November 2020
« Oct    
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

How I Hacked an Election | NYT – Opinion

The 12th Amendment

Twelfth Amendment

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Executive Order 13848 on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the ability of persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States to interfere in or undermine public confidence in United States elections, including through the unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure or the covert distribution of propaganda and disinformation, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election, foreign powers have historically sought to exploit America’s free and open political system. In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity of the threat of foreign interference, as illustrated in the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat.
Accordingly, I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate executive departments and agencies (agencies), shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government, or any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election. The assessment shall identify, to the maximum extent ascertainable, the nature of any foreign interference and any methods employed to execute it, the persons involved, and the foreign government or governments that authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported it. The Director of National Intelligence shall deliver this assessment and appropriate supporting information to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):
(i) the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and
(ii) if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.
The report shall identify any material issues of fact with respect to these matters that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are unable to evaluate or reach agreement on at the time the report is submitted. The report shall also include updates and recommendations, when appropriate, regarding remedial actions to be taken by the United States Government, other than the sanctions described in sections 2 and 3 of this order.
(c) Heads of all relevant agencies shall transmit to the Director of National Intelligence any information relevant to the execution of the Director’s duties pursuant to this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law. If relevant information emerges after the submission of the report mandated by section 1(a) of this order, the Director, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies, shall amend the report, as appropriate, and the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall amend the report required by section 1(b), as appropriate.
(d) Nothing in this order shall prevent the head of any agency or any other appropriate official from tendering to the President, at any time through an appropriate channel, any analysis, information, assessment, or evaluation of foreign interference in a United States election.
(e) If information indicating that foreign interference in a State, tribal, or local election within the United States has occurred is identified, it may be included, as appropriate, in the assessment mandated by section 1(a) of this order or in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, or submitted to the President in an independent report.
(f) Not later than 30 days following the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence shall develop a framework for the process that will be used to carry out their respective responsibilities pursuant to this order. The framework, which may be classified in whole or in part, shall focus on ensuring that agencies fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to this order in a manner that maintains methodological consistency; protects law enforcement or other sensitive information and intelligence sources and methods; maintains an appropriate separation between intelligence functions and policy and legal judgments; ensures that efforts to protect electoral processes and institutions are insulated from political bias; and respects the principles of free speech and open debate.
Sec. 2. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security:
(i) to have directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in a United States election;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, as amended by Executive Order 13757 of December 28, 2016, remains in effect. This order is not intended to, and does not, serve to limit the Secretary of the Treasury’s discretion to exercise the authorities provided in Executive Order 13694. Where appropriate, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, may exercise the authorities described in Executive Order 13694 or other authorities in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury’s exercise of authorities provided in this order.
(c) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order.
Sec. 3. Following the transmission of the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b):
(a) the Secretary of the Treasury shall review the assessment mandated by section 1(a) and the report mandated by section 1(b), and, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, impose all appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2(a) of this order and any appropriate sanctions described in section 2(b) of this order; and
(b) the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate agencies, shall jointly prepare a recommendation for the President as to whether additional sanctions against foreign persons may be appropriate in response to the identified foreign interference and in light of the evaluation in the report mandated by section 1(b) of this order, including, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, proposed sanctions with respect to the largest business entities licensed or domiciled in a country whose government authorized, directed, sponsored, or supported election interference, including at least one entity from each of the following sectors: financial services, defense, energy, technology, and transportation (or, if inapplicable to that country’s largest business entities, sectors of comparable strategic significance to that foreign government). The recommendation shall include an assessment of the effect of the recommended sanctions on the economic and national security interests of the United States and its allies. Any recommended sanctions shall be appropriately calibrated to the scope of the foreign interference identified, and may include one or more of the following with respect to each targeted foreign person:
(i) blocking and prohibiting all transactions in a person’s property and interests in property subject to United States jurisdiction;
(ii) export license restrictions under any statute or regulation that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or re-export of goods or services;
(iii) prohibitions on United States financial institutions making loans or providing credit to a person;
(iv) restrictions on transactions in foreign exchange in which a person has any interest;
(v) prohibitions on transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions, or by, through, or to any financial institution, for the benefit of a person;
(vi) prohibitions on United States persons investing in or purchasing equity or debt of a person;
(vii) exclusion of a person’s alien corporate officers from the United States;
(viii) imposition on a person’s alien principal executive officers of any of the sanctions described in this section; or
(ix) any other measures authorized by law.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 2 of this order.
Sec. 5. The prohibitions in section 2 of this order include the following:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 6. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).
Sec. 7. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 8. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person (including a foreign person) in the United States;
(d) the term “election infrastructure” means information and communications technology and systems used by or on behalf of the Federal Government or a State or local government in managing the election process, including voter registration databases, voting machines, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment for the secure transmission of election results;
(e) the term “United States election” means any election for Federal office held on, or after, the date of this order;
(f) the term “foreign interference,” with respect to an election, includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful actions or attempted actions of a foreign government, or of any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign government, undertaken with the purpose or effect of influencing, undermining confidence in, or altering the result or reported result of, the election, or undermining public confidence in election processes or institutions;
(g) the term “foreign government” means any national, state, provincial, or other governing authority, any political party, or any official of any governing authority or political party, in each case of a country other than the United States;
(h) the term “covert,” with respect to an action or attempted action, means characterized by an intent or apparent intent that the role of a foreign government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly; and
(i) the term “State” means the several States or any of the territories, dependencies, or possessions of the United States.
Sec. 9. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 2 of this order.
Sec. 10. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 11. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may re-delegate any of these functions to other officers within the Department of the Treasury consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.
Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 13. This order shall be implemented consistent with 50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1) and (3).
Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
September 12, 2018.

