ELECTIONS Comments turned off

28 Members of Arizona Legislature Call for the Decertification of the 2020 Election By Debra Heine

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/07/28-members-of-arizona-legislature-call-for-the-decertification-of-the-2020-election/

In a joint statement Monday, 28 members and members-Elect of the Arizona Legislature called for the decertification of the 2020 election.

“The election should not have been certified with the number of irregularities and allegations of fraud,” said House Majority Leader Warren Petersen. “Especially troubling to me are the allegations surrounding the vendor Dominion,” the lawmaker added. “It is imperative that a forensic audit occur immediately of the equipment and software. Upon any showing of fraud the legislature should immediately convene to decertify the vote.”

After being presented compelling evidence of election fraud in last week’s hearing with President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, Representative Walter Blackman said in his statement that the outcome of the election “is far from certain.”

“In the past week seemingly conclusive evidence has come to light through successful litigation that the outcome of the 2020 election is far from certain, and at the very least, further investigation is necessary to
ensure the integrity of Arizona’s election results,” Blackman said. “It is imperative that Secretary of State Hobbs rescind her certification of the election until these matters have made their way through the court and voter confidence is restored.”

“Ensuring the integrity of Arizona’s 2020 election isn’t just a matter of sound public policy, it is a civil rights imperative. There are few elements of our society more foundational than the right to free and fair elections and when that right is called into question it is our responsibility as leaders to ensure that confidence in the electoral process is restored. To this end, Arizona must decertify the 2020 election so that the numerous election irregularities may be properly adjudicated and the people of our great state may once again have faith in their right to vote,” said Representative-Elect Jake Hoffman.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Blue State, Red Tape California is shedding residents and businesses. Kerry Jackson

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.city-journal.org/blue-state-regulation-driving-out-california-businesses

A Sacramento Bee headline from late October, “How liberal politics, COVID-19 and a high cost of living are fueling a new California exodus,” could have been written, without the virus reference, a year ago. Or ten years ago. The flight from California kicked off long before this year’s pandemic.

Eight years ago, an Investor’s Business Daily editorial laid out the reasons Californians were moving “To Texas (And Arizona And Nevada),” all of them fueled by progressive public policy. That same year, a Manhattan Institute report detailed “the great ongoing California exodus . . . reversing the storied passages of the Dust Bowl era.” The authors attributed the mass departure to policy decisions making the state a less desirable place to live. Two years earlier, in 2010, New Geography asked: “If California Is Doing So Great, Why Are So Many Leaving?” and noted that the state’s “domestic migration has been negative every year since at least 1990.”

Nor is the California exodus limited to desperate residents. Joe Vranich, a relocation specialist once headquartered in Irvine, California, but now settled in Pennsylvania, has been tracking business departures since 2008. Vranich says that he became “irritated by repeated comments from California politicians, including governor Jerry Brown, that business departures . . . were not a big deal.” As he analyzed the companies, jobs, and capital fleeing the state, he realized the drain was significant. The state’s toxic business environment, Vranich estimates, caused as many as 13,000 “disinvestment events” from 2008 to 2016.

Data-analytics software company Palantir is among the firms to announce more recently that it is leaving California. CNBC characterized its decision to relocate from Palo Alto to Denver as “one of the first signals that a long-anticipated exodus from Silicon Valley is on the horizon.” Hewlett-Packard, a garage-band Silicon Valley original, recently announced that it would move its global headquarters to Texas, seeking “opportunities for cost savings,” while accommodating “team members’ preferences about the future of work.”

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Only Georgia Stands In The Way Of U.S. Becoming A One-Party State

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/12/08/only-georgia-stands-in-the-way-of-u-s-becoming-one-party-state/

So much depends on the outcome of the runoff elections in Georgia that it’s truly scary. Yet some Republicans think that “abstaining” from voting to elect a pair of U.S. senators from the Peach State is a good idea. In fact, it borders on insanity. Not voting and conceding control of the Senate to the Democrats would alter America forever, and not in a good way.

The Democrat-led Congress has let it be known what its priorities are, saying that its first task if it takes control next year will be to enact sweeping national electoral reforms that will all but ensure permanent Democrat control of the U.S. government.

Joe Biden has already said he would sign House Resolution 1, the so-called For The People Act, whose benign name belies its true intent: To create an eventual one-party leftist state with only token political opposition. The bill was passed by the Democrat-dominated House in 2019, after the party took the majority during the previous year’s elections.

