Friday, September 29, 2023

Biden Throws Ukraine Under the Bus? Has "Bigger Fish to Fry"? Will Taiwan be Next?

Francis P. Sempa, "Edward Luttwak: The U.S. Must End the Russia–Ukraine War"
“We have a dangerous future because of ... Xi Jinping.”


When Edward Luttwak speaks, world leaders listen — and now they must consider heeding his advice on Ukraine.

Luttwak has been advising world leaders, including U.S. presidents, since the 1980s. He is the author of seminal books on history and strategy, including The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, and Coup d‘État: A Practical Handbook. Most recently, he has been writing about the Russia–Ukraine war and about China for the online journal UnHerd, and he recently appeared in an hour-long podcast on UnHerd’s website.

Luttwak believes that despite all the talk in Washington and in other Western capitals about “unwavering support” for Ukraine, Western leaders, including President Joe Biden, seek a negotiated settlement with Russia. The much-anticipated Ukrainian offensive has stalled. Russia’s government survived a scare by the Wagner Group, and its troops are fighting better now than in the first year of the war. Historically, “when Russia goes to war they always mess up” at first, Luttwak says, but “as the war goes on Russians fight better,” and that is what is happening now. Top U.S. officials, like CIA Director William J. Burns, recognize this fact and have advised Biden accordingly, which is why Biden poured cold water on the Ukraine-in-NATO suggestion. Putin, Luttwak noted, has also publicly pulled back from the “nuclear threat” in a signal to Ukraine and the U.S. that a negotiated solution is possible. Luttwak also contends that Ukraine’s leaders also know that a negotiated peace is the most realistic scenario for ending the war.

U.S. leaders, according to Luttwak, want a Russia–Ukraine settlement precisely because of the more significant geopolitical threat of China in the western Pacific. This is in line with what former Pentagon official Elbridge Colby has suggested. That threat, Luttwak says, is centered around the person of Xi Jinping, who Luttwak believes is “obsessed” with China’s “rejuvenation” and who thinks China’s “rejuvenation” demands reunification with Taiwan — if necessary, by force. Xi is preparing China for war.

One clue that China is preparing for war, Luttwak contends, is Xi’s recent order to Communist Party officials across the country “to rapidly increase the supply of arable land by any means possible.” Luttwak compares this order to Mao Zedong’s “Great Leap Forward,” which sacrificed tens of millions of Chinese in a futile effort to quickly industrialize China in the late 1950s to early 1960s. China, Luttwak notes, produces enough food to feed its population, but it relies on imports from Argentina, Canada, Brazil, and the United States to feed its cattle, pigs, ducks, and chicken. Xi knows that if China goes to war over Taiwan, those imports “would quickly dry up.”

This means that China is reversing its recent “reforestation efforts” in order to increase the amount of arable land — land that will be needed to produce beans, wheat, soya, and other cereals — in the event of war. And it is doing this by forcible means if necessary — just the way Mao did during the Great Leap Forward. Luttwak notes that during the last few months, Xi has spoken about the need to prepare for “extreme circumstances” and for “worst-case and extreme scenarios,” which Luttwak believes are codewords for preparing for “the danger of war.” Those remarks coincide with Xi’s recent orders to Chinese commanders in the Taiwan Strait theater to increase “training under real combat conditions to raise the capability to fight and win.”

In his interview on the UnHerd website, Luttwak compared Xi to Mussolini, whose bluster and aggression in the 1930s helped bring on World War II. Mussolini saw war as a way to rejuvenate the Italian people. Luttwak believes Xi sees war over Taiwan in similar terms for China. “When somebody keeps talking about war,” Luttwak says, world leaders should take note. Some American leaders understand this, but others do not. Those who understand Xi and the threat China poses to American interests in the western Pacific want the Russia–Ukraine war to end —sooner rather than later — so that U.S. policymakers can focus on the greater threat in the western Pacific.

“We have a dangerous future,” Luttwak says, “because of … Xi Jinping,” whom he describes as a tyrant who is leading the Chinese people — and, perhaps, much of the world — into a potentially catastrophic war. We would be far better off if the Chinese people killed Xi, Luttwak says, but unfortunately tyrannicide is out of fashion.

...or is this disinfo a prelude to WWIII NATO war w/Russia?  Time will soon tell. 

Thursday, September 28, 2023

Alternative Media: America's Samizdat!

h/t  - Woodsterman (
Joos van Craesbeeck, "A Man Surprised")

Sam·iz·dat

/ˈsämēzdat/
noun

1. the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state, especially formerly in the communist countries of eastern Europe: "a samizdat newsletter"

What a Difference Media Sycophants Make!


Miranda Devine, "Pro-Joe Biden bias is algorithm-deep: Google’s search-&-destroy agenda"
Forget stolen ballots or Krakens that never arrive. If anything changed the outcome of the 2020 election, it was Big Tech interference — and there’s nothing to say it won’t happen again in 2024.

Close to home, we saw the suppression of The Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s laptop by Twitter and Facebook, which were manipulated by embedded FBI operatives, and kept Biden voters in the dark about the nature of the man they were supporting.

In the landmark free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, we saw how the federal government secretly coerced social media to censor speech that dissents from official thinking on everything from the origins of COVID-19, climate change and the efficacy of masks to gender identity and the war in Ukraine.

‘Mind control machine’

Then there is the $1 trillion multinational tech monopoly Google, which has been described as the ultimate “mind control machine.”

Google is supposed to be a neutral platform and enjoys all the legal protections of a public utility, much like the pipes delivering water to our homes.

Instead, its algorithms secretly manipulate search rankings to control opinions, whether it’s what you buy or what you know about a politician.

It’s hard to pin down Google’s bias because search results are ephemeral, but MRC Free Speech America gave it a shot this week, by recording Google search results for “Republican presidential campaign websites” on the eve of Wednesday night’s Republican primary debate.

