Cuba Demoted to “Not Real Socialism”

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

If the Socialist Party of Great Britain is an authority on such things, it is official: in light of recent anti-communist protests and civil unrest, Cuba has been demoted to “Not Real Socialism” and reclassified, along with the USSR and other failed socialist experiments, as “actually state capitalism.”

La Revolucion, it appears, is moving into the last stage of what we might call the Niemietz Cycle in honor of Kristian Niemietz’s excellent-and-downloadable-for-$0 book Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies (I review it here and here). The first stage is the “honeymoon” stage where things look like they’re going well. Contrary to what neoliberal naysayers might think, short-run successes seem to prove that socialism is viable.

In the second stage, which Niemietz calls the “Excuses-and-Whatabouttery” stage, mounting socialist failures are explained away as the products of a series of unfortunate (and entirely coincidental) events, like weather in the Soviet Union and Zimbabwe. In the case of Cuba, we’re told–as we have been hearing for six decades–that the country’s problems aren’t because of socialism. They’re actually because of the US embargo. If it weren’t for the embargo, we’re told, the regime would be stable and socialist Cuba would thrive.

I think the embargo is a terrible idea that should be lifted immediately, as it has given Cuban communists a convenient scapegoat for their country’s problems. The embargo, however, is not what causes Cuba’s woes, and people blaming the embargo overlook the fact that Cuba trades pretty extensively with the rest of the world–how else do you think Canadian and Mexican merchants get the Cuban cigars they hawk to American tourists? It’s not because a Cuban Rhett Butler is smuggling them past a blockade. It’s because Cuba trades freely with the entire world. I suspect the US embargo hasn’t really hurt Cuba that much more than the “transgender bathroom” boycott hurt Target.

The “embargo” story also doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in light of Marxish claims about imperialism and free trade. On one hand, we learn that “periphery” countries are poor because they trade freely with rich countries like the United States and welcome foreign direct investment. On the other hand, we learn that Cuba is poor because it cannot trade freely with the United States. I’m not sure how this works without a lot of auxiliary assumptions. It also ignores the conspicuous and inconvenient truth that the Cuban government restricts imports and has only lifted these restrictions for food, medicine, and toiletries “temporarily” in response to the protests.

In the last stage of the Niemietz Cycle, the failures become too obvious to ignore or explain away, and the country is demoted to “not real socialism.” Western intellectuals fawned over Stalin’s experiment with socialism, and only after it became a conspicuous failure did we learn that “It wasn’t actually socialism; it was Stalinism, and if only Trotsky had been in charge instead of Stalin….”

Cuba’s defenders have made much of its literacy programs and health care; however, 2018 research by Gilbert Berdine, Vincent Geloso, and Benjamin Powell shows that while Cuban health data aren’t exactly fake news, they aren’t exactly accurate, either. Even if the data are above reproach, there’s another important and uncomfortable question: if Cuba is a workers’ paradise, why are so many people trying so hard to leave? Migration patterns tell the clearest story. Cuba might provide asylum for high-profile American intellectuals and dissidents, but people “vote” overwhelmingly against socialism and for capitalism when they risk life and limb to get from Cuba to the United States. They may not be able to build a case from first principles explaining exactly why they prefer capitalism to socialism in a way that would satisfy a lot of intellectuals, but they demonstrate by their actions which system makes it possible for them to live as they see fit. Moreover, a few seconds with Google suggest to me that actually moving to and getting a job in Cuba would be really, really difficult, and if this website is correct that “A university professor can expect to earn in the region of CUP 1,500 (around US$68 per month),” I understand why so many intellectuals are perfectly happy to extol the virtues of Cuban socialism from comfortable offices and armchairs in the United States instead of lining up to live the collectivist dream.

We can sit around all day and debate the merits and demerits of socialism, whether or not Cuba is “real socialism,” whether or not its apparent reclassification is a demotion or a promotion (as the Babylon Bee calls it), and what intellectuals think people should do and want. Alternatively, we can look at socialism’s miserable track record and try to learn from what people actually do and actually want. Retroactively saying “Actually, that isn’t real socialism” about the Cuban revolution won’t change the fact that people vote for freedom and against socialism in overwhelming numbers.

*****

This article was published on July 19, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from AIER,  American Institute for Economic Research

New Book Shows Top U.S. General Comparing Trump Supporters To Nazis Seeking A ‘Coup’

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Anyone who looked at the events of 2020 and projected a coup attempt onto Donald Trump has no place in senior government leadership, let alone a Dairy Queen serving Blizzards.

What better way to know the U.S. military is compromised—aside from racially extremist training and leftist propaganda videos—than when its top officer ignores widespread violence from one political faction while calling isolated violence from another a “coup”?

