Recently in Politics, Government & Public Policy Category


Unfortunately for everyone, America's bureaucrats have squandered the broad and deep trust that Americans used to give them without question. Now some people are even questioning something as (apparently) simple as the census. "Why Did Biden Census Bureau Add 2.5 Million More Residents to Blue-State Population Count?"

There is something very fishy about the new 2020 Census Bureau data determining which states picked up seats and which states lost seats.

Most all of the revisions to the original estimates have moved in one direction: Population gains were added to blue states, and population losses were subtracted from red states. The December revisions in population estimates under the Biden Census Bureau added some 2.5 million blue-state residents and subtracted more than 500,000 red-state residents. These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state. ...

Remember, the House of Representatives is razor-thin today, with the Democrats sporting just a six-seat majority with five seats currently vacant. So, a switch in a handful of seats in 2022 elections could flip the House and take the gavel away from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. A shift of 3 million in population is the equivalent of four seats moving from Republican to Democrat.

When all the "mistakes" favor the same group of people, which also happens to be the group in power, it's very reasonable for citizens to wonder if the "mistakes" are honest or not.


Does President Biden think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence racist?

QUESTION, NEWSMAX: Thanks, Jen. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, talking to a group on Wednesday said that white--essentially said that white supremacy is woven into our founding documents and principals. This statement is getting widely criticized as essentially parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points. So is the president going to remove her from her position as the representative before that body to promote United States values?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE: Is the president going to remove an African American woman with decades of experience in the foreign service who is widely respected from her position as ambassador from the UN? He is not. He will--he is proud to have her in that position. She is not only qualified. He believes she is exactly the right person in that role at this moment in time.

I have not seen her comments. I will say that there's no question that there has been a history of institutional racism in this country. And that doesn't require the UN ambassador to confirm that.

QUESTION: So that's essentially the same lecture, though, that the Chinese delegation gave Secretary Blinken in Alaska last month. So does the President think our founding documents are racist?

PSAKI: I would say that I will--I will leave my comments to speak for themselves. And certainly, I think most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country. And she was speaking to that.

Do Psaki's comments speak for themselves? I think so.


This latest poll by Rasmussen about election integrity is pretty interesting. (Do we care about polls anymore? They seem pretty bad, but what alternative is there?)

Majorities of all racial groups - 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters - say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.

Likewise, majorities of all racial groups - 64% of whites, 59% of Blacks and 58% of other minority voters - reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.

No matter how you slice up the population, majorities support election integrity. That's good for America. No matter what policies you support, all Americans should support free and fair elections that get the results right. Otherwise we're not even a republic anymore -- we're governed by the people who count the votes.

Oh wait, there is one slice of the electorate that doesn't prioritize election integrity. Guess who?

President Biden's strongest supporters are least likely to say preventing cheating in elections is a higher priority. Among voters who strongly approve of Biden's job performance as president, just 17% say it's more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote. By contrast, among voters who strongly disapprove of Biden's performance, 79% say it's more important to prevent cheating.

Presumably Biden's strongest supporters don't believe there was significant election fraud in the 2020 election, so maybe they don't support additional effort put towards election integrity because they don't think it's needed.

But election integrity is really a no-lose issue. You literally can't make an election too secure, as long as we define "secure" to mean that every eligible voter can vote exactly once, and no one else can vote at all. With all the boondoggles America spends money on, it's hard to imagine a more useful place to overspend.


Is President Biden planning to increase taxes retroactively?

As lawmakers consider the magnitude of tax increases, taxpayers may wonder whether those increases will be retroactive not only to the date of the bill's introduction, but to the beginning of 2021. This is an important and interesting question: Can tax legislative increases be retroactive?

Under conventional wisdom, the answer is no. Taxpayers should be able to rely on the existing rules; otherwise, the government's pursuit of short-term revenue could create a sense of unfairness and animosity toward the system.

In reality, however, the answer is yes. Tax increases can be retroactive, and not just to the current year.

