The Western World has entered a Dark Age from which it is unlikely to emerge intact. In Europe nations once based on distinct ethnicity have opened their borders to mass immigration of unassimilable peoples, thus destroying their internal unity. These same nations have also abandoned their sovereignty. The US, EU, and Globalism preside over Europe. The main European countries no longer consist of nation states. In France citizens who complain of the marginalization of the French people in their own country are prosecuted. In Germany they are branded Nazis and subjected to legal threats. In Greece a nationalist political party, Golden Dawn, was declared racist, xenophobic, and fascist, charged with running a criminal organization and had its leaders and its members in the Greek government arrested and sentenced to prison. The ethnic base of European countries has been effectively silenced.

In the US the Democrat Party has just stolen a presidential election. Seventy-five percent of Republicans and even 30 percent of Democrats can see that the election was stolen. They can also see that the presstitutes denied from the earliest moment all evidence of electoral theft without investigating a bit of it. They have witnessed state election officials and the judiciary bless the theft. The American Establishment has closed ranks to rid itself of a non-establishment outsider, a president who dared to represent the people instead of the elites and their agendas. Getting rid of Trump also got rid of democracy, thus advancing the elite’s agenda of globalism.

In the United States rights and crimes are allocated by race and gender, and freedom of speech and criminal laws are applied according to who is woke and who is not. Burning an American flag, clearly an act expressing hatred, has been declared free speech by the US Supreme Court, but in Iowa Adolfo Martinez was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the hate crime of burning a LGBTQ flag.

US Democrat Representative Tulsi Gabbard is accused of transphobia by presstitutes and the liberal/left who denounce her as a “bigot, scum, horrible, and a TERF” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) for introducing a bill that limit’s women’s sports to biological females. https://www.rt.com/usa/509357-tulsi-gabbard-female-sport-transgender/

Joe Biden, a gangster who is on public record bragging to the Council on Foreign Relations how he blackmailed the president of Ukraine into firing the prosecutor investigating the firm on which Biden’s son, Hunter, sat as an overpaid “director,” has been selected by the Establishment as the American President. Biden is also implicated by emails on his son’s computer, which is in the uninterested hands of the FBI, in selling political protection and influence for money. The establishment’s vice president, Kamala Harris, is a woman of color who hates white people. The white liberal establishment magazine, Time, has just chosen both as “Person of the Year.” https://www.rt.com/usa/509309-biden-kamala-time-person-year/ The belief that white Americans are racists is so firmly established that even conservative authors in conservative magazines accept it as fact. In the December issue of Chronicles, Mark G. Brennan attributes opposition to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s threat to pack the Supreme Court to racial bigotry masked by a defense of judicial independence.

In a boxing match white boxer Jake Paul knocked out black boxer Nate Robinson and was asked on TV if the knockout meant he was racist. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will it be racist for a white pitcher to strike out a black baseball player? For a white to block a pass by a black quarterback? Will it be racist for a white to win a tennis or swimming match with a person of color? The logic behind who can burn a flag suggests a yes answer to these questions.

Most American parents are unaware that these developments, which they regard as silly and ridiculous, are being inculcated into their kids as the new normal. The kids are being trained in school to regard race and gender based rights as inherently just.

Few white parents are aware that beginning in kindergarten and continuing through graduate school their white kids are receiving deracination, not education. Instead of acculturation into their culture, they are being made both alienated from it and ignorant ot it.

It was decades ago that the white liberal and Jewish professors had white kids chanting “Western civ has to go.” Acculturation into Western culture has long been removed from the curriculums of universities. Indoctrinated white kids left rootless and subject to anti-white propaganda are now being acculturated in the values and ways of thinking that favor people of color and sexual deviants. Instead of immigrants being acculturated into the norms of the host country, the host country’s population is being acculturated into the norms of the immigrants.

Acculturation is the official educational practice in New York schools. A Hispanic brought in by the Democrats as head of New York schools has installed an anti-white agenda. The New York Post has exposed the agenda, but nothing is done about the systemic discrimination in the New York schools against “whiteness.”

The campaign against whiteness has penetrated the elite private schools. The media personality Megyn Kelley has withdrawn her children from their elite private schools and moved the family out of New York.

Why were students chanting ”Western civ has to go”? They were chanting this, because Western Civilization was presented to them as a racist, misogynist, colonialist-imperialist culture that oppresses and exploits “people of color.” The former left—the Marxists—had blamed the capitalist for exploiting and oppressing the working class, but today the capitalists and workers, if white, are lumped into the same victimizer class. In the present day liturgy, race, not class, is the basis of conflict and oppression.