Lo and behold, only two candidates popped up on the first, crucial page of search results Monday, and only one was a Republican: Will Hurd, a little-known never-Trumper from Texas, who doesn’t even have enough support to make it onto the debate stage.

There was no sign of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Pence, Tim Scott or Chris Christie.

But there was one other candidate who showed up on Page 1 of the Republican search results: fringe Democrat Marianne Williamson, whose RealClearPolitics average doesn’t even reach 5%. Maybe that’s Google’s idea of “balance.”

It was a different story when the MRC searched for “Democrat presidential campaign websites.”

Here, the results were logical, with front-runner Joe Biden’s campaign website topping Google’s first search page.

Williamson scored another appearance, with her website slotting into number two behind Biden. But Biden’s most dangerous challenger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was nowhere to be seen on the first page, despite the fact his RealClearPolitics average is 15%, and his support is as high as 25% among Democrats, according to the latest Rasmussen poll.

“The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton” did appear on Google’s first page, in 10th place, with “Elizabeth Warren for Senate” in 14th. Ironically, just above Warren was a link to a report on an Iranian website: ”Google Hiding Websites of Trump, Other Biden challengers.”

Skewed first page

The MRC points out that less than 1% of users ever click past the first page of search results. If you are not on the first page, you basically don’t exist in Google’s world.

Its analysis is just a snapshot of a moment, although it also tried the experiment on Sept. 20 with similar results.

But for real science, research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein, a California Democrat with a Harvard PhD, has preserved a database of 42 million ephemeral search results gathered from 8,000 registered voters, who gave him permission to record their every Google interaction.

He also finds that Google elevates liberal views and stifles dissenters, in a way which will have an impact on undecided voters in the 2024 election.

It’s not hard to see whom Google favors for president in 2024: the same guy it rooted for in 2020, Biden.

Despite the censorship outrages revealed in Missouri v. Biden, the “disinformation” industry is doubling down, and the constellation of NGOs and universities which act as censorship proxies to allow the federal government to skirt the First Amendment are gearing up to interfere in another election.

They get away with it because, as a RealClearPolitics poll found this week, nearly half of Democrats (47%) support censorship, and think speech should be legal “only under certain ­circumstances.”

One-third of Democrats (34%) think Americans have “too much freedom,” and 75% think government has a responsibility to censor “hateful” social media posts. A majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the government censoring social media posts “under the rubric of protecting national security.”

If the poll is even half-accurate, these are terrifying results, and they give Biden censors the moral mandate to do it again in 2024.

White House attack dog

Proof comes in the form of Rob Flaherty, exposed in Missouri v. Biden as the Biden White House’s biggest bully. Federal Judge Terry Doughty singled out the White House director of digital strategy as a serial First Amendment transgressor.

He was a “key player in the Biden White House’s censorship enterprise,” according to Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who, as Missouri attorney general, launched the free-speech lawsuit which is now headed to the Supreme Court.

Schmitt compiled a list of Censor Boy’s greatest hits on a recent Twitter thread, which included Flaherty accusing Facebook of “political violence” for failing to censor speech to his liking.

“Are you guys f–king serious?” he wrote in one email to Meta executives. “I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”

Flaherty even demanded that private conversations between WhatsApp users about the COVID vaccine be censored.

The White House should have fired Flaherty and pretended he had gone rogue.

Instead, Joe Biden hired him for his 2024 campaign and praised him as someone who “operated with unparalleled creativity, innovative spirit and a bias toward action.”

Shameless. But who’s going to stop them?

The Left Can't Meme.

 Especially the Anti-"Nazi's" e-r-r-r "Fascists":
What Social Justice Looks Like:

Monday, September 25, 2023

Guess Who's Rigging the 2024 Election Already?

The Democrats of course, per usual!

DNC Pulls ‘Hidden Ball Trick’ on Sept. 14 Rules Meeting
WASHINGTON, DC—SEPT. 12, 2023—With the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Rules and Bylaws Committee scheduled to meet in Washington, DC, this Thursday, Sept. 14, a shroud of secrecy enveloped the process and cloaked the actual date.

On Monday, news agencies reached out to the Kennedy campaign to verify the Sept. 14 meeting as they were not aware of it.

The campaign shared this YouTube link to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting from July 28 where they discussed the date of Sept. 14 for its next meeting, and this link to a blog post by DNC Member Frank Leone confirming the meeting.

The DNC has kept silent about the meeting where a series of controversial resolutions dealing with Iowa, Georgia, New Hampshire, and other states are expected to be presented. These are crucial decisions that can impact ballot access and delegate selection and alter the calendar for the 2024 Democratic Presidential Primaries.

“This is the DNC's version of the ‘hidden ball trick,’” said Kennedy Campaign Manager Dennis J. Kucinich, the former eight-term Democratic Congressman from Ohio and twice a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

“The DNC wants to carry on without public and media attention."

Kucinich has made two requests in the past week to meet with the DNC but has yet to receive a response.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. challenged the structure of the DNC’s delegate selection plan as being a “rigged game.”

Kennedy has pointed out that Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs) represent a class of superdelegates that, based on 2017 so-called reforms, was supposed to be prohibited from influencing the first ballot at the Convention. PLEOs plus state delegates beholden to the party, can effectively lock out any Democratic challenger to President Biden.

On Monday, Kennedy reported that at least 10 states have missed deadlines to begin to publicize the 2024 primaries in their states.

On Wednesday, the Kennedy campaign will reveal even more details about the peculiarities of the DNC management of the primaries, which will cause an undermining of voter confidence and participation, according to Kucinich.

Learn more at Kennedy24.com. Visit our press page here.

