Selwyn Duke tells in The New American of a tour guide in Hungary who once explained to visitors how that nations’ Marxists “dealt with” Christians. “It wasn’t that you couldn’t be a Christian … you could pray at home, worship at home and with your family, even get baptized and go to church. However, you had a choice. You could either be a Christian … or you could be successful.”
Unfortunately, this is the same picture that is being filled in America today, and will become eminently so if and when Biden takes the oath of office. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which is America’s largest and most powerful LGBTQ Lobby, is pushing the incoming Biden Administration to target Christian Colleges and Universities, and in essence, Christianity itself. The HRC offers 85 suggestions in their Blueprint for Positive Change, including eliminating non-discrimination exemptions for religious colleges if they refuse to ABANDON the biblical position on marriage.
Holding the federal government’s “accreditation” standards above the heads of Christian educational institutions, the HRC recommends:
Language regarding accreditation of religious institutions of higher education in the Higher Education Opportunity Act could be interpreted to require accrediting bodies to accredit religious institutions that discriminate or that do not meet science based curricula standards. The Department of Education should issue a regulation clarifying that this provision, which requires accreditation agencies to ‘respect the stated mission’ of religious institutions, does not require the accreditation of religious institutions that do not meet neutral accreditation standards including nondiscrimination policies and scientific curriculum requirements.
There it is in plain language. Withhold accreditation to Christian Universities if they do not abandon biblical standards for teaching, hiring admissions, student housing, student life, college clubs and organizations, and even teaching. There will be no student loans—since the government already has removed that from the free market several years ago—no grants, no assistance to fund private university education. Christian schools must lose their Christianity.
Setting aside the forcible co-opting of “science” to imply that people are born homosexual—for science is not determined by political pressure, and science has NOT substantiated that people are born homosexual—consider also the fact that converting people to Jesus Christ is to be outlawed.
Beneath the section Department of Education, a sub-section is entitled “Prohibit Pupil Services from Engaging in Conversion Therapy or Referring Students to Conversion Therapy.”
“Conversion therapy,” the phrase that the LGBTQ community uses for making efforts to “convert” or “change” a person from their so-called “sexual orientation”, is absolutely forbidden. As noted above, the homosexual community dons the false mantra of “science”—aided and abetted by the Democratic/Socialist Party—and from that standpoint, demands that no “school counselor” or “school-based mental health professionals” or “social worker” provide or even refer students to “providers of conversion therapy.”
What shall we say to these things?
First, this means that the homosexual agenda is so weak that it needs the full strength of government force to demand that society “recognize” that homosexuals are “born that way.” It naturally follows from this that there will be no preaching of the message of Christ which requires repentance from sinful activity. This is tantamount to setting the government itself up to define what is SIN and what is NOT Sin.
For those who suppose that this would never occur in America, they are lagging in information. Such laws already exist in states such as California and New Jersey—the latter state having implemented similar programs during Gov. Chris Christie’s governorship.
Second, this is nothing less than an unabashed war on Christianity and biblical values and anyone who espouses them. Next we will be hearing, “Bring on the Lions!” It is past time for Christians to engage and get political, if they wish to preserve their freedoms. The Democratic Party, and now the government itself, is at war with you.
An example of how the homosexual agenda turns logic and morality upside down is its push for recognition of “inalienable rights.”
The Homosexual Lobby explains that, in the past, “The Commission on Unalienable Rights” was created by the State Department “to challenge the international consensus”; but it had a too “narrow view of human rights.” This narrow view has left “LGBTQ people” out. Hence, the HRC demands the Biden Administration bring on a “principles based approach” which would be fully “inclusive” for homosexuals.
In short, HRC demands that homosexual practices be counted as an inalienable right. However, This empties the concept of all meaningful content. Rights are inalienable because they are given by God—that’s why they are inalienable—they cannot be removed without incurring the wrath of God. This is sole reason government was formed to begin with—to protect what God gave us. “…to secure these rights governments are instituted among men…”
But HRC repudiates God and His Holy Word. As a matter of fact, not just the HRC’s strategy, but any effort that seeks a government endowment to define or give “rights” has nothing to do with the concept of “inalienable.” Government endowments are not inalienable. They are government grants; government creations. And what government can give, the government has the ability to remove. When God is removed from the equation the concept of “inalienable” evaporates.