As a large number of liberal/left intellectuals have declared, the solution is to get rid of “whiteness.” Unable or unwilling to come out for exterminating white people physically—although some have— the liberal/left is exterminating white people via “education,” which today consists of indoctrination and brainwashing.

An American school kid or university graduate is far more likely to be exposed to African writers than to Shakespeare or any literature of their own heritage. The consequence is to make them illiterate of their own culture and to acculturate them into the perspective of a foreign victim culture. They never learn anything about their culture except the propaganda against it. Therefore, they are unfamiliar with the literary references, the metaphors, and concepts in Western literature and are incapable of comprehending works in the Western literary heritage. The are cut off from their own past. They cannot read their own culture’s literature with understanding. This makes it possible to misrepresent their own culture to them as racist and misogynist.

This is the situation in America today and also throughout Europe, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

People cut off from their past do not know that there is something to defend. Therefore, they are sitting ducks for attack. Indoctrinated as they are against their own race, they prove their morality by attacking their own.

Any attempt to defend the achievements of Western civilization is regarded as ipso facto proof of white racism. This makes it impossible for white people to defend themselves, their history, culture, and achievements.

My conclusion is that white people in America today, and throughout the Western world, are in a weaker position than Jews were in Nazi Germany.

It is nonsensical to say that whites are still a majority and will be for some more years when so many of educated, that is, indoctrinated, whites are against whiteness. White Americans who believe in themselves are a shrinking percentage of the American population.

Antifa and BLM are largely white people financed with white money. Many whites themselves are against white people. The white mayors of Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis refused to protect white businesses from looting and burning by Antifa and BLM. Their response to violence was to defund the police. These mayors are examples of the collapse of white confidence.

The collapse of confidence has always been fatal to civilization.

Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

The Supreme Court conservatives who voted against the Texas case are thought to have concerns that “if we establish the precedent of challenging election results, the Democrats will do this to us someday.” That’s hilarious. WHAT FUTURE DO ELECTIONS NOW HAVE? This ass-backwards thinking is why conservatives and Republicans ultimately engineered their own demise.

If the Democrats get away with this presidential election fraud, they will almost certainly get away with fraud in the Georgia Senate runoff, too. They will own the entire government. They will own future elections, whose outcome they will control, with fraud when necessary. They have promised to add members to the Supreme Court so there will be a permanent left-wing majority. These conservatives who thought they were saving the Constitution will be impotent, along with the people who voted for the man, Trump, who appointed them. It’s hard to believe idiocy of this magnitude has reached the highest court in the land. But it has.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Americans who dabble outside the mainstream media are horrified by shocking claims of election fraud in 2020. Even more horrifying are courts that refuse to address the merits of these claims — hiding behind baffling legal terms like laches, mootness, and standing. Here is a suggested Supreme Court opinion that would end the horror and preserve our constitutional Republic.

OPINION

Per Curiam. We address several consolidated cases against various states and their officials (“Defendant States”) regarding the 2020 election. The cases make one basic claim — the 2020 election in the Defendant States was rife with voting and tabulating irregularities, illegalities, and outright fraud (“election wrongdoing”) that uniformly favored one Presidential candidate. Plaintiffs claim this violated their constitutional right to a free and fair election.

Basic Principle: Free and Fair Elections

Our constitutional Republic is founded on the Declaration of Independence which states:

[A]ll men . . . are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights…. [T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .” (Emphasis added.)

Consent is voting in a free and fair election. “Free” means no one is compelled or bribed to make a certain vote. “Fair” means proper election laws are followed so that the “governed” can believe in the result determined. There is no more important constitutional principle than a free and fair election.

Government: Who Does What

The American people have seen an avalanche of punditry telling them how our government works. Many believe the news media “calls” the Presidential election. Others think this Court is a mystical, all-powerful institution that can wave its judicial wand and make everything right. Neither is true.

The United States Constitution gives the state legislatures the power to determine their election laws. Of course, they may not violate other constitutional principles in enacting and implementing those laws.

When all legal ballots have been accurately counted, we have a free and fair election result that the state certifies. Chosen electors report that result to Congress and the president is elected. No one is elected President until that process is completed properly.

There are various remedies if an election is not free and fair — recounts, contests, legislative proceedings, and generalized litigation are all options and all have been used here. However, the country cannot wait until these proceedings are resolved to elect a president. So, if no presidential candidate achieves the required number of electoral votes by December 14 after the election, a Committee of Congress decides the presidential election and the Senate decides the vice-presidential election.