CNN, an outlet we know from sinking ratings is having an identity crisis post-Trump, published a preview last week of a new book titled “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year,” by Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker. The 2,300-word piece declares as follows about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley.

The book recounts how for the first time in modern US history the nation’s top military officer, whose role is to advise the president, was preparing for a showdown with the commander in chief because he feared a coup attempt after Trump lost the November election …The authors explain Milley’s growing concerns that personnel moves that put Trump acolytes in positions of power at the Pentagon after the November 2020 election, including the firing of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the resignation of Attorney General William Barr, were the sign of something sinister to come.

I am sure these Pulitzer-Prize winning writers might even strike up a film deal with their 592-page Trump Derangement Syndrome manual. Anyone who looked at the events of 2020 and projected a coup attempt onto Donald Trump has no place in senior government leadership, let alone a Dairy Queen serving Blizzards.

“They may try, but they’re not going to f-cking succeed,” Milley is quoted as telling his deputies, according to Leonnig and Rucker. “You can’t do this without the military. You can’t do this without the CIA and the FBI. We’re the guys with the guns.” He also reportedly told his aides, “This is a Reichstag moment. The gospel of the Führer.”

Yes, this is Milley juxtaposing elected oversight of the U.S. military with the government of Adolf Hitler. What sound military leadership and strategic guidance can a general provide if he has determined that the president of the United States is comparable to a dictator who killed approximately 6 million people?

Let’s not forget who Milley is. This is the same left-wing media darling who said unironically in congressional testimony that “white rage” was behind the Capitol breach, deflecting on the military’s relationship with critical race theory (CRT). “White rage” was coined in Emory University professor Carol Anderson’s 2016 book “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide” as “the operational function of white supremacy” that “undermine[s] African American achievement and advancement.”

Let that sink in. The highest-ranking and most senior official in the U.S. military not only believes in white privilege but also that such privilege could lead to the president coordinating a coup upon losing the election. Notwithstanding that the breach began 20 minutes before Trump even finished speaking that Wednesday afternoon, it is vital that we clarify one fact.

January 6 was not an insurrection, nor a coup. According to eyewitnesses and visual evidence such as live streamed videos, the Capitol breach was a riot perpetrated by a small minority of a large crowd of mostly peaceful demonstrators.

Whereas the Capitol breach was a largely disorganized meandering of MAGA-hat flag-wavers taking pictures in Democrat offices, a coup is an attempt to violently overthrow the government. No serious person can say, based on the available evidence, that the individuals in the Capitol that day aimed to destroy our republic, or even to harm public officials. The only person purposefully killed that day was an unarmed civilian shot by security forces. Jan. 6 was a stupid stunt, not a coup.

Milley’s characterization of this event, according to the book, tells a different story. Speaking to senior leaders in preparation for President Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20, he once more compared his fellow countrymen to Nazis.

“Here’s the deal guys: These guys are Nazis,” he said, “they’re boogaloo boys, they’re Proud Boys. These are the same people we fought in World War II. We’re going to put a ring of steel around this city and the Nazis aren’t getting in.”

They put a ring of steel around the city alright. It took six months for the government to take down the metal fencing around the Capitol, and the left still mendaciously seeks a 9/11-style commission. The FBI claimed to strike gold when they confiscated a riot suspect’s LEGO set three weeks ago.

It’s long past time to tell it like it is. The U.S. military, illustrated by Milley’s testimony likening national security threats from China and Russia to “climate change” and “infrastructure,” has mangled priorities. Milley is a symptom of institutional decay. 

*****

This article was published on July 19, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

How Democrats Could Steal the Midterms

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

By now everyone with two working brain cells knows, or pretends not to know, that Democrats cheated on a colossal scale to get Whisperin’ Joe into the White House.  So it’s safe to say that Republicans, having wised up to the Donks’ stratagems and skullduggery, will capture both House and Senate in next year’s midterms.  Right?  Yes.  That is, assuming elections actually take place on November 8, 2022.

Who doubts that Democrats, with a death grip on power now, are capable of anything to keep Pelosi and Schumer on top and Biden’s cabal in the White House calling the shots?  Well, in a takeaway from those absconding Dem Texas legislators, you can’t be defeated if you don’t show up for the game.

Fixing a presidential election proved simple; given the number of candidates involved, rigging midterms would be a reach.  An alternative?  Regarding national contests, things get complicated, but here are two money quotes from a 2004 Congressional Research Service report on federal elections: Congress would have the power, by statute, to “postpone … House and Senate elections,” and “Congress could enact a statute delegating the authority to postpone an election to the Executive Branch.”  Justification for either action?  “Terrorism,” “calamitous events,” and the ambiguous “national emergency” — such as, say, civil disorder on a massive scale leading up to Election Day.