Who's cloak of secrecy "cloaked the REAL date?"  Was it Frank Leone?  Or was it Gyges', Chief Spinner for the DNC Party Elite?  Regardless, it's no "mystery" what is happening.  It's Business per Usual Political Corruption.


2024.  The MOST CROOKED Election in American History (after 2020).

The moment some self-styled "Anti-Fascists" & "NOTSEE WEEVIL" bystanders praised the Nazi's....


Sundance, "Justin Trudeau and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy Honor Nazi Veteran during Canadian Parliament Session"

Oh dear, this is not good. Yaroslav Hunka, a 98-year-old immigrant from Ukraine, was introduced by Anthony Rota, Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons, as “a Ukrainian-Canadian war veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians” and “a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero,” ignoring the horrific fact that Hunka served in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, a Nazi military unit whose crimes against humanity during the Holocaust are well-documented.

OTTAWA, Ont. — A ranking Canadian parliamentarian is apologizing to Jewish communities around the world for a blunder during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit that led to lawmakers honoring a veteran accused of belonging to a Nazi division in WWII.

It followed demands by Canadian Jewish organizations Sunday for an apology after it was revealed members of Parliament across party lines awarded a 98-year-old veteran on Friday with a standing ovation shortly after Zelenskyy addressed Canada’s House of Commons.

Yaroslav Hunka stood and appeared to salute from the public gallery when he was recognized by House Speaker Anthony Rota, who introduced Hunka as a Canadian-Ukrainian war hero from his political district.

“We have here in the chamber today a Ukrainian-Canadian veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today, even at his age of 98,” Rota said Friday, followed by a lengthy round of applause and a wave by Zelenskyy. “He’s a Ukrainian hero, a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service. Thank you.”  More...

There are no "alternative facts".  Nothing was left out in the praising of this Ukrainian Hero.  All you need to know is that "He fought the Russians"... so as Dervy would reason, "STAND and APPLAUD!"

Putin's alternative fact "propaganda" is getting better and better!  So what, precisely, is propaganda?  The "other side's" alternative facts.

Saturday, September 23, 2023

Speaker McCarthy's Never-Trump "Vichy Republicans" Reject their Base & Collaborate with NOTSEE WEEVIL Democrats

During the administration of Ronald Reagan, the term "boll weevils" was applied to this bloc of conservative Democrats, who consistently voted in favor of tax cuts, increases in military spending, and deregulation favored by the Reagan administration but were opposed to cuts in social welfare spending.
Vive la Resistance!

Rebuilding a Digital & Physical Ukraine (the Physical North-West Rump State Half, anyways)

 
Chicago's Democrat lead "Pay to Play" system moves to Ukraine.

On rebuilding Ukraine and the shock & awe of  the Great Global Poly-Crisis.

Stavroula Pabst, "Ukraine’s Dystopian “State in a Smartphone” App Is Taking the World By Storm — With America’s Help"
DIIA, Ukraine’s state-in-a-smartphone app, has digitized and centralized 120 government services as part of Ukraine's wartime efforts to become the most “convenient” and “digital” country on earth.

Despite the app’s dystopian disposition and severe prospects for mass surveillance and function creep, similar versions, like Estonia’s mRIIK and Poland's mObywatel, are being tested and adopted all around the world — thanks to the help and funding of the United States.

DIIA: “The State and Me”

As its Ministry of Digital Transformation’s flagship project, Ukraine has been touting its DIIA smartphone app as a “one-stop-shop” for 120 online government services, including taxpayer services, digital IDs, driver’s licenses and digital biometric passports.

And, as part of Ukraine’s larger wartime plans to become the world’s most “convenient” and “digital” country, DIIA’s presence in Ukrainian daily life is rapidly expanding: 19 million people are now estimated to use the app, which has been downloaded onto about 70 percent of Ukrainian smartphones.

While proponents boast of DIIA’s ease-of-use and ability to boost the public’s participation in civil society, its propensity for ethical and social harms are difficult to overestimate. After all, DIIA is an acronym for “The State and Me,” in Ukrainian, which suggests the facilitation of a more hands-on, direct relationship between the state and civilian.

Critically, however, this “hands-on relationship” pushed through apps like DIIA also facilitates the government’s unprecedented access to the civilian and their private lives and personal information, simultaneously constructing a hyper-centralized digital infrastructure that could facilitate or inhibit civilians’ access to critical services and public life.

And it’s not hard to imagine scenarios where the state’s direct access to the populace’s smartphones could be weaponized in dangerous ways: if the government can add, remove, or otherwise manipulate public services with the push of a few buttons, they can make major decisions about daily life with relative impunity.

It’s clear, moreover, that DIIA and its equivalents are being designed to play key and growing roles in civilians’ economic, social, and daily lives. As I noted for Unlimited Hangout, many people prove their identity via DIIA to access banking services. Reporter Dan Cohen highlighted on Redacted, further, that CNN and Eurovision were available through DIIA, showing the tool’s propensity as a (government-curated) entertainment- and information center alike.

Despite DIIA’s dystopian disposition and apparent capacity for endless function creep, as demonstrated by its collaborative use with Telegram as a tool to help spy on and report Russians and even alleged “collaborators” to the authorities, the elite have declared DIIA a resounding success both as a tool for government services and war. “Diia was a gleam in someone's eye just in 2019,” Sa

mantha Power exclaimed about Diia in an interview with Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation, and CNN’s Andrea Mitchell. “And here we are just four years later, a massive full-scale invasion later, and you have more than 120 services available to citizens.”

In light of its perceived successes, DIIA and adjacent app-based government services like Estonia’s mRIIK, are being tested and adopted all around the world — thanks to the help and funding of the United States and especially its foreign aid and development “soft-power” arm, USAID.