Detroit Democrats, claimed that military ballots couldn’t be fed into the receiving machines, filled out new ballots for the servicemen without GOP poll watchers present.

Election Watchdog: Billionaire Helped Buy
Election; Military Ballots Were REDONE

Election Watchdog: Billionaire Helped Buy Election; Military Ballots Were REDONEMark Zuckerberg (AP Images)
With the Trump legal team saying it has hundreds of signed affidavits from Americans who’ve witnessed voting fraud or irregularities — some of whom are reportedly afraid for their lives — it’s not surprising that shocking examples of such trespasses are coming to light. And among the more striking ones is an allegation that billionaire Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg was paying election officials who controlled the vote count.
Making the charge is Phill Kline, Liberty University law professor and current director of the Amistad Project, which is a Thomas More Society initiative endeavoring to ensure that our elections are fair and transparent.
Explaining Big Tech’s motives, Kline stated in a One America News interview that the tech giants want to completely control society by determining both information flow and who our leaders will be.
Moreover, calling the November 3 contest “one of the most lawless elections that we have seen in our nation’s history,” Kline makes another shocking allegation: that Detroit Democrats, using as a pretext the claim that military ballots couldn’t be fed into the receiving machines, filled out new ballots for the servicemen without GOP poll watchers present.
In an interview on “The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy,” Kline mentioned some well known election trespasses, such as big-city Democrat officials “closing the door and boarding up windows, preventing people from watching the count,” as he put it.  “So we have admitted illegalities at the start,” he told host Leahy. “They’re not allowing people in the room. But the law says [they] must be in the room for the count…. [T]he count is something that America is enabled to watch by law.”
Addressing Zuckerberg’s interference, Kline said that we’ve seen the “unprecedented”: “private corporate monies paying election officials who are controlling the count…. There’s a billionaire in the counting room and they’re not opening the door.”
“And it’s the same billionaire that is censoring conservative speech on their platform,” the professor added moments later.
Mentioning how only Democrats were allowed in many counting rooms, Kline also stated that in Fulton County, Georgia, there were “ballots coming in the day after the election early in the morning.” The officials had “said we’re done for the night; go home,” he further stated. “But there’s now a whistleblower that says they continued to count once everybody left” — under the cover of darkness.
Do note, “big Zuckerberg money” had flowed into Fulton County, Kline also alleged.
How big? Host Leahy mentioned that Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, contributed $350 million this year to Chicago-based group the “Center for Tech and Civic Life” — and that while this group claims to be non-partisan, it’s actually a Democrat-oriented get-out-the-vote effort (full interview below).
As an example of its handiwork, Kline asserted in the aforementioned OAN interview that Zuckerberg’s charity poured $10 million into Philadelphia and told officials that they’d be denied the money unless they established 800 polling places, even though there were only 190 during the primaries. The billionaire’s charity then “ordered them to harvest ballots, and then they deputized activists to go find ballots in the community,” stated Kline.
Illustrating the incongruity this bred, Kline reported that this resulted in there being one “Zucker-box” (ballot drop box) every four square miles in primarily Democrat Delaware County, Pennsylvania; in contrast, Republican-dominated areas had only one box for every 1,100 square miles, according to the professor (video below).