Consider this scenario: on November 6, 2022, two days before federal elections, mayhem breaks out in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and other blue cities across the country.  Masked provocateurs roam the streets, damaging property, assaulting innocents, fighting the police officers confronting them, and targeting polling stations for burning.  To sow confusion, a few are wearing MAGA hats.  Mayors and governors appear caught by surprise and announce that it will take days to get the National Guard in to quell disturbances.

The left and its allies in the media will highlight the disturbances and accuse white supremacists and Trump sympathizers of fomenting unrest in hopes of dissuading voters from leaving home to cast ballots for Democrat House and Senate candidates.  The January 6, 2021 “insurrection” idiocy (with American citizens in custody for months for trespassing) will be revived by the MSM to muddy the waters….

*****

Continue reading this article published July 20, 2021 at American Thinker.

Democrats’ Lawless Governments Can Get Even Worse

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

It has taken 72 years since the publication of the book 1984 for us to finally arrive at being led by President Orwell. He has been sending out his shock troops to convince Americans not to believe their own eyes and ears and blame Republicans for defunding the police and surging crime. They are truly shock troops because Americans are dazed and confused by the bewildering arguments that blame Republicans. Only the most desperate Democrats are adopting this line. I am here to tell you as bad as the lawlessness being unleashed on Americans by Democrat mayors and district attorneys it can and will most likely get even worse.

The trashing of our laws to allow criminals to walk out of stores with hundreds of dollars of goods without legal recourse or allowing violent criminals out after arrest without bail to further their personal crime wave bafflingly can get even worse. We know that because it is going on in France.

Kobili Traore was an immigrant from Mali who obtained French citizenship. He had been arrested and sentenced by French courts 20 times for violent assaults. His only known means of support was as a drug dealer. Despite that, the French government made no attempt to take away his citizenship and deport him back to Mali.

Traore met retired Jewish physician Dr. Sarah Halami numerous times along with her daughter in the stairwell of the Paris building where they lived. He called them “dirty Jews.” This was witnessed by numerous neighbors.

Traore proceeds to break into the home of Dr. Halimi at four in the morning. He tortured her for over an hour while reciting verses from the Quran and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” He used anti-Semitic names and call her Satan.

In testimony from her neighbors, the police arrived at Dr. Halimi’s place while she was still alive. They became aware first-hand of the activities inside and heard her screaming. Instead of asserting there were exigent circumstances and breaking down the door, the police decide to go back downstairs and wait for reinforcements.

At that time, Traore threw Dr. Halimi from the third-story balcony of her home where she fell to her death. Only at this point did the police arrest him.

The murderer was not sent to prison but instead was sent to a mental institution because he was under the influence of an illegal substance. Traore was high on marijuana, but apparently in a state of delirium. Most people who digest too much marijuana want to sit on a couch and consume bags of Cheetos. Not Traore. He went into a murderous anti-Semitic rage. It is still not clear why the murderer was not sent to prison where he could be cleansed of the drug and held there.

Seems like an open and shut case of first-degree murder, but not in France. Not only was the fact it was a hate crime suppressed for nine months, but the case was also assigned to a judge who was known as a member of an anti-Semitic group.

The judge proceeded to prejudice the process. She refused to allow a reconstruction of the crime. She stated a reconstruction of the crime would be “traumatic” for the defendant. The judge never heard arguments from the victim’s family.

The judge ordered her own psychiatric analysis of Traore. Her hand-picked psychiatrist determined that Traore was in a state of acute delirium (on marijuana) and stated that because of that he could not be responsible for his actions and could not be tried. The judge in coordination with two other judges declared the murderer not guilty and free of all charges.

The case immediately was sent to the Court of Appeal. The Court acknowledged that Traore had committed an anti-Semitic murder. It went on to validate the lower court opinion that Traore was not responsible for his actions and set him free.

As despicable as this story may seem to you, are we that far from situations like this? We allow criminals to sneak back into the country multiple times. From all appearances, our southern border is largely being controlled by drug cartels that have become human traffickers.

Our society is consistently amplifying any slight against Blacks, Asians, or Muslims, but has muffled anti-Semitic attacks which remain 60% of hate crimes. We have violent criminals let out of jail prematurely or without bail, after a crime with some clueless thought, these people will become humanitarians in the interim. We have Democrat elected officials hog-tying police preventing them from protecting the people they were hired to protect.

Instead of changing police back to their intended role and ridding us of these criminals, the mayors, city councils, and DA’s are responsible for our plunging law enforcement and the corresponding explosion of crimes at all levels. The Democrats are busy creating fairy tales about Republicans defunding the police. Unless we cleanse ourselves of these irresponsible souls, we will soon descend to the levels that France has already achieved.

*****

This article was published in Flash Report on Jul7 17, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the author.