Over a century and a half ago, Frederic Bastiat, who was trying to preserve freedom in France, explained to the world the following.
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
The inescapable quandary of the homosexual community is this: it wishes to repudiate God—Who makes our rights “inalienable.” Yet, it wishes to retain the idea of “inalienable.” Beware of the HRC and its influence on the Biden Administration.
Conservatives were once a lonely band of freethinkers
In the early 1950s, liberal intellectuals shaped the American zeitgeist, while conservatives, to quote Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, manned “tiny outposts” over a broad front, rarely communicating with one another.
When 39 American and European conservative intellectuals, calling themselves “traditional liberals,” formed an organization in the spring of 1947, they did not meet in America but thousands of miles away in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Their mood was somber, for statism had permeated the governments of Western Europe while communism ruled in Eastern Europe with a little help from the Soviet Army. Led by the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, these free-market scholars described their goal, rather grandly, as “the preservation and improvement of the free society.” Economist Milton Friedman contented himself with saying the meeting demonstrated that “we were not alone.” All too alone were conservative academics such as University of Chicago English professor Richard Weaver, Duke political scientist Ralph Hallowell, Louisiana State University political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Harvard historian William Y. Elliott, and UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Nisbet.
There were scattered conservative publications, with small circulations compared with those of established liberal journals such as The New Republic and The Nation. Human Events was a weekly eight-page political newsletter. Firmly anti–New Deal, it described the changes in American government since 1932 as “revolutionary” and called on Republicans to roll back the “iron curtain” that separated Washington from the rest of the country. But its call to action had attracted a circulation of only 5,000.
The one conservative youth group was the newly born ISI, with its paradoxical name, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (now the Intercollegiate Studies Institute). Encouraged by a $1,000 check from oil executive J. Howard Pew, ISI’s organizers argued that the push toward socialism in America had begun in the early 1900s with the formation of Socialist Clubs on college campuses. ISI’s plan was to “foment the organization of campus cells for the study and discussion of individualistic ideas.” The libertarian language reflected the ideology of its founding father, Frank Chodorov, who never met a government program he didn’t want to dismantle. With William F. Buckley Jr. as president, ISI reached 600 members in its first year and then quadrupled over the next several, revealing a campus appetite for at least some conservative ideas.
There were conservative newspaper columnists, such as George Sokolsky, and radio broadcasters, such as Fulton Lewis Jr., but liberals undercut their influence by linking them whenever they could with a “militant right wing.” CBS’s Mike Wallace, for example, invited his viewers one evening to listen to Lewis explain “the attraction the far right has for crackpot fascist groups in America.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When The Conservative Mind was published in 1953, liberals joked that the title was an oxymoron. But they stopped laughing when they read Kirk’s synthesis of the thought of leading conservatives from the late 18th century to the 20th century, including Edmund Burke, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Disraeli, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot. The work established convincingly that there had been a conservative tradition in America since the Founding. Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable. In fact, as NR publisher William Rusher pointed out, he gave the conservative movement its name.
As George Nash has written in his indispensable study The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, there were three reactions to the Left in the aftermath of World War II. The first, as represented by Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, consisted of classical liberals and libertarians, resisting the threat to individual liberty posed by the collectivist state. The second was the revolt of traditionalists, such as Weaver and Kirk, who urged a return to time-honored religious and ethical beliefs and a rejection of moral relativism. The third was, in Nash’s words, “a militant evangelistic anti-Communism,” shaped by ex-communists such as Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers, author of the powerful autobiographical work Witness.
Bill Buckley’s special genius as a master fusionist was his ability to keep these dissimilar, disputatious intellectuals on the same masthead for years to come. Why were there so few defectors? Because of Buckley’s extraordinary skill at harmonizing the conflicting voices of the conservative choir. Because he persuaded his fractious colleagues to concentrate on their common enemy — the Soviet Union — and set aside for the time being their undoubted differences. And because he helped them realize they were part of something historic — what Buckley would call “our movement.”