Essentially, HR1 would federalize U.S. elections by putting them under the direct control of Washington. That would kill the Electoral College system we now have, which ensures that small states can’t be politically bullied by larger states when it comes to elections.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

A six-minute video sums up 2020’s impossible election paradoxes By Andrea Widburg

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/a_sixminute_video_sums_up_2020s_impossible_election_paradoxes.html

Patrick Basham, the founding director of the Democracy Institute, while on the Mark Levin show, gave a remarkably lucid explanation for the peculiarities surrounding the election.  He did not focus specifically on the allegations of election fraud.  Instead, he explained that traditional markers associated with an incumbent’s almost inevitable victory were all lined up to result in an overwhelming Trump win.  That Trump did not, in fact, win simply makes no sense.

Basham first set out his arguments in a November 27 essay at The Spectator, entitled “Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling: If only cranks find the tabulations strange, put me down as a crank.”  One of his main points in that article was that Trump’s standing with various groups improved across the board.

This was especially apparent with Trump’s support among blacks and Hispanics.  It rose to highs not seen since Nixon’s win in 1960 (yes, he won, but that election also went to a Democrat because of fraud).  At the same time, Biden’s standing with those same groups declined.  That fact alone should have presaged a Trump victory.

Basham explains that there are other metrics associated with elections that invariably predict elections.  He’s not talking about polls.  Instead, he’s talking about everything surrounding polls, such as red waves, geographic trends, and (although he doesn’t mention it) even cookie sales.

The article is powerful, but sometimes hearing someone speak has more resonance.  That’s probably why Basham’s six-minute-long statement on the Mark Levin show, seen in the following video, had been viewed 1.6 million times in 24 hours:

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Suppressing Academic Freedom in the Name of Inclusion at McGill Academic freedom held hostage by the “tyranny of group self-righteousness.” Richard L. Cravatts

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/suppressing-academic-freedom-name-inclusion-mcgill-richard-l-cravatts/

In what has become an increasingly frequent and troubling occurrence on campuses, a McGill University emeritus professor of anthropology, Philip C. Salzman, is under fire by pretentious, virtue-signaling students who wish to hear only viewpoints that conform with their own and who, in attempting to shield others from ideas that might make them uncomfortable, want to suppress the ideas of their ideological opponents.  

The notion that a vocal minority of self-important ideologues can determine what views may or may not be expressed on a particular campus is not only antithetical to the purpose of a university, of course, but is vaguely fascistic by purposely or carelessly relinquishing power to a few to decide what can be said and what speech is allowed and what must be suppressed; it is what former Yale University president Bartlett Giamatti characterized as the “tyranny of group self-righteousness.”

In a November 20th “Open Letter Demanding the Overhaul of McGill’s Statement of Academic Freedom,” eight McGill student organizations not only attacked Professor Salzman and demanded that he be stripped of his academic credentials, it also critiqued the University’s stated policies on academic freedom. In their letter they suggested that if members of the McGill community are able to express any of their views without restraint—and without considering how this expression may negatively affect victim groups and individuals on the McGill campus—then academic freedom should therefore be contained, restricted to avoid “harming” these alleged victims. “Scholars have abused their right of free speech and academic freedom,” the letter contended, “to defend acts of rhetorical violence against marginalized communities on campus, shielding racist, sexist, and transphobic speech . . . .”

EDUCATION Comments turned off

Social Media Blitz Outs America-Hating Professors to Students and Alumni 100,000 reached at four prominent universities. Sarah Dogan

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/social-media-blitz-outs-america-hating-professors-sara-dogan/

A cutting-edge social media campaign conducted in October by the conservative David Horowitz Freedom Center targeted and exposed the anti-American rantings of four professors at prestigious universities including the University of California-Davis, the University of Houston, the University of Mississippi, and the University of Washington-Seattle.

The ivory tower has long been a refuge for those who hate our country. For decades past, students have been forced to endure scholarly lectures on the evils of American hegemony, imperialist dominance, Western civilization and festering racism. But never before in our history has the very concept of our nation—founded on our inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, equality before the law, freedom of speech, press and association, and control of individual destiny—been so trampled by the institutions that exist to educate our next generation.

Spurred by this rising tide of anti-American hatred, the Freedom Center published a report and created a new website, AmericaHatingProfessors.org, exposing the Top Ten America-Hating Professors. With students and faculty evacuated from campus due to the virus, the Freedom Center conducted a targeted Facebook and Instagram campaign which displayed ads highlighting the atrocious statements and actions of these America-hating professors directly to students, faculty, staff, and alumni at four of the ten schools listed in the report.

The professors targeted in this social media blitz were American defeatist Nicholas De Genova at the University of Houston, cop-hater Joshua Clover at the University of California-Davis, “White Fragility” author Robin DiAngelo who teaches at the University of Washington-Seattle, and proud left-wing extremist James Thomas who is tenured by the University of Mississippi.