The Danger Of Wokeness In Uniform

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The surrender to leftist ideology among military leaders endangers all Americans.

 

Until recently, decades of failed senior officer leadership in a series of disastrous American military interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan—operations that compromised basic principles of military leadership and produced a stable of morally bankrupt sycophants in the senior ranks of the armed forces—awakened surprisingly little concern in Washington, D.C. Cold War triumphalism had run its course everywhere in the world, but not inside the Washington Beltway.

Then, “wokeness,” along with a senior officer’s defense of teaching critical race theory (CRT) at West Point, suddenly became topical for many Republican members of the House and Senate. One concluded that Congress should defend patriotic service members against the services’ woke leadership.

Is it true? Are America’s four stars (44 of them) becoming the military equivalent of Davos Men; denationalized cosmopolitans who view national identities and boundaries as antiquated obstacles to the liberating force of globalism? Or is “wokeness” really just a matter of civilian control of the military?

It would be wrong to suggest that today’s senior officers (three and four stars) are gold collar globalists. It would be more accurate to suggest that steadily rising defense spending combined with the absence of accountability for performance has devalued the importance of character, competence, and intelligence in the selection of senior officers.

In addition, Washington has lots of revolving doors. Just as political appointees move from the defense industries or think tanks to and from the Pentagon, retired senior officers work or consult for defense contractors and sit on the boards of defense conglomerates. For appointees and retired senior military officers, the opportunity for self-enrichment is substantial.

Most of the time, the revolving door reinforces a static military mindset that thrives on bureaucratic routine and preserves existing money flows to satisfy congressional, private sector, and service interests. Officers who question the status quo are sidelined, ensuring that generations of senior military officers are very homogenous. Sometimes, the outcome is ethically shady behavior.

The result is a class of senior officers ready to adopt whatever politically mandated social policy their civilian superiors demand, provided they are left to run the service bureaucracies, control promotions, and structure the forces as they like. Thus, punishing midshipmen who criticize Black Lives Matter and compelling soldiers to march in high heels or to embrace identity politics even in the face of evidence that such policies might weaken, if not subvert, American fighting power is carried out with surprisingly little fanfare.

All discipline is a form of habit and the habit of conforming in the senior ranks is quite strong. Young officers learn that in battle, hesitation, indecision, or the refusal to obey orders under fire can cost the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Unfortunately, this learned behavior also persists in matters of national military strategy, which produce policies affecting the morale, discipline, and fighting power of the nation’s armed forces. When confronted with tough issues from the Gulf of Tonkin to disbanding the Iraqi military, senior military leaders are inclined to acquiesce to bad strategic policy decisions on the grounds that it is their military duty to comply or because they fear exclusion from access to greater income in retired life. In any case, it’s ill-advised, even immoral.

Why is it wrong for senior officers to simply go along to get along? National military leaders must fuse the body and soul of the nation into one united fighting force. Decisions that commit forces to vague objectives based more on wishful thinking than reality, as was the case in Vietnam and Iraq, or policies that nurture hatred against all or some of the nation’s service members put the very survival of the force at risk.

Today, Americans in uniform confront an extremist ideology that is unapologetic in its hatred of all things Western, white, and Christian in America. Many serving in the ranks think this extremism takes the form of de-nationalization and believe that it is being institutionalized by the Biden administration.

Perhaps the poster child for anti-Western and anti-white extremism is Bishop Garrison, the man tasked by the Biden administration to fight alleged extremism in the military. Garrison subscribes to the “1619 Project,” a twisted, hate-filled Marxist interpretation of American history that vilifies Western culture, Western civilization, and the Europeans who created it. The project rests on the belief that Americans of color, especially black Americans, are “marginalized” and oppressed inside American society.

Predictably, the 1619 Project divides American society along racial lines to condemn white Americans as the privileged class. It inspires policies that classify soldiers, by forcing them to wear badges identifying them by race and socio-economic status during “diversity and inclusion training.”

Much like the members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, the advocates in uniform for CRT and the 1619 Project seem unable to conceive or admit of anything good or positive in America’s past. To many Americans serving inside the armed forces, those in uniform who proselytize for CRT seem determined to purge the ranks of anyone who might question whether “systemic racism” really is the defining feature of 21st century American society. Put another way by a serving sailor, “if you are straight, white, and male, especially if you are a Christian, the military does not want you.”

“History,” wrote Alexis de Tocqueville, “is a picture gallery containing a host of copies and very few originals.” It is not the first time mankind has witnessed a radical reordering of politics that rejects compromise and destroys a nation in pursuit of an allegedly more just society.

