The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Monday, December 7, 2020

If We Don't Believe the Witnesses, Then it is All Good, Right?


For John, BLUF:  There is no proof of Voter Fraud because local State Legislators are claiming the witnessess are all lying.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

I signed something saying that if I’m wrong I can go to prison.  Did you?

From The Lid Blog, by Writer Rusty Weiss, 6 Dec 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Hima Kolanagireddy, one of the testifying witnesses to alleged election fraud before a Michigan House Oversight Committee hearing, dropped the hammer on an unhinged Democrat lawmaker who accused her and other witnesses of being liars.  Other witnesses joined in on the fun with their own smack-down of unhinged Democrats.

Democrat State Rep. Cynthia Johnson, the Minority Vice-Chair on the committee, interrupted proceedings during Kolanagireddy’s testimony to call into question the entire hearing and demand the witnesses be placed under oath.

“You’re allowing people to come in here and lie!” Johnson shouted at Committee Chair, Republican Matt Hall.  “And I know they’re lying!”

Chairman Hall responded, “You’re out of order. I’ve indulged you, and we’re going to move on.”

The Democrats are saying that witnesses to fraud are lying.  I guess that works.  If the witnesses are lying, then there is no fraud.  On the other hand, why would they lie?  What is the record, over the years, of people lying to State Legislators about voter fraud?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Elections of the Near Future


For John, BLUF:  If certain slogans adhere to you, they can determine how others view you, such as "Defund the Police".  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The New York Post, by Reporter Jon Levine, 5 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Democrats should stop pressing “defund the police” and other hot-button social issues if they want to stay competitive in 2022, according to new research from longtime Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen.

“The data says to me that if the Democrats go the progressive route they can lose the House and the Senate overwhelmingly in 2022,” Schoen told The Post.  “The incoming Biden administration has to understand that unless they take a moderate path, that is a likely potential outcome for the Democrats.”

On today's City Life Show the Producer, Mr John McDonough, assured me that Mr Joe Biden would bring us all together as President.  I have heard Candidate Biden say that, but I am also looking at his proposed Cabinet Picks and the comments of the outriders and I am not sure the Democratic Party as a whole is ready to go along.  I hope I am wrong.

Of one thing I am sure, Mr Doug Schoen is correct.  Baring wide spread use of voter fraud,♠ the Democratic Party will suffer losses in Congress in the 2022 Elections if they continue to use some of the slogans they have been using this year  A majority of adults in this country don't wish to see the police defunded.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am particularly concerned about electronic voting where the company providing the software treats it as proprietary and doesn't allow it to be examined for bad coding or wrong coding.

Sunday, December 6, 2020

Some Stimulus Coming


For John, BLUF:  It appears the Speaker of the House held off on extending relief benefits so as to not benefit President Trump, but is now willing to cut a short term deal, to look good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




Here is the sub-headline:

‘I don’t want Republicans to think it’s a dream come true,’ speaker said of a smaller coronavirus bill. ‘It’s not’

From The Independent (UK), by Bureau Chief John T. Bennett, 4 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended dropping her insistence on a $2trn coronavirus relief package, jousting with reporters about this week endorsing a bipartisan proposal that is half that size.

“Perhaps you missed what I said earlier:  Joe Biden pledged to crush the virus,” she snapped at a reporter, saying unlike Donald Trump, the president-elect wants to pass an even larger economic stimulus package after he takes office next month.

In her telling, embracing a $900m package introduced this week by a group of Democrats and Republicans is a reflection of new realities – and incoming Democratic chief executive and coming coronavirus vaccines.

“Don’t characterize what we did … as a mistake,” Ms Pelosi said of her months-long holding out for the kind of $2trn measure her chamber passed earlier this year but was blocked by the White House and Senate Republicans.  “It was a decision, and it’s taken us to a place we can do the right thing.  … I’m very proud of where we are.”

The Speaker of the House is a cynical politician.  In the mean time regular folks suffer.  Legislatures keep their jobs and income, but workers in many places lose their job to lockdons, with no aid coming to them.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Some Never Give Up


For John, BLUF:  Andrew Weismann, a man who has been in the wrong for as long as I have known the name.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From United Patriot News.

Here is the lede plus two:

Far-left prosecutor Andrew Weissmann tells former Vice President Joe Biden to prosecute President Donald Trump if Biden succeeds in becoming the president.

Weissmann’s comments came from an op-ed that he wrote in the New York Times where he stated that the Department of Justice “should investigate Mr. Trump and, if warranted, prosecute him for potential federal crimes.”

“Mr. Trump’s criminal exposure is clear,” he claimed, adding that there is “ample evidence to support a charge that Mr. Trump obstructed justice” in the bogus Mueller investigation.

I am not vouching for the source, but the story is perrenial Democrat.  President Trump offended them by winning and must be taken down.  These are folks with no historicd perspective.  People with no long term vision of what it takes to allow the People to pick their Government.  Folks with no sense of give and take.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Understanding Liberalism


For John, BLUF:  Language is important for conveying ideas, and thus precise language is useful for communication.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From Sarah A Downey Blog on Medium, by Ms Sarah A. Downey, 16 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

If you think “liberal” and all the variations of “left” mean the same thing, let this be your wakeup call.

Many things described as “liberal” today mean the opposite of what was historically true and what many people expect, and this disconnect is likely contributing to some of heightened frustration we’re seeing in political arguments in 2020.