Why not retroactively raise taxes all the way back to 2017 when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

And why even stop there? California wants to tax your future too, even after you leave the state.

Knowing about the huge outbound migration from California, Cavuto asked what would happen to wealthy people who move out of state. Bonta said tax "avoidance" would not be allowed as California would tax them for the next ten years, despite what state they live in. Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.

Like bank robbers, taxers have to "go where when the money is". If the present is all tapped out, tax the past and future.


The global pandemic lock-down is starting to look like one of the worst public health decisions in history. A year ago everyone was scared and no one knew what would happen -- but time has now revealed which leaders made good choices and which didn't. It's not random.

Even some Florida Democrats are wondering whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' widely panned COVID response might turn out to be right, Axios Tampa Bay's Ben Montgomery and Selene San Felice write.

More than 32,000 Floridians have died, a number the state's leaders rarely acknowledge. But the death rate is no worse than the national average -- and better than some states with tighter restrictions.

The L.A. Times compared Florida and California:

"California imposed myriad restrictions that battered the economy ... Florida adopted a more laissez-faire approach decried by public health experts -- allowing indoor restaurant dining, leaving masks optional."

On Sunday's front page, the N.Y. Times explored the positives -- from the sizzling real-estate market to Florida's low unemployment rate -- of an early reopening: "Much of the state has a boomtown feel."

Florida's unemployment rate is 5.1%, compared to 9.3% in California, 8.7% in New York and 6.9% in Texas, The Times notes.

The bottom line: "Despite their differing approaches," AP reports, "California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates."


I've written about class recently, and Astral Codex Ten has pulled together a bunch of class-related suggestions for the Republicans that are very intriguing.

Trump didn't win on a platform of capitalism and liberty and whatever. He won on a platform of being anti-establishment. But which establishment? Not rich people. Trump is rich, lots of his Cabinet picks were rich, practically the first thing he did was cut taxes on the rich. Some people thought that contradicted his anti-establishment message, but those people were wrong. Powerful people? Getting warmer, but Mike Pence is a powerful person and Trump wasn't against Mike Pence. Smart people? Now you're burning hot.

Trump stood against the upper class. He might define them as: people who live in nice apartments in Manhattan or SF or DC and laugh under their breath if anybody comes from Akron or Tampa. Who eat Thai food and Ethiopian food and anything fusion, think they would gain 200 lbs if they ever stepped in a McDonalds, and won't even speak the name Chick-Fil-A. Who usually go to Ivy League colleges, though Amherst or Berkeley is acceptable if absolutely necessary. Who conspicuously love Broadway (especially Hamilton), LGBT, education, "expertise", mass transit, and foreign anything. They conspicuously hate NASCAR, wrestling, football, "fast food", SUVs, FOX, guns, the South, evangelicals, and reality TV. Who would never get married before age 25 and have cutesy pins about how cats are better than children. Who get jobs in journalism, academia, government, consulting, or anything else with no time-card where you never have to use your hands. Who all have exactly the same political and aesthetic opinions on everything, and think the noblest and most important task imaginable is to gatekeep information in ways that force everyone else to share those opinions too.

The parties are realigning. It's political musical chairs, and some people who are used to sitting in thrones may get stuck with footstools. How can you tell who is most likely to be left without a good seat? Check who is angriest. Then assume that no matter what they say they're mad about, they're actually upset and frightened at the prospect of losing status and power.


If this was published on some far-right website I'd never read it or comment on it. But Lefty Time Magazine reveals the "shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election". The article spins the conspirators as heroes, but if you look past the leftward slant it seems like Time is confirming most of the Populist Right's craziest accusations. The bipartisan globalist establishment crushed the populist political uprising.

Personally, I don't believe all the claims in this article -- I think some political operatives are trying to burnish their resumes by claiming credit for this boondoggle election. But still, this is an insane revelation from a Lefty publication.