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
Time for Separation?/Secession? Inspired by two articles: (a) Walter Williams’ “Its time to part company”–written twenty years ago; and (b) Thomas Del Beccaro in The Epoch Times (11/25-12/1/20) entitled “The end of the Electoral College Would Lead to the Breakup of the United States.” We explore the possibility that America, especially with the socialists taking over America under Joe Biden, might be on the verge of breaking apart. This is particularly the case if the ELECTORAL COLLEGE goes the way of all the earth–as promised by the Democrat Party.
This topic takes up the FIRST and SECOND segments of the show.
The Welfare State. A look at the Constitution–plus a reach back to the Goldberg v. Kelly (March 1970) Supreme Court decision which made welfare “entitlement” payments equal to “private property” and a “right” CREATED by the Federal Government. What are the implications of such a decision.
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.
Under the new world order envisioned by the proponents of the United Nations-backed “Great Reset,” humans will be merged with machines and technology. Literally. Perhaps most incredibly, the Deep State globalists behind the efforts are coming out of the closet. These days, they are openly and literally proclaiming their intention to abolish private ownership of property and even fuse microchips into people’s brains that will be able to read and manipulate individuals’ thoughts.
Just last year, the schemes peddled under the “Great Reset” banner would have been dismissed as “crazy conspiracy theories.” Today, top globalists such as World Economic Forum boss Klaus Schwab, UN chief (and socialist leader) Antonio Guterres, IMF leader Kristalina Georgieva, and others are trumpeting their agenda from the rooftops. World leaders such as far-left Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are doing it too, despite frantic efforts by the fake media to downplay the significance.
As The New Americanreported this summer, shortly after the “Great Reset” agenda was unveiled, there are many elements to the plot. Everything must change, from education and business to the global economy and governance, Great Reset advocates declared during the summit announcing the scheme. However, one area that has not received nearly as much attention is the plan to fuse human beings with technology under the guise of “improving” mankind.
WEF chief Schwab, the chief marketer of the Great Reset who recently released a book with that title, has proclaimed that a key element of the “reset” will be the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” And in very public statements, he has explained what this means: merging man with machines. “What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity,” Schwab explained in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Schwab, whose accent and demeanor make him appear to be almost a caricature of some evil cartoon villain, even wrote a book on the subject in 2016 entitled Shaping the Future of The Fourth Industrial Revolution. In it, the globalist schemer explains how looming technological changes will allow governments to “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior.”
“Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us — they will become part of us,” continued Schwab. “Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices — from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets — will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains.”
Among those technologies are “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies,” Schwab explained. These “implantable devices,” Schwab continued, “will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals.”
Even more creepy, perhaps, is that Schwab suggested these technologies would be used by governments to determine who may travel and even for “pre-crime” purposes. “As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase,” he explained, adding that authorities might require “a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk.”
In a post on the WEF website by Danish Parliamentarian Ida Auken, the direction and goals of all this transhumanism become more clear. “Welcome to the year 2030,” Auken writes. “I don’t own anything,” including a home, and “I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded.” But her biggest concern is those who refuse to participate.
“My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city,” Auken explains, noting that some stubborn individuals refused to merge with machines. “Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it.”
The push toward transhumanism and merging with computers is becoming especially obvious in the “education” system amid the hysteria surrounding COVID. From moving everything online and sidelining teachers to bringing in Artificial Intelligence and algorithms, the technology is getting downright creepy. Huge totalitarian firms such as Google, which brazenly discriminates against Christians and conservatives, are key players as they gather enormous amounts of sensitive data on children and blatantly manipulate the public.
The WEF, which is leading the push with help from the UN and the IMF, is a powerhouse. Every year, it brings together billionaires and even mass-murdering dictators from around the world to promote globalism and technocracy under the guise of “helping” humanity. Naturally, all of the major tech companies — Facebook, Alphabet, Microsoft, and so on — are intimately involved. Fringe billionaire totalitarians such as George Soros are key players, too.
The push for the “Great Reset” is hardly the first time the elites have peddled the trans-humanist agenda. At the 2018 “World Government Summit” in the United Arab Emirates, top globalists and “world leaders” gathered to push, among other key themes, the normalization and glorification of “cyborgs.” Indeed, the confab, which brings together top leaders of government and business, offered a prominent role to a self-proclaimed “cyborg” named Neil Harbisson, who argued that governments must facilitate the transition to at least some people becoming “part-technology, part-human.”
