason his candidacy has the blessing of people high up the chain. He would not be where he is today without the permission of high-ranking officials and their mouthpieces in the media. Buttigieg is backed by powerful forces.  He’s like an iceberg in that 90% of him is shrouded in mystery.

Something’s up.

***

Keep in mind that it is an indisputable fact that the DNC rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary Clinton and cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. Yes, it is a fact. A federal judge reviewing the case even admitted so in 2017:

“In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, “I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The Court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’”

The Court continued, “For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates ‘go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’ the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.”

But ultimately, it is only the DNC itself that can choose (or choose not) to hold itself to those “higher principles.” The Court cannot make the DNC be “impartial and evenhanded.” Thus you have the Court conceding that the DNC is entirely within its rights to rig its party primary for its favored candidate.

Basically you had the DNC’s lawyers arguing that the voting and the primary process itself is just for show. They’ll only let the voters’ votes count if they vote for the candidate the DNC wants to get the nomination. If the voters go off-script, well, tough: the DNC is under no obligation to honor their wishes. The DNC can simply pick its own nominee.

It’s an extraordinary admission for the DNC to make, but their backs were against the wall: the primary was rigged against Sanders and everybody knew it, and so the DNC was facing the prospect of having to repay millions and millions of dollars of objectively wasted campaign donations that went to Bernie. Their only option was to admit that yes, they had rigged the campaign, but hey: it’s our Party, we can rig our primary if we want. 

Of course, this incredible admission by the DNC was hardly reported in the mainstream media–the media was far too obsessed with propagating the Trump Russia Collusion Hoax. But the Federal Court ruling gave the DNC the green-light to rig every future election henceforth.

On Monday night, when the “quality control” news broke, it became clear that the Democratic Party was never again going to allow its elections to be decided by the voters. Every Democratic Party election from 2016 on will be rigged, and this is why Monday night unfolded as it did.

New York Times: Yes, the Deep State is “Alive and Well” and is Trying to “Bring Down Trump”

From outlandish rightwing conspiracy theory to confirmed by the New York Times:

But they obviously try to put a spin on it by saying it’s just Honest Public SERVANTS who are trying to save us from Trump.

They’re doing this for your own good, you ungrateful peasants! (Even though the header picture they chose for the article clearly has a dark and shadowy vibe to it.)

The most annoying part of this–besides them attempting to gang-rape 250 years of American democracy–is them trying to act like they’re the Good Guys the whole time.

I’m sorry but you cannot have it both ways. You can’t be executing an obvious anti-democratic coup to destroy a duly-elected President while also being the good guys.

Just own it, you slimy bastards. Own the fact that you are the bad guy, the tyrants, the sinister cabal.

Now, people might nitpick here and say that this is the opinion section of the New York Times, but come on: we all know the opinion section is just where they put the material they can’t publish in the “news” section because it’s too obviously partisan.

The Opinion section has the blessing of the Editors one way or another. We all know how this works.

The New York Times has confirmed the existence of the Deep State as well as the fact that it is actively trying to undo the result of the 2016 election–and, presumably, rig the result of the 2020 election.

Ukraine Story Shows Deep State Still Desperately Trying to Take Down Trump

You didn’t think they’d just give up after their Russian Collusion story went down in flames, did you?

Of course not. Anti-Trump (or more accurately, Anti-You) bureaucrats in the federal government, particularly the intelligence community, are still persisting in their efforts to overturn the result of the 2016 election nearly three years after the fact.

The latest attempt, which I discussed last week, has to do with Trump and a phone conversation he had with the President of Ukraine in late July.

Well, the real, actual scandal has to do with Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine, but the Democrats are focused on Trump’s attempts to investigate and expose Joe Biden’s corrupt dealings in Ukraine, and so that, rather than Biden’s blatant corruption, is what everyone’s talking about.

In other words, the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for making efforts to expose a crime and then elect the guy who committed the crime itself.

Yeah, I know.

As ridiculous and obviously made-up as this whole “story” may seem to you and I, the media’s obsessive coverage of it has helped it blow up to the point where a lot of “normies” out there are buzzing about “impeachment.” In my experiences over the past week or so, people whom I’ve never heard talk about politics prior to this were talking about “impeachment.” They have absolutely no idea why Trump is supposedly about to be run out of office, but they’re aware of the impeachment talk.