This Court’s primary role in our government is to protect, defend, and interpret the Constitution. Since a free and fair election is constitutionally required to establish the “consent of the governed” and create a just government, it falls to this Court to make the ultimate determination on that issue.

The Constitutional Issue

This case presents the following constitutional question: Is a state’s vote certification or a state court’s judgment final and dispositive in the face of significant and credible claims of election wrongdoing?

First, automatically allowing state certification or adjudication to be final would nullify this Court’s primary duty to safeguard the constitutional standard of a free and fair election.

Second, state certification or adjudication can be an inherently political process. Although we do not suggest improper conduct by officials, there is ample opportunity for the appearance of partisanship. Since this Court is not subject to direct election, this problem is lessened.

So, neither a state’s certification nor adjudication of an election is dispositive where significant and credible claims of election wrongdoing exist. As to the 2020 presidential election, this leaves several subsidiary questions to resolve.

First, do Plaintiffs show significant and credible claims of election wrongdoing? By “credible” we mean is there a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs can prove the election wrongdoing they allege?

Plaintiffs have submitted hundreds of sworn statements by citizens describing a pattern of election wrongdoing in Defendant States ranging from ballot stuffing, unexplained vote spikes, counting ballots multiple times, violation of state election laws, exclusion of observers to payment for votes. The affidavits are detailed and specific and relate first-hand accounts. The experts describe specific information and bases for their conclusions.

The evidence and argument submitted are credible. However, credibility does not suggest a finding of election wrongdoing. Those issues remain to be resolved.

Second, are the credible allegations of election wrongdoing “significant”? By “significant” we mean can those allegations, if proven, make a difference in the Presidential election of 2020. If not, the allegations do not raise a constitutional issue for this Court to address.

This is not to say that “insignificant” election wrongdoing should be ignored. No amount of election wrongdoing should be tolerated. It should be acted upon by appropriate state or federal authorities lest toleration leads to more unacceptable conduct.

Here, taken together, Plaintiffs’ arguments and evidence credibly put hundreds of thousands of votes at issue. More importantly, they credibly question sufficient votes in each Defendant State to affect the result of the 2020 election. The Court finds that the allegations and evidence are credible and significant in each Defendant State.

Disposition

Having found that this case meets the high standard of showing credible and significant election wrongdoing, the question becomes what remedy is appropriate given the short time frame for selecting a president.

Ideally, the claims of election wrongdoing would be fully litigated to final judgment before the inauguration. All legal ballots in the Defendant States would then be counted and all illegal ballots discarded. The American people could feel sure that the next president was chosen in a free and fair election. The Constitution and our Republic would be secure. Clearly, given the scope of claims here, that result may not happen in the time allowed.

Some Plaintiffs urge that Defendant States’ legislatures choose the presidential electors.

Other Plaintiffs ask us to block certification in the Defendant States.

Defendant States suggest we dismiss this action and do nothing.

First, taking no action on a showing of credible and significant election wrongdoing would strike at the very foundations of our constitutional Republic. As noted, the justness of our government depends solely on the consent of the People. If election wrongdoing steals a Presidential election, there is no consent and no citizen can ever be confident of a future election. This harm will reverberate throughout the ages.

Second, returning the selection of electors to Defendant States’ legislatures does not carry out the central holding here. Credible and significant claims of election wrongdoing must be finally resolved on the merits including, where necessary, review by this Court. The fundamental importance of having free and fair elections demands this result.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant States are hereby enjoined from completing the certification of the results of the 2020 elections in their states until the election wrongdoing is finally adjudicated. None of the candidates involved in the 2020 election in those states can be sworn into office until that adjudication takes place.

As to the 2020 Presidential election, the Constitution provides a political, not judicial, mechanism described above to address the unfortunate situation presented by this case. If certified results do not allow any presidential candidate to achieve 270 electoral votes by the inauguration date, the President and Vice-President shall be elected by the procedures provided in the Constitution.

SO ORDERED

Jerome Michaels

Joe Biden can’t be trusted to represent America on the world stage. Not only is he prone to verbal gaffes, but he is also not committed to American prosperity.

On the other hand, men like President Donald Trump are willing to stand up to other leaders for America. He knows what is right and how to get there. Perhaps his methods, such as tariffs, are outdated. Maybe he is attacking too many countries at once on his trade counter-offensive. But he is still doing better than Joe Biden would do or Hillary Clinton would have done. He knows how to fight. Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend our interests, but Donald Trump can.