So what’s the endgame? If you want “control of a culture, you need two choke points,” Kline explained. “You want to control the flow of information, which is the lifeblood of a [republic]” — ergo, Big Tech censorship. “… And next, you control the way in which they [people] select their leaders.”  All told, Kline claims that Zuckerberg spent $400 million on the election, which “matched the federal government appropriation,” he said. “We’ve got a shadow government with Mr. Zuckerberg.”
Yet while de facto, Big Tech oligarchs have outsized influence, the people keeping them safe might have had their influence negated. As Kline also explained, Michigan bigwigs claim that in Detroit, a Democrat official “can appoint three Democrats to take military ballots and say, ‘You know, these ballots can’t be fed by the machine, so we’re gonna’ fill out the ballot for our men and women who are overseas defending our country.’”
“‘We’ll do it for them,’” he continued. “‘We’ll push these ballots aside. We’ll feed them, we’ll cast them, we’ll count them — without anybody seeing it.’”
So while tech billionaires get, in essence, innumerable votes, some of our soldiers have apparently been denied theirs. Our military personnel still get to do the bleeding and dying in the establishment’s wars, though.  Given this, is it any wonder that as far as Joe Biden’s hiring preferences go, we hear that Big Tech figures would multiply in his administration like Democrat ballots after midnight?

Selwyn Duke

Selwyn Duke

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) has written for The New American for more than a decade. He has also written for The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily, American Thinker, and many other print and online publications. In addition, he has contributed to college textbooks published by Gale-Cengage Learning, has appeared on television, and is a frequent guest on radio.

Trump Adds Sidney Powell to Election Legal Effort

Trump Adds Sidney Powell to Election Legal Effort

November 15, 2020 Updated: November 15, 2020President Donald Trump announced on Nov. 14 the addition of Sidney Powell, the former federal prosecutor who is representing former national security adviser Michael Flynn, to his reelection campaign’s legal team.
The president also said Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, and Jenna Ellis have joined the legal team led by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
“I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Powell engineered a stunning comeback in the Flynn case. Since she took over the case, the Department of Justice moved to drop the charges against Flynn. A federal judge has yet to rule on the request.
Powell responded to Trump’s announcement by tweeting the hashtag #ReleaseTheKraken.
According to conservative radio show host Mark Levin, scores of attorneys are volunteering to aid Trump’s legal effort.
The Trump campaign and third-party groups have significant election-related litigation pending in Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Georgia is conducting a hand recount of the presidential election, although the validity of the recount is being contested without a review of voter signatures. Wisconsin will undertake a recount once it certifies the results of the election.
The campaign’s lawsuits in part allege that Republican poll watchers weren’t given adequate access to observe the vote-counting process.
“There is tremendous evidence of wide spread voter fraud in that there is irrefutable proof that our Republican poll watchers and observers were not allowed to be present in poll counting rooms. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and others. Unconstitutional!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
The campaign’s lawsuits also include challenges to votes counted by Dominion Voting Systems. Trump and Powell both shared video clips about Dominion on Nov. 14. In one of the clips, the company’s CEO testifies that the Dominion machines contain components that come from China. Another clip features a portion of an NBC News report on how Dominion systems were accessed by hackers at the annual DEF CON hacking conference.
It’s unclear when Powell joined the campaign’s legal effort but she appeared to be on board as early as Nov. 11, when she responded to a Twitter post by Shiva Ayyadurai, an engineer who received a doctorate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In the tweet, Ayyadurai alleged that an analysis of voting tallies in Michigan suggested that an algorithm was used to switch 69,000 votes.
“You are absolutely right. Maybe more. We will be in contact asap,” Powell wrote.
Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov

Liberal Jonathan Turley: “Voting Fraud Occurred”; Trump Not Done Yet

Liberal Jonathan Turley: “Voting Fraud Occurred”; Trump Not Done Yet

Liberal Jonathan Turley: “Voting Fraud Occurred”; Trump Not Done YetImage of Jonathon Turley: Screenshot of Wikimedia image provided by SLOWKING under licensing found here —
Democrat scholar, attorney, and commentator Jonathan Turley (shown) is known as a straight shooter. That’s why it should give even skeptics pause when the George Washington University law professor says that “voting fraud occurred” in the 2020 election and that the process that could prove its magnitude should continue unimpeded.
Critics who’d like to quickly wrap the election up with a bow and present the nation a gift that’ll keep on giving will rhetorically ask, “Where’s the evidence?!” But Turley points out that this question is premature: Obviously, you can’t provide evidence until you conduct an investigation — the very thing those critics would like to forestall.
While speaking to Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Turley alluded to the four stages in an election: voting, tabulation, canvassing, and certification. The professor pointed out that we currently know little because we’re still just in the second stage.  As to what he does know, Turley echoed the Ohio election worker who called the way we conduct our national elections “ridiculous and inexcusable” and himself characterized the current confusion as “alarming” and “maddening.”
Criticizing the legal analysts who early on claimed there was no vote fraud and that President Trump should concede, Turley said that we “didn’t have any of the information to judge anything about voter fraud — we still don’t.”  “We’re still in the tabulation stage. We wouldn’t have evidence of systemic problems until we’re into the canvassing stage in most elections,” he continued. “And that has created this frustration in court; you know, a Trump attorney was asked by a judge ‘Are you saying there was massive fraud?’ and he said ‘Honestly, no.’ But the reason he said that is because it’s the election officials who hold this information.”
The academic then presented an excellent analogy. “It’s like being not just asked to guess the number of jellybeans in a jar, but you have to do it without actually seeing the jar,” he said. “You know, so in order to find system problems, you need access to the system. Now, does that mean we have seen evidence that would establish systemic violations? No.”
He then continued, however, saying,

[But] I’ve been reading these complaints and these affidavits. I think it’s clear at this point that voting fraud occurred; I mean … there is obviously a record here of dead people voting. There are obviously problems of keeping observers in positions where they really couldn’t observe very effectively. But we still don’t know. But we wouldn’t know — unless we had greater access to the system itself. That is held by election officials, and that requires a court to order that information to be turned over” (video below).

“I think it’s clear at this point that voting fraud occurred.

There’s obviously a record here of dead people voting.” – @JonathanTurley


Then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden meets with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on March 9, 2016. Photo by Flash90.Then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden meets with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah on March 9, 2016. Photo by Flash90.