Governments Everywhere Take Interest in DIIA Equivalents — With USAID’s Help

As news of DIIA spreads, governments around the world are exploring utilizing equivalent and adjacent services within their borders. At the forefront is Ukraine’s Baltic neighbor Estonia, whose DIIA-based mRIIK app is set to launch in the near future. Through mRIIK, citizens will be able to access a variety of public services, including digital identity cards, passports and driver's licenses, though it’s currently unclear whether they’ll be accepted with the same legal authority as their paper equivalents without changes to Estonian law.

Poland, further, has launched DIIA-adjacent “mObywatel,” or “My Citizen,” a government services app which had already been downloaded over 9 million times by late February of this year. mObywatel offers a variety of public services, including eRecepty (ePrescriptions), eZwolnienia (eSickLeave) and mPrawoJazdy (mDrivingLicence). According to the Polish Government, 1.4 billion e-prescriptions were issued in 2022, suggesting eObywatel’s high adoption rate amongst the general public. Large Family Cards, a system of discounts on basic goods and services for larger families, are also available through mObywatel.

USAID, meanwhile, is facilitating new collaborations between Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation and other countries. As I noted in Unlimited Hangout, USAID provided years of financial, technical, and legal support towards DIIA’s development and launch, and has pledged $650,000 to “jumpstart the adoption of Diia-like systems and the digital technology services that underpin them” elsewhere.

At May’s DIIA in DC event, United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Administrator Samantha Power announced planned collaborations between Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation, USAID and the governments of Kosovo, Colombia, and Zanzibar towards the creation of their own public services apps.

Mykhailo Fedorov noted in an interview with US-backed Radio Svoboda, further, that Ukraine was in communication with “more than five countries” about the prospects of developing equivalent applications to use within their own borders. Ethiopia has also been mentioned as a candidate for a prospective state smartphone application. Speaking with Financial Times writer Gillian Tett, moreover, USAID Administrator Power suggested that paper-reliant American officials could perhaps learn from DIIA’s successes in government digitization.

In short, as the Atlantic Council puts it, “Ukraine’s Diia system could soon be serving as a model [for digital governance] throughout the transitional world.”

Critically, USAID is widely suspected to be a CIA front. As such, the group’s apparently intense interest in DIIA and equivalent state smartphone apps, as I wrote in Unlimited Hangout, perhaps even “posits another dimension of surveillance potential through the app — data gathering for the intelligence community.”

After all, USAID has a track record of data-gathering shenanigans around the world: for example, the organization had even created a Cuban twitter equivalent, ZunZuneo, in 2010 to meddle in the country’s affairs. According to The Guardian, the ZunZuneo app at its peak drew in about 40,000 users, who “were never aware it was created by the US government, or that American contractors were gathering their private data in the hope that it might be used for political purposes.” While USAID is more open about its relationship with DIIA than it was with ZunZuneo, the ZunZuneo incident shows that DIIA and adjacent state service apps’ prospects for mass data collection and surveillance, especially for “political purposes,” cannot be discounted.

Many of these international “state in a smartphone apps” may be based directly off DIIA, finally, perhaps suggesting the app’s possible standardization across borders, and therefore even centralization or interoperability internationally. After all, according to a June 2023 e-Estonia’s podcast episode, strides are being made towards interoperability between DIIA, mRIIK, and even the prospective EU digital wallet, which is slated to hold a variety of key digital documents. In fact, Mykhailo Fedorov wrote on Telegram in mid-July that DIIA will assist in the development of the EU Digital Wallet, and that DIIA representatives showed off their app’s capacities at the POTENTIAL (Pilots for European Digital Identity Wallet) Consortium this summer, where the EU Digital Wallet program kicked off.

And DIIA also provides its services in the form of a digital Polish residence permit, Diia.pl, in a collaboration between Ukraine and Poland (which hosts about 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees as of March 2023), allowing Ukrainian refugees to access the Schengen zone and upload other relevant government documents, like driver’s licenses, to mObywatel through DIIA.

In short, the emerging picture depicts efforts towards hyper-centralized state services’ unlimited access to and possible ability to gather data on civilian populations, perhaps even in ways that will become interoperable across borders.

And while these digitized government services are not mandatory for civilians to use at the time of writing, it’s plausible they could be one day as their paper equivalents are less frequented or otherwise phased out. After all, such apps are already being nudged on the larger population to encourage uptake: Ukraine, for example, has provided stipends to war-affected civilians through DIIA.

Towards App-Based Governance?

While proponents boast DIIA’s convenience and propensity to boost participation in civil affairs and crush corruption, the tool’s prospects for mass surveillance, function creep and even social control are ultimately unprecedented. Such issues, however, remain little discussed despite the concept’s rapid international proliferation. And assistance and investment to DIIA and adjacent projects through USAID, considering the organization’s track record, only signals the US’ desire to mass surveil or otherwise influence other nations’ affairs as war in Ukraine deepens.

Unfortunately, because DIIA is an effort grounded in a fusion of public but also private, and therefore functionally unaccountable, efforts (including the likes of tech and financial giants, such as Visa), those developing and spreading it and similar apps have little contact with or responsibility to the very public who will likely be nudged into using the technology.

In other words, DIIA’s likely coming to a country near you soon.

Friday, September 22, 2023

2st World Post-Modern Values Meet 2nd World Pre-Enlightenment/ Pre-Modern Value Resistance

The Clash of Ideologies within Civilizations thru the Eyes of a 1st World Meta-Modernist!

Imagine the difference that this story could have achieved if those attacking Putin and the Patriarch of Moscow were "Old Believers" or Lay Orthodox and NOT Cynical "Post-Modernists" (attack from inside and below, instead of outside, the Russian Orthodox Church [aka - target].  When outsiders attack, insiders first circle their wagons.  When the hierarchically lowliest of insiders attack, they then "Deterritorialize" the perceived problem (scapegoat/ corrupt clergy) and develop "lines of flight" for the laity prior to "Reterritorialization")  So choose wisely, grasshoppers.  Rustlers generally need to Stampede (but not scatter) the herd if they want to eat steak in the future.  ;)

Tuesday, September 19, 2023

Election Fraud? There's No Such Thing! SO Everybody, "Fraud the Vote!"