ELECTIONS Comments turned off

Media Refuses to Cover Warnock’s Child Abuse Arrest, Antisemitism, and Marxism Even at the Debate Daniel Greenfield

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/12/media-refuses-cover-warnocks-child-abuse-arrest-daniel-greenfield/

The new normal isn’t a biased media, it’s a media whose political coverage exists purely as the communications arm of the Democrats.

And that means there’s zero difference between media coverage of the Warnock-Loeffler debate and the Warnock campaign’s message. It’s why the media has built its coverage of the Georgia Senate debate over Loeffler being expected to somehow concede the election on behalf of President Trump, not remotely an appropriate question or issue, while ignoring Warnock’s dodging of the questions about…

1. His arrest for interfering with a child abuse investigation

2. Refusal to condemn Marxism

3. Antisemitism

Anyone reading the media coverage would think that the entire debate was about who won the 2020 election. And that’s the way the media wants it.

Take this bizarre rant from the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, “of all the vile ways that Republicans have sought to justify President Trump’s effort to overturn his election loss, one of the worst is the ubiquitous claim that Trump is merely pursuing his legal right to contest the results.”

There’s nothing so vile… as excercising your legal rights. The same way that Al Gore did. 

So in the category of things that the social justice government tabloid owned by the richest man in the world who makes warehouse workers pee into cups to make their quotas, when he isn’t cheating on his wife, is… pursuing your legal rights. 

But…

HISTORY Comments turned off

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT DECEMBER 8, 1941..

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

“I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.”

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Will Establishment Media Cover Biden as President? They covered for him to get Trump out of office. Now will they actually start covering him with real reporting? by J.T. Young December

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://spectator.org/biden-media-coverage/

Having created his presidency, how will establishment media cover President Biden? With the roles so different and so separated, it is easy to forget that establishment media have been instrumental throughout Biden’s three-decade-long presidential quest. In his first two campaigns, establishment media sank Biden by covering him; in his latest, they saved Biden by not covering him. Now with Biden elected, which role will they assume?

The first role establishment media played in Biden campaigns was aggressively direct.

In contrast to their direct role in his first two presidential campaigns, establishment media’s role in Biden’s third presidential campaign has been indirect at best.

In 1988, during his first campaign, they single-handedly destroyed Biden by revealing a pattern of plagiarism. Initially, revelations showed Biden had lifted portions from a speech by UK Labor politician Neil Kinnock. Then came more: “borrowings” from Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. Finally, they reported that Biden had failed a Syracuse University law course because he used five pages of a law-review publication without attribution.

In 2007, during his second campaign, establishment media again struck. This time they helped disseminate Biden’s offensively back-handed compliment of Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean a nice-looking guy.” A marginal candidate already, Biden sank further, finally dropping out after receiving only 1 percent of support in the 2008 Iowa caucuses.

In contrast to their direct role in his first two presidential campaigns, establishment media’s role in Biden’s third presidential campaign has been indirect at best. Instead of essentially covering him to death, this time they effectively did not cover him at all.

In the 2020 campaign, establishment media did not force Biden into any mistakes or awkward encounters. When he blundered, they did not pursue. When they could have destroyed him, following disappointing Iowa and New Hampshire finishes, they held back.

MEDIA Comments turned off

Journalists Turn on Free Expression By David Harsanyi

Posted By on December 8th, 2020

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/journalists-turn-on-free-expression/

Mainstream journalists have used their access to a massive audience to mislead the public in many ways, but this isn’t a free-speech problem.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, The New Yorker’s Steve Coll contends that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s “profound” support of free speech — oh, how I wish that were true — is problematic because “free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.”

Journalism has turned on free speech, the one belief that had been somewhat impervious to the ideological tendencies of most editors and reporters. There’s absolutely nothing in Coll’s comments — nor in Hunt’s begging a question about the alleged corrosive effects of unfettered speech — which demonstrates that either are particularly concerned about the future of free expression, much less that either hold the principle as “sacred.”

The notion that Facebook’s reluctance to limit users is akin to neglecting efforts to “preserve democracy,” as Coll ludicrously suggests, is also another example of how the contemporary usage of “democracy” means little more than “fulfilling the wishes of liberals.”

If you believe Americans are too stupid to hear wrongthink, transgressive ideas, and, yes, fake news, you’re not a fan of the small-l liberal conception of free expression. That’s fine. Those ideas seem to be falling into disfavor with many. But the sanctity of free speech isn’t predicated on making sure people hear the right things, it’s predicated on letting everyone have their say. Because as always, the question becomes who decides what expression is acceptable. I’m not keen on having the fatuous media reporters at CNN or activist “fact-checkers” at the Washington Post adjudicating what is and isn’t permissible for mass consumption.