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election-an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted. For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America's institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President. Though much of this activity took place on the left, it was separate from the Biden campaign and crossed ideological lines, with crucial contributions by nonpartisan and conservative actors. The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump's conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. "The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation," says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.

The bolding above is mine. Obviously this shadowy cabal of establishmentarians was completely neutral and didn't care if Trump or Biden won. Totally.

So why is this "secret history" being revealed now that Biden has been inaugurated? For our benefit! Or maybe because the participants want some credit.

That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream-a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

The election wasn't "rigged" -- it was "fortified"!

Eamon Javers is right that the r/WallStreetBets and GME battle is the latest round of the class war. Just like Trump, GME is an effect not a cause of the ongoing disruption of America's class system.

Josh Holmes spent much of Wednesday in Washington watching the populist uprising over GameStop in the stock market with fascination - and a growing sense of familiarity.

He has seen this movie before.

Holmes, president of the issue management firm Cavalry, is best known as the former chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Holmes has spent his career among the Republican establishment, which has spent the past five years getting steamrolled by the populist force of Trumpism - a grassroots movement that stormed the ramparts of the GOP, ousted the establishment and remade the party in its image.

Almost no one in the party saw it coming. When it did, few of the establishment players understood just how vast the force was that suddenly lined up against them.

On Wednesday morning, as GameStop shares continued to surge, Holmes took to Twitter and typed out a simple message: "Wall Street, welcome to our world."

Trump didn't cause the political realignment he benefited from -- he was just willing to ride it faster and harder than anyone else. Trump was an effect. Similarly, the self-described "retards" and "smooth brains" at r/WallStreetBets didn't cause the resentment between hedge funds and retail investors. The GME squeeze is yet another manifestation of the class war.

The old coalitions were (broadly) centralization/populist Left and Democrat vs. liberty/elitist Right and Republican. If the realignment continues, the new coalitions will be liberty/populist Right and Republican vs. centralization/elitist Left and Democrat. Basically, the populists and elites are swapping sides. Of course each individual is more than a simple category, which is why so many people feel "politically homeless" right now.

The parties are also in flux because they aren't sure what combination of positions will yield a winning coalition. The Left seems to be exerting itself to enforce uniformity on its members, while the Right seems to be opening itself up to socially-liberal libertarians and populists. Who knows how this will shake out.

Screenshot_20210123-085858_Brave.jpg

From Drew Holden.

The biggest companies in the world worked together to destroy President Trump and upstart free-speech platform Parler. You can love Trump, hate Trump, or be extremely conflicted about Trump, but you can't deny the fact that the richest, most powerful corporations in the world have claimed the right and power to decide who can speak and who can't. What's playing out is completely bizarre.

As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months -- banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts -- so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. "Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs," reported TechCrunch.

It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don't like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.

But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies -- Amazon, Google and Apple -- abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country.

If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor.

Big Brother claims that Trump and Parler are inciting violence, but the truth is that the Capitol Hill riot was planned on Facebook and Twitter. (I condemn all political violence in America.)

The pretext for singling out Parler is that some people have posted threats there, which is a violation of Parler policy. There is no claim that the riot at the Capitol on January 6 was coordinated through Parler -- not even Apple, in its letter terminating services, made that claim. USA Today, citing other sources, gave examples of calls for violence prior to the Capitol Hill riot -- on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and a single video on Parler:
Violent rhetoric including threats against elected officials and police officers flooded all social media platforms including Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, not just online forums popular with extremists.....

On Facebook, pages and private and public groups urged civil war if Democrats were not arrested for election interference, alleged police officers were assisting "Antifa" and claimed "Antifa" members were impersonating "patriots" at the Capitol. A video encouraged protesters to bring pepper spray, tear gas, batons, tasers and knives.

A Facebook page called Red-State Secession shared addresses of "enemies" including members of Congress. One post urged people to prepare "to use force to defend civilization." Facebook removed the page Wednesday.