In 1917, Lenin argued for a democratically elected assembly to govern Russia. In January 1918, when the Assembly met and Lenin discovered the vast majority of Russian delegates elected to Russia’s Constituent Assembly opposed his policies, he told his followers, “To wait for the [Russian] constituent assembly which will clearly not be with us is senseless.” Lenin dissolved the assembly and turned his attention to control of the state organs of power: the military and the police.

Extremists are never concerned with the truth or compromise, but extremists do understand power. Lenin organized his supporters into Red Guards—a volunteer paramilitary force that could terrorize Lenin’s opponents. Lenin and his successors built an internal police force (the NKVD) with political watchdogs to transform the military into an instrument of the Communist Party.

A political force or idea taken to its extreme always produces its opposite. If the senior leaders of the armed forces do not halt the radical attempt to de-nationalize the American military and weaponize it for the use of the American Left, the U.S. armed forces will be compromised. Americans will reject appeals to conservatism and moderation, and turn instead to the power of American nationalism, the force diametrically opposed to the radical left.

Senators and congressmen should be worried, and so should the American people.

*****

This article was published on July 13, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Implications of the Arizona Audit- Part II

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

The widening implications will likely depend on whether the results show there has been significant discrepancy or fraud, whether those results are credible and believable, and whether the press actually covers the story and public opinion shifts.

Once Republicans believe they have a solid case, then strategies will need to be developed to go into the political and legal unknown where there is a great political risk for this already badly divided country. There is little precedent for what to do and many will argue that it is better to “let sleeping dogs lie” until the next election. However, a better case can be made that the lying dogs who perpetrated election fraud should never be allowed to sleep.

Should legislators in various states simply fix the election procedures and processes? Should those that engaged in fraud be prosecuted?  What happens to those already in office? What happens to the legislation illegitimate leaders have passed?

The problem is there are obviously partisan reasons for either believing or not believing. You can expect partisan fury will attempt to overwhelm evidence and procedure.

Right now, we are at the point of a discrepancy, which is itself an important milestone. But if Maricopa County officials continue to block the investigation, it will be argued that it was not complete and credibility will be reduced. Ironically, at least in Arizona, it is Republicans that will determine whether this election integrity project has credibility.

As we have come this far that many believe the election was fraudulent, and we are at least at the point of a discrepancy, it is alarming the Board of Supervisors should continue to block a legitimate inquiry conducted by elected representatives. This story affects the whole state and the nation, and they are mere county officials, albeit elected as well.

For the sake of party unity if not the integrity of the democratic process, they should go along with this investigation, especially if they have done nothing wrong. If no wrongdoing occurred, they will be able to make their opponents look like idiots.

If they have done wrong, it is not worth destroying the electoral reputation of this great Republic just to save the political hides of county officials. We should remember their names for sure for the next election cycle, and see that they are all removed, hopefully in the primary stage of the election cycle.

But in the interim, maybe a bargain should be struck. Come clean and cooperate and no one gets prosecuted.

We need to break out of the conundrum formed by those that opposed the investigation in the first place. They will contend, no credible evidence has been developed, while all along blocking the path to develop the credible evidence.

It is similar to the “the courts have found no evidence of fraud”, when in most cases the courts refused to even hear the case as they claimed that plaintiffs had “no standing”.

Just for the sake of intellectual speculation, let’s assume that results do show “significant” fraud, that is fraud on a sufficient scale to alter the results of a close election.

Let’s further assume that results are considered supportable. That could be a hard sell since we have few examples of true audits rather than just recounts by the same officials that may have been conducting the fraud. There are few examples of outside parties actually not just counting the ballots, but verifying the ballots that are being counted. Thus, we don’t have a lot of precedents.

Arizona may be setting a new precedent.

A recount is not enough. Recounting fraudulent ballots simply cannot tell you which are fraudulent and those that are not. It might find if there are issues of mechanical counting errors or improper or inaccurate counting, but counting illegitimate ballots simply gives you a tally of illegitimate ballots mixed in with proper ballots.

Recounts can’t determine if voters were not citizens, or have moved, are deceased, or if the chain of custody was compromised, or if machines are internally or externally manipulated.

But assuming the conclusions of fraud are supportable, will the mainline press bury the story? Probably not, although they have buried other big stories that offend Democrats like Hunter Biden. Can they, in the end, truly bury this story?

So, let’s assume significant fraud is determined, the means and methods of determining said are supportable and accepted by the majority of voters. And we assume, the press can’t ultimately deep-six the story. It gets widespread coverage and more states copy Arizona and look into their elections as well and similar things are found.

Now, what happens? Republicans will be in the position of the “dog that caught the bus”, to wit, what do you do with it once you have it? One does not get the sense they have a plan that is thought through to its full logical implications.

Obviously, the people in office, are in office. In this case, given the Democrat party’s ability to unite and the Republican party’s ability to fragment, nothing is likely to happen until the next election cycle. I doubt Democrats will step down, even if it is determined they are illegitimate officeholders.