Jim Hoft, "UPDATE: Democrat Mayoral Candidate John Gomes Files Lawsuit to Block Certification of Stolen Connecticut Primary Race That Was Caught on Video"
On Monday, Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes filed a lawsuit challenging the results of his party’s primary in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and requesting a new Democratic primary.

This comes after a video surfaced showing a Democrat clerk inserting illegal ballots into a drop box, which prompted an investigation by the Bridgeport Police Department for “possible misconduct.”

The Gateway Pundit reported that Gomes’ campaign released a damning video on Saturday showing evidence of election fraud in the recent Bridgeport Democratic primary.

The video posted on Gomes campaign’s Facebook page shows a woman dropping stacks of ‘illegal’ ballots into an absentee ballot box outside the Bridgeport government center, where the city’s Registrar of Voters office is located, CT Mirror reported.

The Gomes campaign was able to identify the woman in the footage as Wanda Geter-Pataky, the Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic Town Clerk and a vocal supporter of incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, who is seeking reelection.

Gomes’ campaign claims that the video shows Geter-Pataky dropping off stacks of absentee ballots ahead of the September 12th primary.

“Video surveillance proving that the mayoral election was unequivocally stolen through corruption within City Hall by tampering with absentee ballots,” John Gomes said in a statement.
“This is an undeniable act of voter suppression and a huge civil rights violation. It’s time to restore lasting credibility to our city’s democracy. Once and for ALL. Enough is enough!” he added.

Gomes lost to incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim in the Democratic primary by a narrow margin of 251 votes, according to the most recent preliminary count posted on the Secretary of the State’s website. Ganim won the absentee vote tally 1,545 to 779, while Gomes led on the voting machines.

The Bridgeport Police Department confirmed that they are actively investigating the actions shown in the video.

“The Bridgeport Police Department are actively investigating information regarding possible misconduct based upon a video that has surfaced on social media,” the department told CT Mirror.

The police department is investigating how the video was obtained and released to the public.

“The Bridgeport Police Department immediately initiated an investigation to determine if any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. In addition, an internal investigation is being conducted to determine if any possible breach to our security video management system has occurred,” it added.

Bridgeport Police Chief Roderick Porter said the department takes “these actions seriously and we will pursue possible criminal prosecution and/or administrative discipline as it relates to any such security violations.”

In a press conference held on Monday, Christine Bartlett-Jose, the campaign manager for Democrat Mayoral candidate John Gomes, laid out a compelling case for why the recent Democratic primary election results in Bridgeport should be scrutinized and possibly invalidated.

“In this primary alone, the city of Bridgeport received over 4,000 absentee ballot applications, an unprecedented number in the city and possibly the state,” said Bartlett-Jose. She pointed out that the city had a lead of 470 votes based on incoming results on primary night. However, as absentee ballots were tabulated, their lead dramatically eroded, resulting in a two-to-one loss margin with an ultimate election difference of 251 votes.

Bartlett-Jose stated that the campaign has gathered evidence indicating voter suppression and absentee ballot fraud. “Multiple complaints have been filed with the State Election Enforcement Commission, including the most recent and irrefutable piece of evidence—an incriminating video from City Hall security footage showing Wanda Gita Pasky, the vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee, depositing absentee ballots,” she said.

Gita Pasky’s involvement in this election is deeply concerning, according to Bartlett-Jose.

“She has been named in various complaints across many districts related to harassment, bullying, promises of Section Eight, rent rebate, groceries, just to name a few,” she added.

Gita Pasky was recommended by the State Election Enforcement Commission to the State’s Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation regarding alleged misuse of absentee ballots in the 2019 primary election.

The campaign will be petitioning the court to file an injunction against the primary election results, which have yet to be certified by the Secretary of State.

“This step is essential to prevent potential tainted results from being finalized,” Bartlett-Jose emphasized. They will also be seeking a restraining order against the distribution of any additional absentee ballot applications from the Town Clerk’s Office.

John Gomes, the Democratic challenger, said, “Right now there is a black cloud over Bridgeport, there is no trust. We walk around and I don’t know what to tell the people.”

He added that the evidence is overwhelming and speaks for itself, especially the video footage. Gomes and his campaign are filing a lawsuit, not only seeking a judge to prevent last week’s election results from being certified but also asking for a new Democratic primary.

2,000 Mules in 2020.  Watch it, IF YOU CAN FIND IT! How MANY votes can YOU Harvest?

Deny Election Fraud. Join the NOTSEE WEEVIL Democrats today!

Deep State Pays for COVID Fraud


Monica Showater, "Funny how those Covid causes of death have dropped off..."
As if there were not enough scandals with COVID and its horrendous mismanagement by the government, Steven Hayward of Powerline has found yet another one -- a causal link between whether "COVID" was listed as a cause of death or a contributing factor, and federal funding dollars.

He has a chart on Power Line, showing the steep drop in deaths due to COVID, or with COVID an underlying factor that spanned from March 2020 to February 2022, the first part of the COVID pandemic. Then the line on the chart continues, steeply dropping as from a cliff as of March 2022 to May 2023.

See the chart here.

And why did people suddenly stop dying of COVID?

Well, because hospitals were suddenly not getting federal funding dollars for claiming COVID as a cause of death.

This was clearly something a lot of us suspected, given the huge death rate from COVID in the U.S. as compared to other places in the world, particularly undeveloped countries, and the individual reports of gunshot victims, drug overdose victims, and cancer victims getting COVID listed on their death certificates as the primary causes of their deaths. Only in rare, politically important instances for the left was this practice not followed -- as in the death of George Floyd, who more likely died from a drug overdose than police manhandling, yet also had COVID in his system, too. COVID was not listed as his cause of death.