Want to view this article ad-free? Then become a Patreon Patron for only $3 a month and view new articles ad-free on Patreon! Become one here: Patreon Donation Link

Think your mask is completely useless? Mad at your governor’s Covid policies? Then order one of these to show your displeasure! Buy one here: https://teespring.com/this-mask-is-usel-october-2020

So why is it that Biden can’t be trusted? Because he is a candidate that is very likely to bow from pressure from his party to give in on trade. Countries like China and Mexico are hoping that a Democrat wins. They know that they don’t have the political or personal willpower to carry the fight to the end. Instead, Democrats will bow down to short term pressure from competitor nations. That is unacceptable for America. These next few years may be the last few we have to figure out trade. If Congress lets him, President Donald Trump will finish the fight.

Free trade is great goal to strive for. It is part of the “Magic Formula of Economic Success” that was originally established by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations and has worked for centuries. Tariffs are a corrupting economic influence.

Economically, imposing tariffs is like shooting yourself in the foot. Politically, however, they are an excellent tool. China and Mexico need us and our markets far more than we need them. Tariffs could help bring them into line quickly; without US markets their growth will slow even more and they will find themselves in dire political straights, as the legitimacy of their governments is built on continued economic growth. Well, at least, for China that is true. Mexico is a failed state, so its government just needs good news.

So, President Trump should stick to his guns and keep taming China and other competitor nations by using tariffs. Even if those hurt us in the short run, they will likely prove effective in the long run and help improve America’s economic situtation.

But, in any case, Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend America. Economically, he would be unable to push through the necessary reforms on trade and do potentially unpopular things like fight China’s trade misdeeds with tariffs. Politically, he will back down to the radical left, as he is a not really a moderate. And, in terms of national defense, Biden would likely either be a hawk that would get us involved with more undeclared and endless wars, or a pacifist that would let nations like China push around us and our allies.

Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend America’s interests. He is senile, a coward, and a political opportunist that is simply not up to the task. He would just bow down to China, Germany, Iran, and other nations that wish us ill.

Conclusion:

This article ended up being more about trade and how Trump is defending us from China’s predatory behavior than about the fact that Joe Biden can’t be trusted. However, I think that is actually a more useful lens through which to view the concept that Joe Biden can’t be trusted to defend American interests. We all know Biden’s faults. We all know that he can’t be trusted to protect our trade interests. But, because it is sometimes easy to forget, we all need to remember what President Donald Trump is doing and why in regards to trade.

I believe Trump knows the benefits of free trade. I would even dare to say that he prefers free trade and wants it to be the economic policy of the world. But, he’s not willing to sell US companies out to gain false concessions and pretend free trade because he also recognizes the cost of globalization.

If he backed down, China, Mexico, and other countries might pretend to cut subsidies or tariffs to meet US requirements. But they would cheat. That is what they have done in the past. Especially China. It has cheated on trade, stolen intellectual property, and restricted its markets for far too long. If we are to have free trade, it should truly be free. The way to make it free is to force China to comply with US requirements.

Trump can be trusted to make China and other nations comply. He can weather criticism and hold out for what is right. Despite short term economic losses, he is doing the right thing. His reforms will create a more free system. The same can not be said about Biden. Joe Biden can’t be trusted to weather criticism and protect US interests. He would give in or act corruptly.

By: Gen Z Conservative

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.”
― Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

Biden is in such a ridiculous position. He tells RINOs that he’ll be a “moderate” – in other words, unprincipled, like they are. He tells hardcore AOC types in his party that he’ll enact their radical agenda – arbitrary executive orders, defunding police, totalitarian lockdowns, unlimited taxes, socialized medicine, and all. It’s ridiculous because HE, Biden, doesn’t matter. He didn’t orchestrate the fraudulent election. He condoned and approved it, but even pre-dementia he never had those brains. Others did – social media moguls like Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bill Gates, the DNC, and more vibrant, far-left members of his own party, including his own VP.

It doesn’t really matter what he thinks. Yet, as things stand now anyway, he will be in charge. Kind of like the Queen is in charge of Great Britain, only with less mental acuity. It’s ridiculous.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Main Stream Media seems oddly silent about the upcoming pro-Trump rally in Washington D.C. this Saturday [Trump supporters plan DC rally to ‘demand transparency’ before Electoral College vote, by N’dea Yancey-Bragg,USA TODAY, December 10, 2020] Perhaps they were dismayed by the extraordinary success of the November 16 Stop The Steal Rally march, or maybe they’re just preparing to downplay the usual Leftist violence. But I’m planning on attending the rally. I see great potential in the grassroots movement that has been energized by President Trump. It will outlast him and give shape to the legitimate resistance (as opposed to the Left’s pop culture #Resistance) that will emerge in response to any Biden/Harris Regime.