“I have an antenna that is implanted inside my head, which allows me to extend my perception of reality beyond the visual spectrum,” said Harbisson, co-founder of the Cyborg Society and the Transpecies Society which fight for people who “identify” as non-human. “I can sense infrared and ultraviolet, and I also have an internet connection in my head that allows me to receive colors from other parts of the world, or connect to satellites so I can send colors from space.”
The year before that, globalists at the World Government Summit gathered under a replica of the “Arch of Baal,” a monument to the demon god of the Canaanites frequently referred to in the Bible. More than a few commentators saw it as an ominous sign.
The transhumanist movement has been on the fringes, under the radar, for decades. In the late 1990s, Swedish economist Nick Bostrom of Oxford and British “philosopher” David Pearce founded the World Transhumanist Association. And more recently, in his book Homo Deus, Israeli author and historian Yuval Noah Harari has also been peddling the idea that mankind is on the verge of evolving to god-like status through technology. Ultimately, humans would be re-designed using genetic modification and technological “upgrades.”
“It is very likely, within a century or two, Homo sapiens, as we have known it for thousands of years, will disappear,” Harari said at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs recently. “We will use technology to upgrade ourselves — or at least some of us — into something different; something which is far more different from us than we are different from Neanderthals.” The establishment media has been breathlessly parroting his propaganda.
Of course, the advancement of transhumanism requires a destruction of Christian moral principles and a negation of the fundamental truths about humanity and reality that revealed in the Bible, analysts have observed. Indeed, many of the leading proponents of transhumanism believe their route to “eternal life” involves uploading their consciousness to a computer and merging with technology.
One of the prominent experts speaking out against it all is Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, a professor of science and technology policy at Peru’s Universidad San Martin. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution is literally, as they say, a transformative revolution, not just in terms of the tools that you will use to modify your environment, but for the first time in human history to modify human beings themselves,” he told LifeSiteNews, adding that he believed the COVID-19 hysteria was being engineered to enable the Great Reset transformation.
Even though world leaders are openly talking about it all, in response to a public backlash, far-left fake-media outlets such as the New York Times and the BBC are currently engaged in frantic “damage control.” Incredibly, they are even falsely claiming the Great Reset is a “baseless conspiracy theory.” Apparently New York Times writer Davey Alba is not familiar with the definition of the word conspiracy. He also reported on his efforts to pester Big Tech social-media firms about censoring people’s comments about it.
If the comments under its videos on YouTube are any indication, the globalist Great Reset is less popular than cockroaches and head lice. However, that does not mean the Deep State will give up on trying to advance its agenda under the slogan, which fits nicely with the UN and Biden, “Build Back Better” and the schemes outlined in UN Agenda 2030. It is basically the same old “New World Order” agenda, complete with the elimination of private property, privacy, self-government, and nation-states, now fused with transhumanism. Those who value truth, liberty, and humanity must resist.
Just what country is the top priority of the military and foreign policy establishment?
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who left the Trump administration amid mutual acrimony, has declared, in a Foreign Affairs op-ed cowritten with establishment foreign policy wonk Kori Schake, that he hopes a Biden administration won’t put America first. He didn’t say which country he thought a president of the United States should put first instead. But even so, it was one of the strangest statements a member of the U.S. government has ever made, and the bland reception it received is an indication of how deep the corruption is at the highest levels.
If Donald Trump doesn’t take the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021, one principal but little-noted reason for this may be that he crossed one of the most powerful and least accountable forces in the nation: the military-industrial complex. As Trump said last September, “the top people in the Pentagon…want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.”
Mattis and Schake revealed the self-serving nature of these wars, and how they are actively against the genuine national interest, when they wrote: “In January, when President Joe Biden and his national security team begin to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, we hope they will quickly revise the national security strategy to eliminate ‘America first’ from its contents, restoring in its place the commitment to cooperative security that has served the United States so well for decades.”
This was so important, they asserted, because “in practice, ‘America first’ has meant ‘America alone.’ That has damaged the country’s ability to address problems before they reach U.S. territory and has thus compounded the danger emergent threats pose.”