But for hundreds of thousands of less politically useful Americans, it most certainly was.

Hayward notes that it's a case of "follow the money."

Supposedly we’re on the cusp of—or already in the middle of—another COVID variant outbreak, with calls for reviving mask and vaccine mandates. The Branch COVIDians will not be denied. Funny thing, though. Is it merely a coincidence that the sharp drop in COVID diagnoses coincided with the end of special federal reimbursement for COVID cases?

The money came from the CARES Act passed by the Democrat-led Congress, which included the $178 billion "Provider Relief Fund."

The money was doled out to hospitals for increased expenses due to treating COVID cases, but also from lost revenue as patients put off elective surgery and even necessary medical care.

According to STAT, a website about the medical field, it was quite the money spigot. (According to these government charts, California was the most ravenous user of these funds by far.)

The federal government allocated more than $170 billion in subsidies to hospitals across the country. These subsidies not only defrayed their operational losses but also substantially improved their financial standing, particularly helping the most vulnerable hospitals. For those with January-December fiscal years, from January 2019 to December 2020, the average annual profit margin stayed stable around 7%, but increased from 4% to 7% for government and small hospitals, and from 2% to 8% for rural ones.

Payouts dropped off sharply around January 2022 as Phase Four distributions came to a close, as this government chart shows ... and suddenly people weren't dying of COVID. Amazing how these medical miracles happen when government money is cut off.

So let's cut to the chase: The numbers of COVID deaths was highly contingent on whether hospitals and other providers were getting paid extra from the taxpayers with COVID relief funds. Lots of funds, lots of COVID deaths, and too bad about science.

This is a textbook case of government money corrupting science itself. Those stats on COVID deaths during the money-spigot period are absolutely worthless, given the incentivization the government created for hospitals to overreport COVID deaths to ensure higher profits. Maybe they needed them given all the unnecessary red tape government imposes on them which cuts their profits artificially, but that too is another corruption of science.

COVID corrupted a lot -- from public trust in government pronuncimentos, to massive fraud in payouts to Nigerian and Mexican cartel scam artists, to vaccine issues, to the demonization of doctors who told the truth about hydroxycloroquine and ivermectin treatments, to medical and social media censorship, to lockdown damage, to the monster inflation we see today. So much bad came out of this that the only conclusion is that government needs to be a lot smaller and less powerful.

Now we have the phony COVID death statistics to gum up science preparing for the next pandemic. If you dangle money out there for COVID deaths, don't be surprised if there are COVID deaths.

Friday, September 15, 2023

The Democratic Party HATES Democracy (Proof)

PredictionJoe Biden will drop out of the race by October 14 and Michelle Obama will replace him on the official NH ballot They won't want her to have to be written in, or she'll lose to RFK, Jr.  She will announce her candidacy at the Kaufman Concert Hall in NYC on October 15, after an introduction by David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group, CFR, Brookings Institute and WEF (her sponsors).

Michelle will be the "public face" on this:

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Where Will YOU Live? East or West Ukraine?

 

The Dnieper Neutral Zone & Occupied Kyiv?  Or...

NorthWestern/ SouthEastern Ukraine?

John Mearsheimer & Sebastian Rosato, "The Russian invasion was a rational act: It is in the West's interest to take Putin seriously"
It is widely believed in the West that Russian president Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was not a rational act. On the eve of the invasion, then British prime minister Boris Johnson suggested that perhaps the United States and its allies had not done “enough to deter an irrational actor and we have to accept at the moment that Vladimir Putin is possibly thinking illogically about this and doesn’t see the disaster ahead”. US senator Mitt Romney made a similar point after the war started, noting that “by invading Ukraine, Mr Putin has already proved that he is capable of illogical and self-defeating decisions”. The assumption underlying both statements is that rational leaders start wars only if they are likely to win. By starting a war he was destined to lose, the thinking went, Putin demonstrated his non-rationality.

Other critics argue that Putin was non-rational because he violated a fundamental international norm. In this view, the only morally acceptable reason for going to war is self-defence, whereas the invasion of Ukraine was a war of conquest. Russia expert Nina Khrushcheva asserted that “with his unprovoked assault, Mr Putin joins a long line of irrational tyrants”, and appears “to have succumbed to his ego-driven obsession with restoring Russia’s status as a great power with its own clearly defined sphere of influence”. Bess Levin of Vanity Fair described Russia’s president as “a power-hungry megalomaniac”; former British ambassador to Moscow Tony Brenton suggested his invasion was proof that he is an “unbalanced autocrat” rather than the “rational actor” he once was.

These claims all rest on common understandings of rationality that are intuitively plausible but ultimately flawed. Contrary to what many people think, we cannot equate rationality with success and non-rationality with failure. Rationality is not about outcomes. Rational actors often fail to achieve their goals, not because of foolish thinking but because of factors they can neither anticipate nor control. There is also a powerful tendency to equate rationality with morality since both qualities are thought to be features of enlightened thinking. But this too is a mistake. Rational policies can violate widely accepted standards of conduct and may even be murderously unjust.

So what is “rationality” in international politics? Surprisingly, the scholarly literature does not provide a good definition. For us, rationality is all about making sense of the world — that is, figuring out how it works and why — in order to decide how to achieve certain goals. It has both an individual and a collective dimension. Rational policymakers are theory-driven; they are homo theoreticus. They have credible theories — logical explanations based on realistic assumptions and supported by substantial evidence — about the workings of the international system, and they employ these to understand their situation and determine how best to navigate it. Rational states aggregate the views of key policymakers through a deliberative process, one marked by robust and uninhibited debate.