The Main Stream Media’s strange idea that President Donald Trump is going to pull a Caesar is, of course, projection [Decline and fall: what Donald Trump can learn from the Roman emperors, by Natalie Haynes, The Guardian, December 4, 2020]. The great American Republic has already fallen. We are already at the point where the government has essentially lost control of key parts of its territory. We are already at the point where the rule of law is nonexistent—something that was presaged by the collapse of immigration law enforcement. We are already at the point where massive corporate, media, and extralegal entities control the political system. We’re even at the point where foreign countries brag about it.

We’re going to get one form of Caesarism or another. It will either be a heroic personality who can save the Historic American Nation—or it will be a more unaccountable, dishonest, and concealed class dictatorship ruling over a glorified shopping mall.

Let’s be clear about one thing at the beginning – President Trump, several states, and 106 Republican congressmen are simply raising legitimate legal challenges entirely within the existing framework [106 House Republicans back Texas challenge of election results at Supreme Court, by Melissa Quinn, CBS News, December 10, 2020]. There’s nothing radical about this. Of course National Review is characteristically sounding retreat [Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States, by Andrew McCarthy, December 9, 2020]. But there’s no reason the GOP/GAP should go along with election results that are this suspicious, based upon rules that were made up on the fly during unprecedented circumstances.

As Ann Coulter noted just yesterday, election fraud has been used by Democrats to capture seats for many years now. All Trump and at least some Republicans are doing is fighting back—for once.

Yet there’s a deeper, more fundamental issue. The GOP Congressmen backing Trump are being called “traitors,” a term which was trending a.k.a. approved by the censors on Twitter yesterday [Meet The 106 House Republican Traitors Who Betrayed America For Trump, by Jason Easley, PoliticsUSA, December 10, 2020]. In its countersuit against Texas, Pennsylvania accused the Lone Star State of a “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

Again, one must ask… treason to what? Sedition against whom? Once in office, Joe Biden wants to essentially abolish what few barriers remain to mass immigration, essentially displacing the American people in their own country. The names of the Founding Fathers are being torn down from schools and streets all over the country. The Chinese calmly describe the reality of the American “Deep State which really runs the show here,” the American government openly prefers foreigners over American workers. And now we discover that the financial ties between China and Hunter Biden, which the MSM suppressed during the campaign, were all real [Both of the Media’s Reasons for Suppressing The Hunter Biden Story Turned Out To Be ‘False,; by Shelby Talcott, Daily Caller, December 10, 2020].

Is there an America left to defend or rebel against? Pundits imply that there is and that President Trump is somehow undermining it. For example, there’s now one of those curiously coordinated waves of hit pieces against Trump supporters, this time the “Oath Keepers”:

• How Oath Keepers Are Quietly Infiltrating Local Government, by Ciara O’Rourke, Politico, December 9, 2020
• Who Are The Oath Keepers? This Pro-Trump Militia Claims To Be ‘Protecting’ America, by Sarah Midkiff, Refinery29, December 9, 2020
• Militia group seeks armed volunteers to protect Trump supporters at D.C. rally, by Andrew Blake, Washington Times, December 10, 2020

The lede from the supposedly “conservative” Washington Times:

Militiamen, white nationalists, and so-called Proud Boys are set again to be among the supporters of President Trump participating in protests being held for him this weekend around Washington D.C.

In contrast, in Portland OR, there’s been yet another “autonomous zone” set up within a major city [Protesters Erect New Autonomous Zone in Portland to Prevent Black Family’s Eviction, by Matthew Impelli, Newsweek, December 8, 2020] with “activists” warning journalists not to take photos or videos [Portland protesters warn people not to film red zone ‘autonomous zone,’ by Natalie O’Neill, New York Post, December 10, 2020].

And of course the “journalists” will comply. They are too busy writing stories about how the president is supposedly creating a threatening environment among Republicans [As Trump Rails Against Loss, His Supporters Become More Threatening, by Nick Corasanti, Jim Rutenberg, and Kathleen Gray, New York Times, December 8, 2020]

But at the same time, reporters shrug at an explicit statement from a Democratic state senator telling “soldiers” who “know how to do it” to make Trump supporters “pay” [Detroit lawmaker says video wasn’t meant to threaten Trump supporters, but she doesn’t regret it, by Malachi Barrett, Michigan Lives, December 9, 2020].

Somehow, amidst all of this, it’s Trump who is being accused of authoritarianism [Despite drift toward authoritarianism, Trump voters stay loyal. Why? By Edward Lempinen, Berkeley News, December 7, 2020].