But while the conversation is mostly centered on Democrats’ calls for impeachment, it’s important to detail just how this fiasco came together, because it wasn’t an accident.

The media coverage, and Democrat Politicians’ public grandstanding, are only the end results of a deeper and very deliberate process that begins with the intelligence community, which remains vital in tee’ing up Democrat politicians’ calls for impeachment in the Trump Era. Just as with the intelligence community’s dirty tricks in concocting the Russiagate story.

Here’s the general outline: Intelligence community operatives feed phony stories about Trump to the media, the media amplifies the phony stories and dishonestly frames them to reflect as negatively as possible on Trump, and then the Democratic politicians take it from there.

The Ukraine story, for example, originated from a “whistleblower” in the CIA. A John Brennan acolyte, no doubt.

The incomparable Victor Davis Hanson summarizes the “whistleblower’s” account:

“In the complaint are all the now-familiar tell-tale signs of pseudo-exactness, in the form of Mueller-report-like footnotes and page references to liberal media outlets such as Bloomberg, ABC, and the New York Times. There is the accustomed Steele-dossier scare bullet points. We see again Comey-memo-like disputes over classification status with capital letters UNCLASSIFIED stamped as headers and footers and TOP SECRET lined out.

Scary references abound to the supposed laws that the legal-eagle whistleblower believes were violated. In sum, there is all the usual evidence of an administrative-state bureaucrat, likely to be some third-tier Brennan or Clapper-like intelligence operative, who is canvassing disgruntled White House staffers, writing a report that imitates intelligence-department formats, combing the Internet, in “dream-team” and “all-star” footnote fashion, for scare quotes and anti-Trump stories, and then likely having it dressed up in legalese by an activist lawyer. Take all that away, and one is left with “I heard.”

Personally, I have no interest in dissecting and analyzing the “complaint” form because to do so would only lend it legitimacy and solidify the perception that it ought to be taken seriously. If you want to read more about the nitty gritty details of the complaint, by all means check out other honest and MAGA-aligned sites as I’m sure there’s no shortage of high-quality point-by-point analyses and rebuttals. But in my view it’s completely unnecessary to do so with a story that should be dismissed out of hand and not taken seriously at all.

Because what, exactly, are we talking about here? What’s the crux of the issue?

It’s that Trump wants to investigate Biden’s corruption in the Ukraine, and Democrats are desperate to prevent that from happening. Biden’s crackhead son was somehow making $50k a month from a Ukrainian oil company, and when a government prosecutor there tried to investigate the obvious corruption going on, Vice President Biden himself personally intervened and threatened to withhold $1 billion of aid money to Ukraine until the prosecutor going after his son’s company was fired–which he was.

Do not be distracted by these ridiculous claims about Trump’s “abuse of power.” Investigating real, actual crimes is not an abuse of power, even if the crimes were committed by Democrats.

Beyond that, though, the origin of this “whistleblower report” is all the information you need to know not to believe a single word of it.

After all, this story comes from the CIA, an organization which specializes in overthrowing governments, spreading disinformation and conducting horrible human experiments like MK-Ultra. What, you think they wouldn’t do that stuff to us? Of course they would. John Brennan has made it perfectly clear that the CIA despises not only Donald Trump but the people who made Trump president. You think the CIA has any loyalty at all to the American people? Not a chance.

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: the entire intelligence community–not just the leadership but also the “rank and file” we’re constantly told is comprised of patriotic Americans who are sadly given a bad name by their corrupt superiors–is out of control. The IC–thousands of government bureaucrats whose names we’ve largely never heard and whom we never voted into power–decided nearly three years ago that America made the wrong choice in the 2016 election, and so they have been working tirelessly since then to overturn it.

When Chuck Schumer famously warned Trump in late 2016 that the IC has “six ways from Sunday to get back at you,” this Ukraine whistleblower story is exactly what he was talking about. As was the whole Russian Collusion Hoax we were caught up in for two-and-a-half years.