However, it would appear Democrats are putting out signs of desperation. Midterm elections don’t go well historically in any case, and in this particular case, with fraud, dementia, DOJ collusion, inflation, their created border crisis, the critical race theory they embrace, a crime way they caused, and illegitimacy issues dogging them; they act like they want to stuff the channel with as much radical legislation as possible. They must fear a short tenure.

Assuming this plays out, the Democrats will lose the House and Senate at the mid-term election, but maintain the Executive Branch and the fourth branch of government, the bureaucratic establishment.

Then what do the Republicans do especially if the courts continue to run from the issue?  Clearly, under the Constitution, state legislatures ultimately are in charge of election procedures and processes.

For those in office that benefited from election fraud, impeachment would be in order. But if mid-term elections are not decisive, we are stuck with a full Democrat presidential term and all the executive orders and legislation that got through in the first two years and executive orders in the final two years. The Democrats would surely be wounded, but they will have crammed through their desired radical legislation nonetheless.

Biden is already using Executive Orders at a faster pace than any previous President, as well.

Assuming in four years, Republicans have both the Executive and Legislative branches, then what?

We saw what happened when they had that situation with George Bush, and it was not impressive was it? So, Republican leaders need to develop a clear strategy if election fraud is determined.

Conservatives should not brook any talk of a military coup or this kind of nonsense. Our guide has to be the Constitution, but not necessarily tradition.

Democrats will have to be removed either by impeachment or preferably, elections. Hopefully, honest elections. That means election integrity is essential for constitutional remedies to work. Election integrity is not a threat to the republic, continued election fraud is.

That means at a minimum, the GOP must have the courage to pursue a course that ensures election integrity in as many states as politically possible.

The minimum effort would be the least disruptive I suppose, but what then do Republicans do if they come back into power?

My own preference would be to see that every piece of legislation and executive order be legally repealed going back to say…Grover Cleveland.

But seriously, we should want to repeal anything put in place by a government that was formed on the basis of fraud and deceit. It would indeed be undemocratic to let stand legislation that was put in place by individuals not properly elected. To honor laws written by illegitimate politicians is certainly a greater affront to democracy than questioning an election.

Then, some important people need to go to jail.

As far as the bureaucratic agencies, clean house. If that requires modifying civil service laws, then that will be necessary.

*****

Read The Arizona Election Audit and Its Implications – Part I here.

A Question of the Day From Just Facts Daily

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The following question was recently posed in Just Facts Daily. The question stimulated The Prickly Pear Editors’ comments follow the explanation of the answer.

 

What portion of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. have false identity documents that might allow them to illegally work, vote, and receive welfare?

Is it 10%, 25%, 50%? And your answer is?

The correct answer is…about 100%. Only about 20% of people surveyed got the answer correct, according to Just Facts.

“In 2017, California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon testified that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. This is corroborated by (1) a 2013 report by the Social Security Administration that estimated there were 0.7 million unauthorized immigrants who worked by using SS numbers obtained by using “fraudulent birth certificates” and 1.8 million who worked by using SS numbers “that did not match their name”; (2) a 2002 Government Accountability Office study that found “the use of fraudulent documents by aliens is extensive”; (3) a 1998 bust in Los Angeles that “seized nearly two million counterfeit documents” such as “permanent resident cards and SS cards”; and (4) a 2005 NY Times article that reported: “Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a SS card.”

 

Editors’ comment: The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, a man of libertarian leanings, who believed in the free flow of capital and people, once made the comment that you can’t have both open borders and a welfare state at the same time. 

Libertarians have been ineffective or have given up on closing down the welfare state while they are active in promoting open borders. 

Progressives and Liberals support both open borders and the welfare state, a sure-fire combination to both attract illegals and bankrupt the nation. 

And some conservatives look the other way because they need the cheap labor and give little thought to the externalities, that is the cost they throw on the taxpayer for the allegedly cheap labor. They show little interest in what happens to Americans at the lower end of the wage scale. When the full cost of welfare, healthcare, and government pensions, and wage reduction for native Americans is included, that illegal labor may not be all that cheap.

Then, there are the corrosive aspects of people entering the country illegally, that extend well beyond just monetary costs. It starts with breaking the law and then committing a series of further illegal acts in order to stay. This is not exactly the best way to introduce new members of the American society to concepts of citizenship. If it is OK to break laws because to do so is clearly in your own self-interest, then why stop with immigration laws, or those of the Social Security Administration?

And, you have a further corrosive influence on the law, where laws remain on the books but are selectively enforced. Legal immigrants go through all the proper hoops, while millions of others simply defy the law and politicians refuse to enforce the law. Once you concede that some will be treated differently, there goes equality before the law. In this case, you actively discriminate against those that have followed the law.