That’s ridiculous. Trump’s travel bans, which Biden has pledged to repeal on his first day in office, are designed to prevent problems from reaching U.S. territory. Biden’s repeal of them will only make Americans more vulnerable. Also, Trump’s America First policy was not “America alone” by any means: the U.S. was instrumental in concluding peace deals between Israel and three of its Arab Muslim neighbors, deals that John Kerry, who will soon be back in a position of power, assured us back in 2016 would be absolutely impossible. Trump has also demanded more responsibility from our allies, asking them to pay more for their own defense.
The only way in which Trump’s America First policy meant “America alone” was insofar as it broke from the internationalist arrangements that have been in place since the end of World War II, to which Mattis and Schake refer as “the commitment to cooperative security that has served the United States so well for decades.”
But if a “commitment to cooperative security” doesn’t involve being able to put one’s national interests first, how is it good for the people of that nation? That question doesn’t apply just to America.
In reality, the president’s primary job is clear from the oath of office that every president recites in order to assume office, and it isn’t to provide “cooperative security” for other countries in the world, or free health care for illegal aliens, or to make sure that Somalia or Afghanistan isn’t riven by civil war, or to make sure America is “diverse.” It is simply this: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It is in large part because they reject that principle that the elites have hated Trump with such burning intensity, and have worked so hard to get him out of office. Someone has to pay for that “cooperative security,” and someone has to be paid, and that means that Trump was threatening some extremely wealthy and powerful interests.
The internationalist elite has reasserted its hegemony and beaten back a serious challenge. And it is not a good sign that in spiking the football after that victory, Mattis makes it abundantly clear that “cooperating with like-minded nations” means putting their interests before our own. No responsible national leader should do that, but of course soon, if the Left’s quest for open borders is successful, there won’t be any more responsible national leaders, and even nations themselves will be a thing of the past.
Voting machines and software used across dozens of key jurisdictions in the 2020 election were literally designed to rig elections, according to evidence presented in federal lawsuits by powerhouse attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. Using these compromised systems secured a phony victory for Joe Biden in ways that would have been “impossible” without the widespread fraud, the suits show. Legal experts said the cases exposing the coordinated vote fraud could ensure another four years for Trump in the White House.
In her suit filed in Georgia this week, Powell explained that the ultimate objective of the vote riggers was to “illegally and fraudulently” manipulate the vote count so that Biden could appear to to be the winner. And this fraud was accomplished through various means, including lies, computer rigging, “old-fashioned ballot-stuffing,” and more that were all covered up using computer software programs created and run by foreign and domestic enemies.
Among the many pieces of evidence: a damning affidavit by a whistleblower who helped the late mass-murdering Socialist dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela create voting systems that could be rigged to favor a chosen candidate. Indeed, according to the suit, the software by Smartmatic was literally created for the purpose of rigging elections in a manner that would be impossible to prove or detect. And Smartmatic is closely linked to Dominion and other firms that were key in the 2020 election.
“Chavez was most insistent that Smartmatic design the system in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected,” the whistleblower explained under penalty of perjury. “He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumb print or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote.”
The brutal Venezuelan dictator, the affidavit continues, “made it clear that the system would have to be setup to not leave any evidence of the changed vote for a specific voter and that there would be no evidence to show and nothing to contradict that the name or the fingerprint or thumb print was going with a changed vote.” The company in question, Smartmatic, which operates through an international network of companies spread across multiple nations, “agreed to create such a system and produced the software and hardware that accomplished that result for President Chavez.”
As the lawsuit points out, Dominion’s software was literally designed to prevent simple audits that would reveal the “misallocation, redistribution, or deletion of votes.” And under the law, that makes it all invalid. “There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws,” the suit continues.
Under the law and previous court rulings, Powell’s lawsuit only needs to show that a “preponderance of evidence” reveals that “there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result.” There appears to be far more than that, despite the establishment media refusing to even mention it.
Another affidavit filed on November 25 in the case by a military intelligence analyst also revealed how vote tabulation software with operations in Serbia and other nations was critical in rigging the numbers sent to Decision HQ. The systems were accessible — and were accessed — from Communist China and other nations, the affidavit explains. Dominion, Edison Research, Scytl, and Smartmatic were all implicated, according to the sworn document.
“In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China,” the military-intelligence official said. “By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020.”
“This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber-security,” added the U.S. government official, whose name was redacted for security purposes. “This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results.”