Yet the fact is that, whatever Trump’s virtues and achievements—and they are not nothing— he’s unquestionably been the weakest president in recent history.

There is a virtual industry of former supporters, friends, or business partners cashing in on past relationships with Trump and being hailed as heroes on MSM programs. Major Big Tech platforms censor him, not his opponents. He doesn’t even seem to control his own Administration, let alone the country.

In his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump was far too open and it is his supporters who are protesting lockdowns, forced vaccination schemes, and travel restrictions. If Donald Trump really were an authoritarian nationalist, he was given a priceless opportunity to seize power. Instead, he largely governed as a conventional conservative, even a classical liberal.

President Trump clearly projects strength and looks like what we think a nationalist should be. However, he hasn’t actually followed up on these things. Consider these failures:

• There was no remittance tax to pay for the wall, no Official English, and no challenge to Birthright Citizenship
• Though he ran as an economic populist in 2016 and called for more stimulus payments before the election, he governed much more like an economic conservative.
• He has no health care policy, and neither does the GOP.
• He never tamed Big Tech when he had the chance.
• Above all, he never directly confronted the Black Lives Matter Blood Libelagainst White America, or Democrat politicians’ complicity in Communist rioting across the country, apparently hoping Americans would just draw the right conclusion all by themselves .

Boomer, all too Boomer. President Donald Trump mastered not the Art of the Deal, but the art of public relations. He was a media hero for decades, but I suspect he never quite learned that a single man can’t take on the entire Main Stream Media. Instead, he’s still playing by the old rules, and seems stunned that his side isn’t getting a fair hearing.

Thus, recently pardoned Michael Flynn’s call for President Trump to use Lincoln-like tactics to save the country and re-do the presidential election seems wildly unrealistic [Freshly pardoned Michael Flynn shares message telling Trump to ‘suspend the Constitution’ to hold a new presidential election, by Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week, December 2, 2020]. If President Trump was the type of man who could metaphorically “cross the Rubicon” and declare martial law, he wouldn’t be in this position to begin with.

In any case, action against media monopolies and ensuring social media access for his supporters would have been a far more effective tactic than legal maneuvering anyway–and this should have been prioritized day one.

I have no doubt the Supreme Court will simply duck the Texas case. Chief Justice John Roberts is yet another “conservative” appointee who has shifted left once taking the big chair, and most other justices are similarly unimpressive. Even proven fraud is being ignored and, without free speech online, the evidence can be censored.

However, that doesn’t mean the Sorelian Myth of a nationalist march on Washington, or Trump crossing the Potomac in lieu of the Rubicon, isn’t useful. After all, we already know the outright tyrannical measures that the Democrats are openly planning to impose on the American people. It is important that ordinary Americans recognize the coming Regime is illegitimate, that the GOP failed them and that, if President Trump lost, it was because he was too cautious and compromising, rather than audacious and bold.

Before even discussing breaking up the boundaries within states, forming a Third Party, taking over the GOP, or even the extreme solution of secession, people need to believe that resistance is at least possible.

And, as Peter Brimelow always reminds me, we just don’t know what Trump will do. The former casino owner might, out of sheer self-preservation, decide to throw it to the wind and declare alea iacta est—or at least give the Ruling Class one more hysterical fit.

James Kirkpatrick

Bjorn Lomborg’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is a true alarm—a call for a re-thinking of climate policy entirely.

Bjorn Lomborg is a business school professor and best-selling author.  Time has named him one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. Foreign Policy has declared him one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers. He’s also a self-described environmentalist. Indeed, The Guardian considers him one of the fifty people who could save the planet.

Remarkably, he has recently published a book titled False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.

Lomborg’s book is a relatively compact, convincing rejoinder to climate alarmism with an optimistic, human-centric theme. The author’s thesis is that climate change is a problem, and that human activity is contributing to the problem. It is a problem that is manageable and not catastrophic. Indeed, he insists that panic, fossil fuel suppression, and a reverse of the decades-long eradication of global poverty would be far more catastrophic.

Lomborg goes into exhaustively cited detail on the high cost of acquiescing to the demands of the climate change lobby. He emphasizes that the costs will be especially onerous on the world’s poor (including the poor in first world countries):

 “The truth is that climate policies hurt the poor everywhere, even in countries like the United States, because higher energy prices have a disproportionate negative impact on the poor. Universally, poor people in well-off countries use much more of their limited resources paying for electricity and heating. One 2019 study showed that US low-income consumers spend 85 percent more on electricity as a percentage of total expenditure than high-income consumers. When climate policies lead to higher electricity prices, this harms the poor much more than the rich.