This concept of equal treatment extends to other factors as well.  Open borders assume that the cultural heritage that people carry with them, has a superior interest in society to the cultural heritage of the citizens who already live in the country. Progressives often argue that all cultures are equal, a dubious proposition to be sure. However, they don’t act that way. They assume the illegal immigrant should be granted an advantage so to speak, by overwhelming the educational and healthcare systems of the people already living in the country. Once sufficient numbers migrate, it may change the culture and language of the country they are invading. For those who liked the culture the way it was, well that is just tough.

There is in addition a national security aspect to immigration. In a world of international terrorism, we have again unequal application of the law.  We have native-born citizens being spied on and having their finances probed supposedly to protect the country, while open borders let anyone in, whether from Mexico, Iran, Yemen, or China. That does not seem very bright, does it?

Clearly, a system that allows immigration in a controlled way, from a variety of nations and cultures, is preferable to open borders. It is preferable that immigrants do not start their experience in this country by breaking multiple laws and stealing false identities. But the Biden Administration and the Democrat Party view the crisis as another opportunity to grab power. 

Let all the illegals in, look the other way as they obtain false documents, and then recruit them as voters. Political power is more important than the finances of the country, the rule of law, or treating the native-born with the same cultural respect you do the illegal migrant. A crisis at the border? What crisis?

Democrats say they are against the wall, but what they are for are open borders and a welfare state.

As for Republicans, they can’t seem to get their act together when they had majorities in Congress and the White House.

One thing you can say about Donald Trump. At least he tried.  Sure, he was an outsider. Maybe under current circumstances, that is required.

*****

This article is adapted from information developed by James Agresti at Just Facts. Our editorial comments are our own.

 

 

EXPOSED: The Most Comprehensive PROOF of Election Fraud in Georgia

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Editors’ Note: This video is representative of what is occurring in several of the states many Americans believe election fraud occurred and determined the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. Currently in Arizona the forensic audit is moving toward completion with findings made known in the near future. The Democrat assault on the Arizona audit process at the state and national levels is unrelenting with near total support of the media. The question Americans should ask is simple. If the election was honest, fair and transparent, what is the problem with assuring (proving) the result with audits that confirm the result?

New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.

New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to rise over the next several months, potentially exceeding the 12,670 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

While this evidence does not change the fact that Joe Biden is our president, all Americans who genuinely care about free and fair elections and the disenfranchisement of voters should demand both transparency and solutions to prevent a repeat in future elections. This evidence also vindicates former President Trump and his legal team for the related public (and private) comments and legal arguments made in challenging the Georgia election results.

Under the cover of COVID-19, Georgia, like many other states, flooded residents with absentee ballot applications. Also like sister states, Georgia ignored various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote. These facts, coupled with the closeness of the presidential contest in Georgia and other states, led to a flurry of accusations and litigation charging vote fraud, illegal voting, and violations of the Elector’s Clause of the constitution.

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.

Under Georgia law, residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election. As Jake Evans, a well-known Atlanta election lawyer, told me, outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, “Their vote in that county would be illegal.”

Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.

Casting Doubt on Potential Illegal Votes

Some of those moves could have been temporary, involving students or members of the military, Davis stressed, adding that under Georgia law temporary relocations do not alter citizens’ residency status or render their votes illegal. But, given the margin separating the two presidential candidates, approximately one-third of the votes at issue could have altered the outcome of the election. Yet the media, the courts, and the Secretary of State’s Office ignored or downplayed the issue.

“It was disconcerting to see the media and the courts largely ignore serious issues like these, especially since the data I was seeing showed very legitimate issues,” Davis said. “In fact, I heard members of the Secretary of State’s team admit some votes were cast with residency issues, but then claimed there weren’t enough of them to cast the outcome of the election in doubt,” Davis added. “That was not at all what I was seeing, and as far as I am aware the Secretary of State’s Office has never put an actual number on the ones they did see.”

While frustrated, Davis told me that he never stopped working on these issues. “In May I received an updated voter database from the Secretary of State’s office, and I imported the data and compared voter’s addresses to the NCOA information I processed in November.”

The Data Speaks for Itself

When Davis ran the data, he found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the secretary of state the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS. Those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.

“That number continues to increase every day as more and more people update their registrations,” Davis said. “I have little doubt that the total number will eventually meet and then exceed President Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia.” Davis, who has testified as an expert witness multiple times in disputed election cases, believes Trump might have won a challenge to the Georgia election results had a court actually heard his case.

“Under Georgia law, a judge can order an election be redone if he or she sees there were enough illegal, irregular, or improperly rejected votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, or if they see evidence of ‘systemic irregularities,’” Davis said.