And so this is why in my view the simple fact that this “whistleblower” is from the CIA is more than enough reason to believe this whole story is fraudulent and malicious. Just scroll through former CIA Director John Brennan’s insane Twitter ravings and you’ll see why the CIA is never again to be trusted. That madman has wrecked the credibility of the whole department for a generation minimum. Comey has done the same for the FBI.

This “whistleblower” is the new Peter Strzok, or Christopher Steele, or Andrew McCabe–take your pick. The Ukraine “whistleblower” is the latest in a long line of formerly anonymous IC officials who are trying to overthrow the duly-elected President. When the identity of this “whistleblower” is finally revealed, his name will go down along with all the rest as another Deep State co-conspirator.

But here’s the best part of it all, the smoking gun which confims all this to be a giant scam: just last month, the intelligence community changed the rules regarding whistleblowers, removing the requirement that they have first-hand witnessing of wrongdoing. Sean Davis of The Federalist just reported this on Friday, and its significance can’t be overstated:

“Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

And then, lo and behold, a whistleblower without first-hand evidence, brings this completely fake Ukraine story to light.

Why suddenly change the rules so that anyone in government who so much as heads a rumor can be a “whistleblower” now, if not to make it easier to fabricate stories like this?

This anonymous CIA operative now considered a “whistleblower” wouldn’t have been able to qualify for that title a few months ago.

Seems awfully convenient. But of course the media will try to keep this quiet. The whistleblower’s credibility isn’t supposed to be the story, damnit!

As I wrote last week about the Ukraine story, this isn’t only the latest in a long line of desperate, impulsive attempts to Get The Orange Man–there’s more to it than that. A major part of it is ass-covering for Joe Biden: the political establishment must not allow Trump to investigate Biden’s crimes in Ukraine.

Trump-Ukraine Call Transcript Released: The Real Scandal is that the Bidens Were Up to No Good in Ukraine

The transcripts of Trump’s July 25 call with the new Ukrainian President have been released.

This all started when a few weeks ago, a “whistleblower” came forth and alleged that President Trump had engaged in a “quid-pro-quo” with the Ukrainian President in an attempt to launch an investigation into Joe Biden’s son’s shady dealings in Ukraine. It was even claimed that Trump threatened the Ukrainian President if he did not do as Trump asked.

We’ll get to everything, but first: The “quid pro quo” angle. I’m not going to say there’s no hint of a quid pro quo in the transcripts. Trump opens up the call by reminding the Ukrainian President how good the United States has been to Ukraine, and then later in the call asks for two favors, one pertaining to the Crowdstrike server, the next pertaining to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

Any requests Trump makes or favors he asks for should be viewed in the context of what he initially said about the US having been very good to Ukraine. Basically Trump is suggesting the Ukrainian President owes him one.

It’s a very general, nebulous “quid pro quo” but it can basically be summarized as “You know the United States has been a very good friend to Ukraine under my watch. Now would you please do me this favor. . .”

Of course, there’s nothing specified by Trump. It’s far less of a quid-pro-quo than Obama’s infamous “more flexibility” comment he made to former Russian President (aka figurehead) Dmitri Medvedyev in 2012. And there’s definitely not any “threat” to withhold foreign aid, or pressure being exerted.

What Trump said does not constitute any sort of pressuring or intimidation. It’s not like Trump said, “Hey, you better investigate Joe Biden and his crackhead son or else I’m gonna hang you out to dry.” There’s nothing like that.

But I don’t even care about whether there was any “quid pro quo” between Trump and the Ukrainian President. That’s not the real issue here.

The real issue here is what were the Bidens up to in Ukraine?

It was a pretty ingenious move by Trump to release the transcripts because of this relevant bit:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.23.27 AM.png

Trump: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. . . It sounds horrible to me.”

Any honest person reading the transcript should be far more alarmed to learn that Joe Biden’s crackhead son (who also slept with his deceased brother’s widow) was being prosecuted in Ukraine–and that Joe Biden himself stepped in to get him off the hook–than that Trump was trying to get the matter investigated.

I bet most people were unaware that Biden’s son was being prosecuted in the Ukraine. But now, after Trump released the transcripts, more people know.

This has been my view the whole time: the same Democrat politicians and media propagandists who have spent three years demanding politically-motivated investigations into Trump over made-up scandals are now #Outraged that Trump is trying to investigate their side?