Be careful when using the word “liberal” if you care about clear language. Starting in roughly 2013, “liberal” veered sharply from its roots. It’s confusing, so much so that you’ll hear the word “illiberal” used to describe these contradictions (or “far/alt left,” or simply “not liberal”), while people sometimes use “classic liberal” to differentiate that they’re talking about basic enlightenment values.

What are classic liberal values?  They emerged from the age of enlightenment and include civil rights, free speech, free markets, separation of church and state, a balance of government powers, capitalism, freedom of religion, limited government, freedom of the press, and human rights.  The US constitution was founded explicitly on liberal principles.

Thus it’s possible, even approaching common, for moderates and Republicans to be more liberal than Democrats.

The way I see it.  I definitely don't see it as being equated with the Democratic Party.

I also think the terms "Left" and "Right" are out of date.  We need new terms.  The French Revolution is over, at least in the United States.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Saturday, December 5, 2020

Alternative Explanations


For John, BLUF:  Yes, I worry about vote fraud and I especially worry about voting machines with proprietary software.  But there are also other explanations.♠  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From PJ Mediaby, Mr J Christian Adams, 2 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus ten:

Eric Holder was a big loser on election night.  He was the guy raising tens of millions of dollars to make America safe for Democratic redistricting.  A red wave turned Holder’s dreams into dust in state legislative races.  State legislatures are where the redistricting action is, and the GOP flipped three chambers red, gaining 192 state house seats and 40 state senate seats nationwide.

Republicans now control both House and Senate chambers in 31 states.  The country is a huge swath of red legislative control with Democrats largely confined to the cultural monoliths on the Pacific coast and urban Northeast.

The red wave extended to the United States House of Representatives, where for now, Republicans have gained nine seats.

But this wasn’t supposed to happen.  The president isn’t supposed to lose when all the Republicans are winning.

Something’s fishy.

Indeed, something profoundly fishy happened in the 2020 election, but it wasn’t the Kraken or Venezuelan communists running remote software when they can’t even make the red lights work in their own country.  Those shiny objects will play out with time and examination of evidence.

What happened in 2020 is something more fundamental and profound.  What happened in 2020 is cultural and systemic, and sadly, generally legal.  Until Republicans, and more importantly Trump supporters, understand what happened to them this year, it will happen again.

Two things happened in 2020.  First, COVID led to a dismantling of state election integrity laws by everyone except the one body with the constitutional prerogative to change the rules of electing the president – the state legislatures.

Second, the Center for Technology and Civic Life happened.

If you are focused on goblins in the voting machines but don’t know anything about the CTCL and what they did to defeat Donald Trump, it’s time to up your game.

The Center for Technology and Civic Life and allied groups are responsible for building an urban get-out-the-vote-machine of the sort that Democrats could only dream up on a bender fueled by jugs of Merlot and all the legalized pot they could smoke.

Then he explains it.

And a very convincing argument it is.  With enough money local election efforts in Democratic strongholds became powerful get out the vote machines and then got out the vote.

Election Offices in cities like Philadelphia, Detroit, Minniapolist and Atlanta are basically part of the Democratic machine.  They just made sure all the citizen who could did indeed vote.  Mail out ballots and ballot harvesting.  Not designed to ensure the integrity of the vote, but, backed by activist judges, designed to create as many ballots as possible.

I just hope that over the next two years state and national legislators turn to and give us a renewed voting system which the vast majority of us can have faith in, one that enfranchises all those eligible and does not disenfranchise or diminish the vote of all legitimate voters.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The very idea that voting software would be "proprietary" and thus not subject to examination and qualification by local government agencies (Verification and Validation, followed by Accreditation) is disgusting and anti-American.

2020 is like 2016, Reversed


For John, BLUF:  The hypocrisy is strong in the Democrats.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




From The New York Post, by Columnist Michael Barone, 4 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

“My sense is that if Trump wins, Hillary supporters will be sad,” left-wing writer Sally Kohn tweeted the day of the 2016 election.  “If Hillary wins, Trump supporters will be angry.  Important difference.”  Kohn turned out to be wrong about her own side that year, which angrily set about delegitimizing Donald Trump’s victory.  She was wrong, too, in her apparent assumption — shared by shop owners who boarded up their windows — that Trump supporters would react as violently to his defeat as the Black Lives Matter movement reacted to a death in Minneapolis.

Which is not to say President Trump and many of his supporters are responding gracefully to their candidate’s failure to repeat his 2016 feat of winning the presidency by a margin of 77,736 votes in three crucial states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).  They are not consoled that Joe Biden’s margin of victory in this year’s three crucial states (Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin) was an even smaller 43,809 votes.

There is more to the article than these two paragraphs.  After surveying the numbers, the writer goes on to look at reactions in 2016.  Twice, in twao adjacent paragraphs he writes "in violation of longstanding norms" to talk about how Democrats♠ acted in 2016.

Yes, the Democrats are reaping what they sowed in 2016 and 2017.  It is to their advantage that they hold the House of Representatives going into 2021.  Will they be so lucky in 2023?♥  If the Democrats don't clean up their act there could be interesting hearings in 2023 and 2024.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And, I would add, the established bureaucracy.
♥  While one can steal an election on the margin, if the voting is overwhelming for the other side then stealing will be obvious to the casual observer, and that is a bad look for the theives.