The document also mentions former Dominion Vice President of Security Eric Coomer, a fringe anti-Trump extremist with a vicious and very public hatred for the president. According to journalist Joe Oltmann who infiltrated Antifa meetings online, Coomer even promised his fellow Antifa revolutionaries that he had ensured Trump would not be able to win the 2020 election.
Yet another sworn affidavit filed in federal court in a separate but related case by a cybersecurity expert explains how the compromised voting machines were able to rig the election in Michigan. The document, signed under penalty of perjury by Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Operations Group, outlines the findings of an 18-month investigation into Dominion and other Elections Management Systems.
“These systems contain a large number of vulnerabilities to hacking and tampering, both at the front end where Americans cast their votes, and also on the back end where votes are stored, tabulated, and reported,” the affidavit explains, specifically calling out major deficiencies and problems with Dominion. These are some of the reasons states such as Texas refused to use such technologies, according to the document filed in the case Wood v. Raffensperger involving superstar attorney Lin Wood.
Official data and analysis of Michigan’s election “pinpoints a statistical anomaly so far outside of every statistical norm as to be virtually impossible,” the sworn statement explains. “There are a stunning 3,276 precincts where the Presidential Votes Cast compared to the Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics ranges from 84% to 350%.”
Breaking down the numbers, the document explains that this pattern “strongly suggests the additive algorithm … was activated in the code.” Indeed, the User Guide for the EMS system specifically outlines the function that allows a method of tabulating votes to elect a winner.
“The final red flag is perhaps the greatest,” the affidavit continues. “Something occurred in Michigan that is physically impossible, indicating the results were manipulated on election night within EMS [Election Management System].” That red flag, the affidavit explains, are four spikes totaling almost 400,000 ballots that were allegedly processed in less than 3 hours. “This is physically impossible given the equipment available at the 4 reference locations,” the document points out.
The affidavit, which has been entered into evidence, offers further proof of establishment media dishonesty in falsely claiming that there is no evidence of fraud–later turned to “no evidence of widespread fraud.”
At least some Republican members of Congress are not playing along with the establishment effort to ignore the evidence and pretend like it does not exist. “We know what is documented here is impossible as the Maricopa County Supervisors told us everything is fine and go back to sleep and pay your taxes and wear a mask,” said Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Arz.) in a sarcastic social-media comment shared by President Trump about the affidavit filed in Wood’s suit. “And leftist reporters told us to move on.”
As recently as last year, top Democrats expressed serious concerns about election integrity using voting-machines, specifically calling out Dominion. Just weeks before the 2020 election, a federal judge in Georgia also sounded the alarm about Dominion’s systems and their vulnerability to fraud.
Wood, the attorney leading this particular case, vowed that the truth about election fraud would be exposed, and the perpetrators jailed. Powell has similarly explained that exposing the fraud and prosecuting the perpetrators is essential to the survival of America’s constitutional Republic, and therefore, it will be done.
Courts in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and other states have already issued rulings in the case favorable to the Trump campaign. In Pennsylvania, a judge even ordered a halt to any further certification of results pending a hearing. Some cases have been rejected, but they are being appealed. Eventually, the Trump campaign and other lawyers litigating the fraud in courts expect to land at the U.S. Supreme Court. And as Trump’s attorneys have explained, the president still has multiple paths to another victory.
Thanksgiving. George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation. Compared to several states that are RESTRICTING Thanksgiving Nationwide. This should cause the American people to look more carefully at the system constructed by the Founders called FEDERALISM.
What is Federalism? How does it work?
The election. This entire election is about the Struggle Between Freedom and Communism. The article is from The Epoch Times: “Election Fallout Reveals Battle Between Freedom and Communism.”
Why Should a Christian OPPOSE Communism?
Beware of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. Expose’s are here given of the globalists’ plans for YOUR family–discussion centers on “Children’s SEXUAL Rights” as outlined by the United Nations–inclusive of overstepping the Family Structure in America.
American Liberty with Bill Lockwood is about the culture of America — not simply about politics. Bill Lockwood is a preacher, teacher, writer, and radio host with a weekly program based in West Texas.