And didn’t they employ a British spy named Christopher Steele to investigate Trump’s supposed corrupt dealings with Russia?

The same people now screeching “Abuse of power!” had no problem at all with the Hillary Campaign working hand-in-hand with the Obama intelligence community to investigate Donald Trump both during the 2016 election and over the first couple years of Trump’s presidency.

Obama’s actions against Trump in 2016 objectively constituted the greatest abuse of power in the history of our country. It’s not even up for debate. Using the intelligence community to spy on and undermine the Republican Presidential nominee over a made-up scandal during an election is unprecedented corruption, and Obama did it.

But beyond that, it all goes back to this question: “Investigate Biden for what, exactly?”

The blue checks are shrieking stuff like this:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.50.44 AM.png

Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps Joe Biden and his son did something wrong and need to be investigated?

No. In their minds, Democrats are completely above the law. Our “reporters” are totally uninterested in the question of whether the Bidens did anything wrong. In the spirit of the famous Nixon quote, the media’s mantra is “If a Democrat does it then it’s not illegal.”

So what, exactly, was Hunter Biden being prosecuted for? Rep. Jim Jordan summarizes:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.55.20 AM.png

So. . . . . let me get this straight: the Democrats are claiming President Trump abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor, but it was actually Joe Biden who abused his power to get the Ukrainians to do him a favor?

They really are unbelievable. I say this all the time but it always turns out to be true: whatever crimes they accuse our side of, it is they who will inevitably be found to be guilty of those very same crimes.

It wasn’t Trump strong-arming Ukraine for favors, it was Biden.

Here’s the Biden Scandal in more detail, via Fox News:

“In March 2016, then-Vice President Biden told Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko that the Eastern European nation would not get a $1 billion U.S. government loan guarantee unless it fired Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings — a natural gas extraction company whose board of directors included Hunter Biden, the veep’s son.

Shokin told The Hill’s John Solomon that plans for his probe “included interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.”

The bottom line: the media and the Democrats are worried about what will happen if the Bidens are investigated. This is an attempt to cover-up a potentially damaging scandal for Joe Biden, who much of the D.C. Establishment views as their best hope of getting Trump out of office in 2020 and getting the Globalists back in power in America.

This is very calculated. It’s not simply Trump Derangement Syndrome insanity and trying to get Trump impeached yet again.

They’re trying to squash any investigation into the Biden family. They know this could potentially blow up on them.

Biden knows it:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 11.56.19 AM.png

Just because they’re trying to make this into a Trump scandal, don’t be under the impression that they’re not totally aware of what the true scandal is here.

But, of course, the D.C. Establishment is collectively not very bright and unable to control its burning hatred for Trump, so this is likely to blow up in their faces: now more and more people are aware that Hunter Biden was being prosecuted in Ukraine.

No matter how much they try to avoid this part of the story and make it about Trump’s supposed “abuse of power,” they can’t.

If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not been so impulsively desperate for impeachment, then perhaps they could have prevented the American public from finding out that the Democrat frontrunner for President’s son was being prosecuted by the Ukrainian government.

 

Jeffery Epstein Found Dead in Cell of Apparent “Suicide”

That sound you hear is the global elite letting out a collective sigh of relief:

“Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who faced federal sex trafficking charges, died early Saturday in his New York jail cell in an apparent suicide, according to media reports.

ABC News and The New York Times quoted officials as saying that Epstein died in his Manhattan cell. ABC quoted three unidentified officials.

The Times, which said Epstein hanged himself, said his body was found at 7:30 a.m. Saturday, quoted unidentified officials.”

How wonderfully convenient for the Clintons and anyone else that was involved with him.

These people have the best luck!

I’m sure you’re all aware he had a failed suicide attempt a couple weeks back, which means he was placed on suicide watch, which in theory should have made it much more difficult for him to pull this off. But where there’s a will, there’s a way:

“It was not immediately clear how Epstein could have killed himself if he was under suicide watch after being found unconscious three week ago in his cell in Metropolitan Correctional Center. He had suffered injuries to his neck in what appeared to be a suicide attempt or jailhouse assault.”

This last line is important because we have a mainstream media outlet admitted that Epstein’s “failed suicide attempt” from a couple weeks ago may have been a “jailhouse assault,” aka a failed homicide attempt.