Even the president of anti-conservative Media Matters points to Facebook as the main organizing site:

Facebook had much bigger role in creating conditions that led to as well as organizing for January 6 event. We tracked people using FB to organize attendees to bring guns to the Jan 6 event. FB did nothing.

So why aren't Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit being deplatformed? Why are they picking on Parler? [...]

So the claim that Parler represents some unique risk to safety is a lie. It's a lie driven by politics, exploiting the justifiable national outrage at the Capitol Hill riot to purge political rivals through unprecedended collusion among the internet oligopolies, furthered by isolation tactics to cut Parler off from legal and other services.

To top it off, Twitter just had the balls to write this.

twitter uganda.jpg

The response to Twitter has been widespread mockery, as it should be. Will the people behind this behavior come to realize that they've cast themselves as the villains?

leia grip.jpg

As Princess Leia told Grand Moff Tarkin right before the destruction of Alderaan: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Tarkin didn't care about public sentiment because he believed he could force submission through fear. He destroyed Parler Alderaan as a warning to any other uppity planets that might object to Imperial domination.

darth obiwan.jpg

While we're making Star Wars references, remember that Obi-Wan Kenobi told Darth Vader: "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Well... Gab has already brought Trump back from the dead.

Gab CEO completely backed up President Trump's Twitter account before it was deleted and recreated him on Gab! What's even more impressive is he did this while traffic was up 700% and under attack from leftists. Gab is currently having servers upgraded to handle the large influx in traffic but we're told it should stabilize soon.

Will he be more powerful than we can possibly imagine? (I hope not.)

The Left doesn't realize that it's reifying -- acting out -- making real -- bringing into existence -- an instance of the Hero's Journey, and they've cast Trump as the Hero (e.g., Simba) and themselves as the Tyrannical King (e.g., Scar). Note: I'm not saying Trump's a Hero -- the Left is putting him into that role. I'm not saying the Left is the Tyrannical King -- they're taking that role on themselves. I can only speculate why the Left is doing this, but it looks like a foolish plan.

Joe Biden will become president on January 20th, but the cloud of uncertainty around the 2020 election will never be dispelled because the people who could do so didn't even try.

I'm not an election or legal expert, but here are some things I've come to believe over the past two months. These are normative beliefs about how things should be, not claims about how things are under the current system.

First: Election officials bear the burden of proof for election integrity. They're the ones in possession of all the material evidence, and they're the ones with the legal obligation to execute fair elections. It's not reasonable to expect a candidate or a member of the public to "just trust us" when it comes to election integrity, and it's not reasonable to expect a candidate or member of the public to bear the burden to prove that an election was executed badly. Election officials must be required to prove they did their jobs well, and not be given the assumption of fairness or competency. Election officials should have to "show their work" transparently after every election.

Second: State election systems seem to be mostly garbage. The rules are bad, and the execution of those rules is worse. Stopping the count on election night in five cities simultaneously looked super-suspicious. I don't know exactly what rules should be in place, but I know that other countries require voters to show identification and greatly restrict mail-in or absentee voting. Some countries count ballots in place rather than transporting them to a central counting facility. Our states need to fix their election systems so that the public and election losers have full confidence in the results. I'm not sure how to fix the incompetent idiots who run our elections, especially if the courts won't grant anyone standing to challenge them -- perhaps standing could be created by law?

Third: Election audits and recounts need to be performed by people other than those accused of fraud. Obviously. No person or organization involved in the contested count should have any role in an audit or recount.

Fourth: There hasn't been a real investigation if there hasn't been discovery and hostile witnesses cross-examined under oath. Either our political system or our legal system needs to provide a way to credibly challenge election results in a timely manner. It doesn't count to simply dismiss cases on procedural grounds without forcing the production of evidence and testimony. It doesn't count for state legislators to issue statements but for the legislatures themselves to be out of session and unable to perform their Constitutional duties. All the court cases and hearings that happened in 2020 may have been handled in a legal and proper manner according to the existing rules, but those rules need to change in order to give people confidence in our elections.