“This is one of the reasons why rich elites have no problem saying we should increase gas prices to $20 a gallon—they can easily afford it. Wealth also tends to be clustered in cities, where people drive much less. Of course, the struggling single mom in Huntingdon, West Virginia, has a very different experience.” (p. 143)

The author devotes considerable space to the Paris Agreement, to which Joe Biden is reportedly considering committing the United States again. He argues that the agreement is not only ineffective but would be ruinous to the poor of Third World nations:

“The Paris Agreement is expensive and largely ineffective. It is also going to mean more people left in poverty. A 2019 study found that the massive cost of reducing emissions under the Paris Agreement will lead to an increase in global poverty (compared to what would otherwise be expected) of around 4 percent. The authors issue a stark warning that strong climate change policies could slow efforts to reduce poverty in poor countries.” (p. 139)

Lomborg explains that much of future climate change is already irreversible, caused by past industrial activity—the effects cannot be avoided now. He also explains how inefficacious individual action such as veganism, personal suspension of air travel, etc. is in affecting a planet-wide phenomena that aggregates the output of scores of countries and billions of individuals. He notes that, while hurricanes and other extreme weather events are less frequent than in the past, they are more severe. He even explains that there are, in fact, benefits to warming beyond the fact that more people die from extreme cold than from extreme heat. He conclusively argues that doing nothing to address climate change (which is not his preferred response) would still be less deleterious to society than to enact most of the proposals of the environmental lobby. Fundamentally, False Alarm is a true alarm—a call for a re-thinking of climate policy entirely:

“Thirty years of climate policy have failed to rein in temperature rises or reduce carbon intensity—the amount of carbon dioxide we emit for every unit of energy produced. All the well-meaning personal actions undertaken in the rich world, like buying electric cars or becoming vegetarian, amount to little more than gestures. Far more importantly, the Paris Agreement has put us collectively on a pathway toward incurring gigantic costs, especially for the poorest, with next to no climate benefit.

“Thus far, humanity has excelled at showing how *not* to fix the climate. We have spent three decades trying the same, deeply broken approach, over and over.

“Politicians lurch from one climate summit to the next, with climate campaigners urging them on to make even more ludicrous promises. Enough is enough.” (p. 148)

The weakest part of the book is the beginning of Lomborg’s proposed solutions to climate change. He begins with a proposal for a carbon tax, which he calls a “market-based solution”. With copious, illustrative graphs, he calculates the precise amounts at which a carbon tax would deter carbon dioxide emissions without unduly hampering prosperity, technology, etc. This section of the book is redolent of all-too-familiar Pragmatism. Lomborg does not consider whether excessive—or any—coercive taxation is justifiable on principle; he considers only alleged short-term practical effects. Also, it is too much of a macro solution, discounting the rights of individuals and companies. His other proposed solutions to climate change are significantly more reasonable. In a chapter on “adaptation”, he notes that the citizens of The Netherlands has learned to live below sea level.  In another chapter on innovation, he stresses that it is too early for innovation to work but that more money should be spent on it. The final chapter of this section has a title that speaks for itself: “Prosperity: The Other Climate Policy We Need”.

False Alarm is a detailed, generally cogent, human-centric, optimistic tome from an honest environmentalist. Other than the pragmatism of the prescribed carbon tax, its biggest flaw is a failure to delve into the ideology behind anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. Lomborg even asserts that most of those concerned about climate change are concerned about minimizing human suffering. It is not necessary to quote environmental ideologues to refute this misconception about misanthropic green ideology; the fact that this book needed to be published alone is evidence that most “environmentalists” are not primarily concerned with the humans. Lomborg’s failure to so much as mention this—in fact, his apparent unawareness of this well-documented aspect of environmentalist culture—comes across as naive and ignorant.

Nonetheless, it is refreshing to read what an expert, “mainstream” figure has to say about this subject—and that it dovetails with the views of “extremist” capitalists.

“Fixating on scary stories about climate change leads us to make poor decisions. As individuals, we feel compelled to transform our lives, in ways both minor (not eating meat) and major (foregoing parenthood). As societies, we are making treaties that promise to squander hundreds of trillions of dollars on incredibly inefficient carbon-cutting policies.

“Overspending on bad climate policies doesn’t just waste money. It means underspending on effective climate policies and underspending on the opportunities we have to improve life for billions of people, now and into the future. That’s not just inefficient. It’s morally wrong.” (p. 222)

While capitalists will disagree that governments should be spending that money instead of individuals, Lomborg’s False Alarm is a welcome independent view that concurs that the pro-man (human-centered) approach to policy is the moral one.