I would get ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist” for saying that, but now we have USA Today saying it. When the mainstream media says it, it’s not a conspiracy theory.

“It was not immediately clear how Epstein could have killed himself if he was under suicide watch. . .” Not immediately clear how? Unless you were born yesterday, I’m sure you can put two and two together here: it was an inside job.

When you’re on suicide watch, they take away your shoelaces, your belt, your bed sheets and anything you might be able to use to hang yourself. You’re under 24/7 monitoring. The whole point of suicide watch is that it becomes much more difficult to commit suicide.

And somehow he was able to pull it off anyway.

On July 26, economist Martin Armstrong predicted in the wake of Epstein’s failed “suicide attempt” that Epstein would never see a trial. Armstrong was right:

“Jeffrey Epstein was being housed in the “10 South” unit, commonly known as the “HOLE” which is a 24- hour lock-down where they also keep terrorists which is very strange just pending trial. This is not about Epstein but who he could implicate. It has been called America’s Gulag and the Guantánamo hid in New York City nobody is allowed to know about. It’s where America violates human rights all the time but keeps as its dirty little secret. MCC 10 South is where the government keeps federal inmates, including alleged terrorists, to cut them off from the world with no regular access to visits or telephones. The treatment in 10 South is the worst a human being can endure and it will drive many humans to choose suicide to indefinite imprisonment under such conditions.

Most suicides in MCC take place where Epstein is being held so much so that a psychiatrist visits usually once every other week or so to check on the inmates held in this torture chamber. Epstein’s cell-mate was Nicholas Tartaglione, who is a former Briarcliff Manor cop that faces the death penalty in four drug-related killings upstate. He claims he was wearing earbuds when investigators went to question him about the incident. There is no possible way that a cell-mate would not have known if the other guy tried to commit suicide.”

Inmates are often killed by others as a cover-up so the government can blame them but strangely they manage to get some sort of deal. My bet is that Tartaglione will NEVER face the death penalty.

Remains to be seen whether or not Tartaglione gets being rewarded for taking Epstein out, but I’m sure he will be once this story quiets down and people forget about it.

I know the conspiracy groups are already blaming Clinton. But Epstein probably goes way beyond just Hillary and Clinton as the new New York play was entitled (which rumor has it the Clinton’s had shut down). This may rise well beyond that so I do not believe that Epstein will ever see a trial.”

Armstrong was correct.

So let’s just run down the main points of the Epstein story:

  1. Billionaire pedophile with many very powerful friends is arrested on sex-trafficking charges.
  2. Speculation grows that Epstein’s trial may result in many big names being implicated.
  3. Epstein “kills himself” in prison before his case can go to trial, thus ensuring he’s never able to rat on his powerful friends, who will remain in the shadows.

All I’m saying is that this is the best possible outcome for all the prominent elites who could have been exposed if Epstein’s case had gone to trail.

Imagine that.

If it looks like a cover-up and smells like a cover-up, it’s probably a cover-up.

Currently, “Clinton Body Count” is trending on Twitter:

Screen Shot 2019-08-10 at 9.11.18 AM.png

People know what’s up.

I’m sorry if my past articles on Epstein following his arrest got anyone’s hopes up that this would ultimately lead to the exposure of elite pedophiles.

We should have known better.

They’re going to get away with it. We should have all knew they were always going to get away with it, now it’s confirmed.

Let this Epstein saga be a lesson: America is every bit as corrupt as any other country out there. Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil–all those other countries we look down on for being corrupt and run by gangsters, we’re just like them.

proxy.duckduckgo.gif

Who Really Governs This Country?

You may have read recently about President Trump’s welcome decision to change legal asylum rules:

This is an obviously good idea that makes perfect logical sense. If someone is leaving their home country and seeking asylum somewhere else, there is no reason for them to pass through multiple countries before settling down again.

There is no reason someone from El Salvador or Honduras needs to come through Mexico to America and only America in search of asylum.

Unless the claim of “asylum” is just an excuse to be allowed into the United States.

If it’s really about asylum, then any country other than their home country will suffice. Mexico, for instance, should suffice for someone seeking asylum from Guatemala or Honduras.