“These issues were absolutely systemic,” Davis stressed, noting “they occurred in every county in the state, in every state house, state senate, and in every congressional district in the state.”

Evans, who holds the distinction of being the only lawyer in Georgia history to successfully overturn two elections in the same race, concurred. Under Georgia law, Evans explained, “an election should be overturned either if (1) more votes than decided the election were illegal, wrongfully rejected or irregular, or (2) when there were systemic irregularities that cast in doubt the results of the election.”

“In the case of the 2020 general election,” Evans told me, Davis’s analysis indicates both factors could have been in play.

Davis’s data proves significant because critics of Trump’s challenge to the certification of Georgia’s election results framed the NCOA information as either unreliable or of an insufficient magnitude to cast the outcome of the election in doubt. But by updating their voter registration information with the same address as contained in the NCOA database, the voters themselves have established the reliability of that information.

Further, by updating their address for purposes of their voter registration, these same voters are confirming their move is not temporary. “When a person updates their voter registration to a new address, they are informing the county board of elections and correspondingly the Secretary of State that they regard the new address as their legal residence,” Evans explained.

What Do Georgia Officials Know?

Upon learning of this new development, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office quietly opened an investigation into potentially illegal voting by residents who had moved between counties. Davis provided his data to the office in May, with a detailed explanation of his analysis.

During my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, there was confusion over which, of the many investigations opened by his office, I had sought further information. Immediately following the interview, both his press secretary, Walter Jones, and his deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, called me back to follow up on my questions on the status of that investigation.

While Jones spoke favorably of Davis, he suggested that Davis’ figure included “false-positives” because Davis lacked access to social security numbers and birth dates of voters, and thus Davis’ list likely included different individuals bearing the same name. Fuchs suggested a similar issue with Davis’ analysis.

“There is no need to have access to Social Security numbers or birth dates,” Davis told me. “Every voter has a unique eight-digit voter identification number,” Davis explained that these voter identification numbers tie to the voters’ names and addresses and to vote-history data, which documents when and where their votes are cast and comes from the secretary of state’s own data.

Davis provided access to that data, following the execution of a non-disclosure agreement, and I confirmed Davis’s representation. Davis also provided processing certification verifying receipt of the NCOA data.

“I provided this exact same information to Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state,” Davis told me, sharing a copy of the email sent to Watson.

When asked for the status of Watson’s investigation and other details, while both were receptive to questions, neither Jones nor Fuchs could provide definitive answers. While on Friday Fuchs promised to give Watson permission to speak with me, and while both the deputy secretary of state and the press secretary promised to arrange an interview with Watson and to track down answers to several questions, to date, no further information has been provided and no interview has been arranged, notwithstanding several follow-up communications.

Hopefully, that is because Watson is busy investigating the strong evidence of illegal voting and not because the Secretary of State’s Office is attempting to bury the story — and the fact that Trump might have been right after all — until after Raffensperger fights off a primary challenge.

Clarification: This original article stated, “Yet during my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he seemed unfamiliar with this most recent evidence of illegal voting.”

Since publication, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office confirmed he is aware of the latest in the investigation, and that during his interview he was responding to questions posed about out-of-precinct voting.

*****

This article was published on July 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Maricopa County Auditors Seek Ballot Envelope Images, Splunk Logs After Discovering Discrepancies

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Teams conducting a forensic audit in Arizona’s largest county said on July 15 that they want more items to complete their review, which has turned up several major discrepancies.

The auditors, led by Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, want ballot envelope images, router images, splunk logs, hard drives that contain information about the 2020 election in Maricopa County, and details on the county’s policies and procedures as they try to complete a review that started nearly three months ago.

That information could help clear up issues that have been identified.

Doug Logan, CEO of Cyber Ninjas, told senators at the Arizona State Capitol during a hearing that auditors can find no record of the county sending more than 74,000 mail-in ballots. Ben Cotton, CEO of CyFIR, a subcontractor working on the audit, said the analysis of the election management system and network uncovered “severe cybersecurity problems,” including that antivirus programs weren’t up to date.

The hearing came after Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, whose Republican caucus authorized the audit late last year, said the auditors’ ballot count produced a different number from the county’s count.

Logan said the discrepancies with mail-in ballot records should trigger a canvassing proposal that was put on hold under pressure from the Department of Justice.

“Based on the data we’re seeing, I highly recommend canvassing, because it is the one way to know for sure whether some of the data we’re seeing, if it’s real problems or whether it’s clerical errors of some sort,” he said.

The July 15 testimony, given in front of Fann and Sen. Warren Peterson, chairman of the state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, immediately triggered a push to conduct a new election in the state, where President Joe Biden beat former President Donald Trump by about 10,500 votes…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Epoch Times.