American Thinkerpublished a column by Andrea Widburg (Nov. 22, 2020) which exposes a Cambridge University constituent college professor who presents a theory as to why Americans voted for Donald Trump and why Brits supported Brexit. A parasite has infected their brains, which causes severe mental disorders and behavioral problems.
The academic, Dr. Robert Asher, is an evolutionary zoologist at England’s Trinity Hall and a one-time contributor to Huffington Post. Asher suggests a parasite named Toxoplasma gondi is the cause of politically-incorrect behavior, a parasite which has long known to affect cats. Toxoplasmosis feels like a bad flu, which can cause seizures and lung problems. Behavioral problems as well result from Toxoplasma infection.
I would personally argue that one of the problems facing humanity is, is related to, um, you know, the influence of toxoplasma in, ah, cat owners, for example. One could argue why did Brexit happened or why did people in the United States elect Donald Trump? I suspect that it has very much to do with the mind-altering parasite called toxoplasma. And if you were interested in something like that, then taking a course like Evolutionary and Behavior would help you understand this truly nefarious problem. I don’t think anyone really realizes just how bad that particular problem is.
What Shall We Say to These Things?
Crazy as the professor may sound, his assumptions are the inevitable result of the worldview known as Naturalism. The assumption of Naturalism, upon which other assumptions begin and end—namely the General Theory of Evolution as well as Atheism itself--holds that all explanations of life and even thinking must ultimately make reference to materialistic causes. As atheist of yesteryear, Woolsey Teller, stated, “the brain secretes thoughts as the liver does bile.”
Delos McKown, a one-time a professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, wrote that “the more we understand our brains by ‘chemicalizing’ their functions, the more the person is ‘biologized,’ …” Everything must be seen through the prism of “biology.”
Based upon this assumption, McKown went on to question free will. He went on to note regarding How the Brain Works, that “some neuroscientists are beginning to suspect that everything that makes people human is no more than an interaction of chemicals and electricity inside the labyrinthine folds of the brain.”
If these professors are correct in their analysis of the brain, what follows?
First, there is no such thing as rationality in the materialistic worldview. How did professor Asher come to his conclusions? His brain also—not simply a Trump supporter—is a result of physical and chemical functions alone. Perhaps he hit his head on the way to the office the day he conferenced the above ideas about toxoplasma. Perhaps he slept wrong the night before and his brain malfunctioned. This caused his thinking processes to alter and ascribe to conservatives a “parasite problem.” The chemical and electrical reactions in his brain are what caused this “conclusion.”
Better yet, perhaps he himself has been infected with the dreaded toxoplasma! Toxoplasma is a mind-altering parasite, we are told. How do we know he himself, and his conclusions about conservatives, is not the result of the dreaded cat parasite? Do you have cats at home, professor Asher?
Again, the professors’ worldview of naturalism demands that all of his “thinking” is the result of “natural processes” such as chemicals squirting through the labyrinthine folds of the brain. Why trust your conclusions, Professor Asher?
Second, there is no such thing as free will, per the professors’ assumptions. If there is no free will, then there is no responsibility for thinking a certain way or voting for a specific cause or candidate. Not only so, but that would apply across the board. Professor Asher is no more responsible for his chemically-induced diagnosis of our brains than we are to have voted for Donald Trump. In reality, his “diagnosis” is not rational, nor could it be, given his assumptions. Isn’t it peculiar, that in denying God and the reality of rational thinking, atheistic professors actually cut off the ability to label their own conclusions as rational?
Third, what is the remedy to this parasite?Shall we prescribe medications to Donald Trump supporters? To Brexit supporters? Just what kind of chemicals must we pour into our bodies to alleviate this parasite? Perhaps before the next election, government will prescribe some medication before entering the voting booth.
In the end, Professor Asher cuts the legs from underneath himself. If we know, for example, that a person argues for the free market SOLELY because he is afraid of losing his money, we tend to discredit his argument as due to irrational causes. This is because when we know that an argument proceeds from an irrational source, we discredit it. According to the professor, all thought comes from an irrational source. Thought has no power. It is the result of physical and chemical pressures in your cranium. The atoms therein simply arranged themselves so that you believe in God, for instance, or in voting for Donald Trump. But atoms inside Asher’s brain have done the same thing. Therefore, we cannot trust his thoughts any more than he can trust the thoughts of a Trump supporter.