Jeffrey Falk, Capitalism Magazine

The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a long shot.  Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors.  Why?  Because the power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this. 

Though we are non-lawyers, let’s read these laws together, interpreting them minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem incapable of doing).  The first federal law for our purposes, titled “Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors,” says:

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint electors after a controversy (“controversy or contest”).  Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed?  That definitely qualifies to become a “controversy or contest.”  The provision opens the door to each state legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors (“appointment of electors” and “ascertainment of electors”).  (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision gives more clarity after a controversy.)  Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the “fake winner,” can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows. 

What does each state law say?  It’s up to them to tell us, because researching each state’s law is too burdensome for average citizens.  But it is safe to assume that the states have “plenary power” to appoint the electors of their choosing, particularly when the Constitution actually says the state legislatures determine things.  The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides that “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” (Hat tip.)

However, what about the “six days” in the election law provision?  The next federal law, in a section titled “failure to make a choice before prescribed day,” says:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. 

The states can determine when they appoint the electors “on a subsequent day” (not the next day).  The phrase “In such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct” gives the states much leeway to select the right electors, which agrees with the Electors Clause, cited above.  And if the controversy in selecting electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec. 14, then the states can ignore the date and follow their need to further investigate fraud and illegalities. 

The whole thing can work out like this, apart from the Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS.

The undisputed states vote electorally on Dec. 14, and neither Biden nor Trump reaches 270, so neither one is the winner.  The five GOP state legislatures (Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) of the six disputed states (minus Nevada) say they need to postpone their electoral votes because they are investigating fraud and illegalities. The legislatures perform due diligence (they have been holding hearings to collect the evidence) and conclude that fraud and illegalities unilaterally hurt Trump and helped only Biden.  Assuming that the Democrat Legislature in Nevada says everything was legitimate, each disputed GOP state may reach this conclusion on any day after Dec. 14 — say, on Dec. 27 or even Jan. 15.  Then they appoint electors who vote for the rightful winner: Trump (provided the GOP-selected electors do not suffer from TDS).  These votes are added in to the votes cast on Dec. 14.  Trump goes past 270 electoral votes.  He wins!

However, what happens if the disputed states cannot select the electors, and neither Trump or Biden reaches 270?  Then it goes to the House of Representatives, and each state has one vote, and this one vote is determined by the political makeup of the state legislatures.  The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, and the Democrats have 19 (two are split).  Trump wins again.

Therefore, we don’t need SCOTUS to win, and we never needed it.

So what happen next, and what can regular folks do now? 

First, we can keep up the pressure on the legislators of those five GOP states to select electors who will vote for the rightful winner, who is obviously Trump.  Some of the members in these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so the message must be sent that they have to set aside their irrational opposition and do the right thing. 

Second, Sidney Powell’s legal team can continue with their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting Systems.  Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get rid of the flawed, rigged system.  This goal is much more realistic and easier to accomplish.  The court cases will take a long time.  But that’s okay, because they keep in the public view the “fake president” and 2024, if Biden (unjustly) prevails. 

Third, we must counter the left-wing pressure, including their threats of violence, that will be thrust on these little known state politicians.  Without threats of violence on our side, we can still stand firm to support and defend them. 

The battle is not over.  It was always going to boil down to the legislatures without SCOTUS.  If we keep up the fight, we shall win with knowledge and the law on our side.

James Arlandson, American Thinker

BEN FRANKLIN was not only America’s most famous citizen at our country’s birth, but a central part of that birth. Franklin helped draft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He signed the Treaty of Alliance with France, bringing the colonies French aid against the British, and The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War and recognized America’s independence.

He was the only person to sign all those key documents. Franklin’s role in our founding, however, has been eclipsed in modern memory by his many other accomplishments as a prolific inventor, discoverer, publisher, etc. But what has been crowded out—what he said about America and the liberty it was designed to protect—is a vital part of his legacy, as well.

They who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety. Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties.

A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.

Our cause is the cause of all mankind … we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own. Where liberty is, there is my country. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles … is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.

Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not … liberty to purchase power.

In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns. I hope … all mankind will at length … have reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats.

Men will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself. Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be certain except death and taxes.

History affords us many instances of the ruin of states … the ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy.… An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.

At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Franklin reflected the risk and unity of purpose that led to America’s founding when he said, “Gentlemen, we must now hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately.” But he also knew how uncertain success was for their vision of liberty.

Benjamin Franklin made clear the intention of America’s experiment in liberty when he said, “God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.” It is worth comparing modern America with Franklin’s vision, and asking how we can reclaim his vision.