Fifth: Political violence should be condemned by all Americans. Republicans condemned the violent riots that played out across the country all summer, and Republicans should also condemn rioting by Trump supporters in the Capitol. Democrats should have condemned the violent riots over the summer but mostly didn't, hiding behind euphemisms like "mostly peaceful". I'm glad we're all in agreement now that rioting is unacceptable. Peaceful protest is acceptable and American, but violence is wrong (and ineffective).

Sixth: This wasn't America's first badly run election -- I bet this kind of shoddy work has been going on for decades. It's embarrassing to America and needs to be fixed immediately.

It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: riots and political violence are unacceptable in America. All Christians should pray for peace and safety. All Americans should condemn the use of violence for political purposes. I condemn all such violence.

Peaceful protest is fair and legitimate and American. Riots and violence are bad.

Paul wrote the book of Philippians while awaiting execution in a Roman prison. Instead of lamenting the very real corruption and evil of the government that was persecuting him, he encouraged his readers to be fearless and confident because Christ's glory and power and purpose far exceed earthly political concerns, as serious as they are. From Philippians 1:

27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. 29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, 30 engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Christians do not need to accept corruption quietly, but we need to be fearless and keep our eyes on things above.


Scott Adams points out that it's absurd that America can't audit our elections because the companies that made the machines claim that letting us review the software would endanger their intellectual property. What kind of proprietary algorithms are required to perform addition, anyway? Who in government agreed to an arrangement like this?

Note: Most claims of election fraud are probably false or mistaken, but "trust us" isn't an acceptable security policy. Our elections must be above reproach.

If we can't audit our nation's vote-counting software because the company claims it is proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that. But obviously the election has to be thrown out in whole for that very reason. I see no room for compromise on this point.

Who agreed to a no-audit deal with an election software company? Name ANYTHING you have ever heard that is dumber. Literally anything. You can't.

Will the Supreme Court give a free pass to an election that was non-transparent BY DESIGN? Accidental would be one thing, but non-auditable voting machines are not an accident.

Will the House?

Anyway, auditing an election shouldn't require source code -- there should be secure logs. But apparently there aren't secure, trusted logs.


I've seen a lot of evidence of voting irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election -- hundreds of affidavits and dozens of statistical analyses. I don't know what the truth is. But despite all that, the most suspicious thing about the election is that both courts and the media want to pretend that there is no evidence. Courts keep throwing out cases on "technicalities", finding reasons to avoid looking at the submitted evidence. The media just covers its eyes and ears and writes about Biden's dogs and cats. This is super sus.

If there was any wrongdoing, the proof is in the hands of the wrongdoers. A court needs to order testimony under oath for the accused wrongdoers, and needs to seize any evidence in their possession. Only then can we examine the evidence and get past the allegations and rumors. It isn't good enough to stall and prevaricate. If the election was fair, then open the books. Tell us under oath, subject to cross-examination.

It's not enough to say, "Trump's just making everything up! He's blowing smoke!"

I personally hope that the election was completely fair, because the alternative is much worse.


Whether or not Trump's various legal challenges are successful one thing is clear: America's election system is garbage. Americans deserve a secure, fair, and transparent election system. I don't personally know enough to propose solutions, but South Carolina Republicans seem to be on the right track.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson discussed plans to introduce a bill that would require voter identification and establish voter fraud hotlines and nationwide cross referencing of voter rolls during a news conference Tuesday at the state Capitol. Wilson was joined by Congressmen Ralph Norman and Jeff Duncan and U.S. Rep.-elect Nancy Mace. ...

"There was a large portion of voters across the country who were worried about their votes being counted, and there was a large segment of voters across the country who were worried about illegal votes being counted," Mace said.

Wilson said ballots must be received by the hour polls close, and ballots received after polls close should not be counted. Additionally, observers should be allowed to watch ballot counting within 2 feet so they can read voter signatures, and there should be laws to prohibit covering of windows to conceal vote counting.

Once counting begins, Wilson said, it must continue until all votes are counted, with no intervals of delay. ...