Logically, people forfeit their claims to be seeking asylum when they pass through one or more countries en route to their end destination of America.

If you go through one or more other countries to come here, you clearly aren’t just seeking to escape your home country. If that was the case you would have stopped seeking asylum the moment you got out of your home country.

But obviously we’re not stupid; we realize that these “asylum” claims are mostly BS excuses to get into America and get healthcare and welfare. So now Trump has removed part of that incentive for people from any country that does not border the U.S., which is to say every country in the world but two.

I say “part” of the incentive because we still give healthcare and welfare benefits to illegals, and prospective illegal immigrants in other countries know this and still want to come to America because of it. Until we stop giving handouts to illegals, they will never stop wanting to come here.

Now, while Trump’s decision is a good one that should in theory discourage and ultimately greatly reduce false asylum claims at the border, there are a couple problems that still remain.

First, people will still keep trying to come across the border illegally. They want to get into America to enjoy our generous welfare system by any means possible.

Second, they should know that while Trump is against illegal immigration and wants to crack down on it, the rest of the American political class is not. Phony asylum seekers should know by now that Democrats will let them in and give them free healthcare and government benefits. Prospective migrants from poor countries have lots of friends in high places here in the US, and that just because Trump issued this rule does not mean it will stand.

We all know this rule is going to be immediately challenged by liberal open borders groups, brought before liberal open borders judges, and struck down as “Unconstitutional” because everyone knows the Founding Fathers were liberal open borders progressives who envisioned a day when America would be overrun by poor third-worlders. After all, we have to base our entire immigration system on the poem on the Statue of Liberty because it’s basically a part of the Constitution.

Thus far in his Presidency, the federal courts have, just to give a sampling:

  • Frozen Pentagon money Trump directed to be used on the border wall.
  • On seven different occasions ruled that the administration cannot deny funding to Sanctuary Cities, because everyone knows the Founding Fathers instituted the concept of Federalism so deep-blue urban areas could openly flout national immigration laws.
  • Ruled that Trump is not allowed to block his critics on Twitter. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has blocked plenty of people on Twitter but as of now, no federal court has ruled that she can’t.
  • Overturned the Trump White House’s decision to revoke CNN Propagandist Jim Acosta’s White House press pass, which he routinely abuses in order to narcissistically grandstand, spout off Democratic Party talking points and build a celebrity profile for himself instead of reporting the news.
  • Barred the administration from asking the citizenship question on the 2020 Census in order to ensure Democratic states rife with illegals are able to continue inflating their populations in order to get more Electoral Votes and more seats in the House of Representatives.

And that’s not nearly everything. But it just gives you an idea of how corrupt the federal court system is, and how dead-set it is on making sure nothing ever gets in the way of this country being endlessly flooded by poor third-worlders.

All in all, federal courts have ruled against the administration 70 times in two and a half years, according to the Bezos Post, which proudly trumpets this number as if it reflects poorly on Trump rather than the courts themselves:

It’s not because, as Bezos Post wants you to believe, Trump is trampling on the Constitution left and right. It’s because the corrupt courts have taken for themselves both legislative and executive powers.

Virtually none of this is on the up-and-up.

How can you tell? Because, conveniently, it just so happens that any and all opposition to liberal policies is Unconstitutional. Imagine that. According to federal judges, the Founding Fathers didn’t want a border, saw no distinction between American citizens and illegals, supported the idea of Sanctuary Cities, and hated the idea of honest, legitimate journalism. And everyone knows the Founding Fathers wanted trannies in the military.

Wow, how fortunate for the left that the Racist, Sexist, Slave-owning Founding Fathers also happened to agree with the Democratic Party of 2019 on literally everything.

The Impartial and Unbiased courts whom no one must ever question or criticize said so!

This how our country is run now. Uniparty judges appointed by Obama, Bush and Clinton are the real government. They alone decide which policies stand and which are struck down.

And there’s nothing you can do about it because they’re appointed for life. The President you voted for has been overruled by judges you didn’t vote for, and that’s how this country works now.

You are not allowed to vote against open borders. That’s one government policy the American people don’t get a say in.

Immigration restrictions are no longer on the menu.

How ’bout a nice, fat helping of open borders instead?