All of this means that Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine was rational. Consider that Russian leaders relied on a credible theory. Most commentators dispute this claim, arguing that Putin was bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries in Eastern Europe to create a greater Russian empire, something that would satisfy a nostalgic yearning among Russians but that makes no strategic sense in the modern world. President Joe Biden maintains that Putin aspires “to be the leader of Russia that united all of Russian speakers. I mean… I just think it’s irrational.” Former national security adviser H. R. McMaster argues: “I don’t think he’s a rational actor because he’s fearful, right? What he wants to do more than anything is restore Russia to national greatness. He’s driven by that.”

But there is solid evidence that Putin and his advisers thought in terms of straightforward balance-of-power theory, viewing the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a bulwark on Russia’s border as an existential threat that could not be allowed to stand. Russia’s president laid out this logic in a speech explaining his decision for war: “With Nato’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year… We cannot stay idle and passively observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing to do for us.” He went on to say: “It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It is the redline which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.”

In other words, for Putin, this was a war of self-defence aimed at preventing an adverse shift in the balance of power. He had no intention of conquering all of Ukraine and annexing it into a greater Russia. Indeed, even as he claimed in his well-known historical account of Russia-Ukraine relations that “Russians and Ukrainians were one people — a single whole”, he also declared: “We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe, and prosperous… And what Ukraine will be — it is up to its citizens to decide.” None of this is to deny that his aims have clearly expanded since the war began, but that is hardly unusual as wars unfold and circumstances change.

It is worth noting that Moscow sought to deal with the growing threat on its borders through aggressive diplomacy, but the United States and its allies were unwilling to accommodate Russia’s security concerns. On 17 December 2021, Russia put forward a proposal to solve the growing crisis that envisaged a neutral Ukraine and the withdrawal of Nato forces from Eastern Europe to their positions in 1997. But the United States rejected it out of hand.

This being the case, Putin opted for war, which analysts expected to result in the Russian military’s overrunning Ukraine. Describing the view of US officials just before the invasion, David Ignatius of The Washington Post wrote that Russia would “quickly win the initial, tactical phase of this war, if it comes. The vast army that Russia has arrayed along Ukraine’s borders could probably seize the capital of Kyiv in several days and control the country in little more than a week.” Indeed, the intelligence community “told the White House that Russia would win in a matter of days by quickly overwhelming the Ukrainian army”. Of course, these assessments proved wrong, but even rational policymakers sometimes miscalculate, because they operate in an uncertain world.

The Russian decision to invade was also the product of a deliberative process, not a knee-jerk reaction by a lone wolf. Again, many observers dispute this point, arguing that Putin operated without serious input from civilian and military advisers, who would have counselled against his reckless bid for empire. As Senator Mark Warner, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, put it: “He’s not had that many people having direct inputs to him. So we’re concerned that this kind of isolated individual [has] become a megalomaniac in terms of his notion of himself being the only historic figure that can rebuild old Russia or recreate the notion of the Soviet sphere.” Elsewhere, former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul suggested that one element of Russia’s non-rationality is that Putin is “profoundly isolated, surrounded only by yes men who have cut him off from accurate knowledge”.

But what we know about Putin’s coterie and its thinking about Ukraine reveals a different story: Putin’s subordinates shared his views about the nature of the threat confronting Russia, and he consulted with them before deciding on war. The consensus among Russian leaders regarding the dangers inherent in Ukraine’s relationship with the West is clearly reflected in a 2008 memorandum by then ambassador to Russia William Burns; it warned that “Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests… I can conceive of no grand package that would allow the Russians to swallow this pill quietly.”

Nor does Putin appear to have made the decision for war alone, as stories of him plotting in Covid-induced confinement implied. When asked whether the Russian president consulted with his key advisers, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov replied: “Every country has a decision-making mechanism. In that case, the mechanism existing in the Russian Federation was fully employed.” To be sure, it seems clear that Putin relied on only a handful of like-minded confidants to make the final decision to invade, but that is not unusual when policymakers are faced with a crisis. All of this is to say that the Russian decision to invade most likely emerged from a deliberative process — one with political allies who shared his core beliefs and concerns about Ukraine.

Moreover, not only was Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine rational, but it was also not anomalous. Many great powers are said to have acted non-rationally when in fact they acted rationally. The list includes Germany in the years before the First World War and during the July Crisis, as well as Japan in the Thirties and during the run-up to Pearl Harbor. In both cases, the key policymakers relied on credible theories of international politics and deliberated among themselves to formulate strategies for dealing with the various issues facing them.

This is not to say that states are always rational. The British decision not to balance against Nazi Germany in 1938 was driven by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s emotional aversion to another European land war coupled with his success at shutting down meaningful deliberation. Meanwhile, the American decision to invade Iraq in 2003 relied on non-credible theories and emerged from a non-deliberative decision-making process. But these cases are the exceptions. Against the increasingly common view among students of international politics that states are often non-rational, we argue that most states are rational most of the time.

This argument has profound implications for both the study and the practice of international politics. Neither can be coherent in a world where non-rationality prevails. Inside the academy, our argument affirms the rational actor assumption, which has long been a fundamental building block for understanding world politics even if it has recently come under assault. If non-rationality is the norm, state behaviour can be neither understood nor predicted, and studying international politics is a futile endeavour. Only if other states are rational actors can practitioners anticipate how friends and enemies are likely to behave in a given situation and thus formulate policies that will advance their own state’s interests.

All of this is to say that Western policymakers would be well-advised not to automatically assume that Russia or any other adversary is non-rational, as they often do. That only serves to undermine their ability to understand how other states think and craft smart policies to deal with them. Given the enormous stakes in the Ukraine war, this cannot be emphasised enough.

The Mission of Civilization

Let the Stepped Up Domestic Censorship of Biden Government Critics Begin!