After the election, ballots should be cross referenced on all forms of voting to reveal those who have voted multiple times and identify co-conspirators who helped facilitate multistate voting. Anyone guilty of voter fraud should be prosecuted, Wilson said.

I'll add: paper ballots only.


I personally hope that there wasn't widespread election fraud, but if there was then we need to know about it and fix our election system so that it never happens again.

I've been avidly following the numerous statistical analyses that data experts have been performing and posting online. Statistical analysis alone isn't proof, but it's sufficient evidence to justify an investigation. Here are a few sources worth reading -- but some links may eventually be taken down by our tech overlords.

There are many other examples, but those three are representative. All together, these analysis provide a lot more public evidence to justify an investigation than we had in Florida in 2000 or that we had for "Russian interference" in 2016. The stats don't tell us exactly who may have done what, but they give us a good idea of where and when to look. Maybe it's all just statistical noise that doesn't mean anything, but it's worth finding out.

Anyway, the stats adventure has been fun! But even if you don't care about or believe in these statistics, now we've got a sworn affidavit from City of Detroit employee named Jessy Jacob who says that she witnessed and participated in election fraud at the direction of her superiors. I have a feeling we'll see more affidavits like this today.

Matthew Cochran is correct that "America Won't Trust Elections Until The Voter Fraud Is Investigated".

In 2020, the body of evidence eclipses that of 2000. Today, the confusion arises from half a dozen states rather than one. The reported incidents indicate outright fraud more than they do simple incompetence, especially since they all just happen to benefit the same candidate. Shouldn't this evidence give us even more reason to investigate the matter than we had two decades ago?

And if your memory doesn't work that far back, you should at least remember 2016. A few Russian dollars spent on Facebook during the election and a highly questionable dossier were all it took to trigger FBI and congressional investigations into President Trump for years. There is far more evidence to justify an investigation into voter fraud in 2020.

So let's see how things play out. We've got plenty of time to investigate, and smart and dedicated people from across the political spectrum who are dedicated to the truth. Right?


I don't have anything intelligent to add to the wildfire election discussion.

Is it super sus that the media "calls" states for Biden instantly, but delays calling anything for Trump until the call won't give him even a temporary electoral vote lead? Yes.

Is it super sus that states where Trump is leading decide to stop counting for a while, and promise to get back to us in a few days? Uh, yes.

Will it be super sus if Biden wins by a handful of votes in the states that stopped counting overnight? Oh fo sho.

Will it be super sus if this election gets decided 5-4 or 6-3 by the Supreme Court? Yep.

These electoral shenanigans are embarrassing.

Pollsters: LOL you are terrible.

Media: LOL you are terrible.

Divided government? If Biden wins but Republicans hold the Senate, that's pretty decent.

Best case scenario: Supreme Court unanimously picks a winner.


Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is right.

"Secret encryption back doors are a threat to national security and the safety of our families - it's only a matter of time before foreign hackers or criminals exploit them in ways that undermine American national security," Wyden told Reuters. "The government shouldn't have any role in planting secret back doors in encryption technology used by Americans."

The agency declined to say how it had updated its policies on obtaining special access to commercial products. NSA officials said the agency has been rebuilding trust with the private sector through such measures as offering warnings about software flaws.

Americans are a free people, and our government must protect our natural right to "keep and bear" strong encryption.


Democrat Senator Ron Wyden is right.

"Secret encryption back doors are a threat to national security and the safety of our families - it's only a matter of time before foreign hackers or criminals exploit them in ways that undermine American national security," Wyden told Reuters. "The government shouldn't have any role in planting secret back doors in encryption technology used by Americans."

The agency declined to say how it had updated its policies on obtaining special access to commercial products. NSA officials said the agency has been rebuilding trust with the private sector through such measures as offering warnings about software flaws.

Americans are a free people, and our government must protect our natural right to "keep and bear" strong encryption.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Politics, Government & Public Policy category.

News is the previous category.

Polls is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info

Support