 How EVERYTHING critical of US Government is now OFFICIALLY "Putin Propaganda" and will be treated as pernicious DisInformation!

Is it "Propaganda"?  Or merely an astute observation?  The World awaits its' answer.

There will be an Impeachment Vote, and it will fail. RNC Pseudopolitics 101.

The Rising New World Order (NWO)

...Nightmare Version!

Wanna know what having to live in someone else's dream utopia is?  Nightmare.  Give me Rousseau's Society ('Emile') 7 days a week.  Heterotopia.  And let me live in the "America of 1789" zone.  Disneyland's "Frontierland".  Q, You can live in "Tomorrowland".  And Dervy can live in his favorite utopia, "Gulagland"

So how do I earn an E-ticket?.  Dervu must only have a "B"

Monday, September 11, 2023

On the New Mexico Gun-Grab FAIL...

New Mexico's citizens "Bartleby" the Governor's order with an "I'd prefer NOT to" noncompliance.

Kerry Pickett, "New Mexico governor’s suspension of gun rights draws fire from police, Dems, gun control advocates"
Within hours of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in Albuquerque and the surrounding Bernalillo County, a federal lawsuit to block the ban was filed, state lawmakers called for her impeachment and even gun control activists rebuked her for violating the U.S. Constitution.

The governor made the bold move to suspend gun rights for 30 days in response to a wave of deadly shootings in the Albuquerque area, calling it a public health emergency.

The order applies to open and concealed carry of firearms in most public places, ranging from city sidewalks to urban recreational parks. The state has a long history of allowing open carry of handguns in most public settings.

The National Association for Gun Rights and Foster Haines, a member who lives in Albuquerque, sued the governor in U.S. District Court in New Mexico and sought an immediate injunction against implementing her Friday order.
 
In a social media post, the gun group accused Ms. Lujan Grisham of a “tyrannical executive order banning firearm carry." 
The order by Ms. Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, also was criticized by New Mexico law enforcement, a liberal Democratic congressman and a prominent gun control activist.
“I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution,” Rep. Ted Lieu, California Democrat said on X.

David Hogg, who as a student survived the deadly shooting at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and went on to become a leader of the gun control movement, said Ms. Lujan Grisham had crossed the line.

“I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote on X.


New Mexico lawmakers accused Ms. Lujan Grisham of trampling on citizens’ rights and said she should be removed from office.

“Public health order for gun control? Stand strong, Bernalillo County! Stand up, New Mexico! We are not the criminals. Our rights are being trampled upon,” said state Sen. Greg Baca, the top Republican in the chamber.

State Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block went further, calling for the impeachment of the governor.

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical progressive agenda on an unwilling populous, Ms. Lord said in a statement.


When announcing the emergency order, Ms. Lujan Grisham insisted it was not unconstitutional and was allowed under an “exception” to the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

“If there’s an emergency and I’ve declared an emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers,” she said. “No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute. There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms.”


Ms. Lujan Grisham argued that the violent crime wave has left parents who have lost children and that they deserve her attention and have the debate about suspending guns during an emergency.

“We can create a safer environment. Because what about their constitutional rights?”

When a reporter asked if there are already laws on the books against crime, she responded: “If I’m unsafe, who’s standing up for that right? If this climate is so out of control, somebody should do something.”

In response to the suspension order, the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association declared on social media: “We will not comply.”

“The NM Bill of Rights guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, and all other lawful purposes,” the group said. “Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, signed by Lujan Grisham, a person whose rights are violated may sue to recover for damages and obtain injunctive relief.”

Under the act, damages of up to $2 million per person can be awarded.

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire and owner of X, chimed in on his social media platform: “At risk of stating what should be obvious, deliberately violating the Constitution is next-level illegal. How soon can this person be removed from office?”

Ms. Lujan Grisham based the public health emergency on violent crime rates spiking in metropolitan Albuquerque. Police and licensed security guards are exempt from the temporary ban on concealed or open carry of firearms.

Under the order, residents may still transport their firearms to some private sites, such as a gun range or gun store, provided the firearm has a trigger lock or some other container or mechanism making it impossible to discharge.

Ms. Lujan Grisham said she expected legal challenges to her order but decided to go forward with it because of the spate of shootings, including a recent shooting that resulted in the death of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium.

She said state police would be responsible for enforcing the monthlong order for what amounts to civil penalties and a fine of up to $5,000.

Other gun control advocates lauded her aggressive move to curb the violence.

“If it saves one life, then it’s worth doing,” said Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence.

The Washington Times reached out to other gun control organizations for comment, including Brady United and Everytown, but did not hear back.

New Mexico law enforcement officials also were at odds with Ms. Lujan Grisham.

Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina said he would not enforce it, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen said he is apprehensive because there are too many constitutional issues surrounding the emergency order.

“While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold,” Mr. Allen said in a statement Friday. “I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.”

Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller, a Democrat, distanced himself from the governor. He said on X that the Albuquerque Police Department would not be responsible for enforcing the order.

Ms. Lujan Grisham conceded that her emergency order was not popular.

“I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer,” she said at a news conference where she was flanked by law enforcement officials, including the Albuquerque district attorney.

If I were a NM conceal-carry permit holder or just an open carry citizen, I'd strap on my guns and drive to Albuquerque to collect on my $2m "Government Stupidity Bonus". 

Sunday, September 10, 2023

Which Party da Racists?

 For more info regarding DNC's  Race-Based "Southern Strategy" for power/ votes:  Dial 9-JUAN-JUAN.
Can You Spell "O-p-e-n B-o-r-d-e-r-s"?

Democrats Never did like the US Constitution, the "spirit" of which is captured in its' Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How do YOU spell globalism? I spell it: D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T!

Tuesday, September 5, 2023

Wokism - Stage 1 (DeNile): Democrats Anti-KKK History of Denialism