The approaching storm in US-Israel relations

Talk of Biden’s joviality and personal warmth, and of moderates versus radicals, are soothing distractions for Israelis about to face the most hostile U.S. administration in history.
Since Election Day, and since U.S. networks proclaimed Biden the winner, Israel’s media, along with its diplomatic and security establishments and political leadership, busied themselves by scouring the lists of candidates for senior foreign policy positions in the Biden administration and considering the implications of so-and-so’s appointment to national security adviser. The notion behind the name game is that the appointment of one person over another will significantly impact a Biden administration’s Middle East policy either in Israel’s favor or to its detriment.
There is nothing new about the name game. Israel’s political and national security leaders and its media know-it-alls play it every four years, and indeed, often personnel has been policy. For instance, when Trump replaced his first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, with Mike Pompeo, things changed. Tillerson opposed leaving the Iran nuclear deal and opposed moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Pompeo supported both.
But in the case of the apparently incoming Biden administration, who fills what job is basically irrelevant, and worrying about it should certainly not be a priority. Biden’s policies are basically set in stone.
Biden, his running mate Kamala Harris and his team repeatedly set out his Middle East policies, in detail, over the course of the campaign. And in the days since it became clear that Biden is far more likely than Trump to be inaugurated on Jan. 20, his advisers have restated those policies and, in some cases, have taken initial steps towards implementing them.
If statements and actions by Biden, Harris and their campaign during the course of the election and in its immediate aftermath were not enough to convince Israel’s leadership and our media of the depth of their commitment, the Democrat Party as a whole stands behind them.
In the days since the election, Democrats, particularly in the House of Representatives, have been playing the blame game regarding their significant losses. Whereas everyone was certain that the party would expand its House majority, with the loss of at least 12 seats, the Democrat majority has moved from comfortable to endangered. Moderates now insist that the progressives took the party too far to the left and lost it precious votes in mixed districts. Radicals for their part note that nearly everyone who ran with their policies won their races and demand even greater sway in party decision making and leadership circles.
But the rancor and infighting between moderates and radicals revolves around domestic issues like socialism and defunding the police. It has nothing to do with Israel or the wider Middle East. Policies on those issues are effectively consensual.
They are consensual because as statements and actions by the Biden campaign, by Biden, by Harris and by the Democrat National Committee have made clear, Biden’s policies on Israel, Iran and the wider Middle East are the Obama-Biden administration’s policies. A Biden-Harris administration Middle East policy will pick up precisely where the Obama-Biden administration left off four years ago. Trump’s policies will be unceremoniously annulled, ignored, set aside, or rendered irrelevant.
Biden has committed himself to restore the Palestinians to center stage and to reinstate U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority. Following the passage of the Taylor Force Act which bars the United States from funding the P.A. so long as it pays salaries to terrorists, Trump ended U.S. financial support for the P.A. because it refused to stop funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to terrorists. Likewise, P.A. funding of terrorists caused Trump to close the PLO’s representative office in Washington, D.C., which Biden has committed to reopening.
Biden also committed himself to reinstating U.S. humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Such a move will be a boon for the Hamas terrorist regime, which currently relies on cash payments from Qatar.
The Obama administration’s endpoint insofar as the Palestinians were concerned was the lame-duck passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2234 in December 2016. While Obama and his advisers insisted that they had nothing to do with the resolution but simply didn’t feel right vetoing it, as we have learned over the past four years, 2234 was initiated by Obama and his U.N. ambassador Samantha Power. They pushed it obsessively, attaching the highest priority to harming Israel as much as possible before they left office.
Resolution 2234 was geared towards setting up Israeli leaders and civilians to be prosecuted as war criminals in the International Criminal Court by claiming, baselessly, that Israeli communities in unified Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are illegal. In the words of the resolution, those communities and neighborhoods, which are home to more than 700,000 Israelis, have “no legal validity” and “constitute a flagrant violation under international law.”
President Trump’s recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s determination last November that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are not illegal were of a piece with the Trump administration’s attempt to nullify Resolution 2234, at least from a domestic U.S. perspective. A Biden administration will ignore the Pompeo Doctrine and the State Department’s legal opinion substantiating his position just as Obama ignored Trump’s repeated statements of opposition to 2234 in the weeks before its passage.
Driving home their plan to pick up where Obama left off, Biden, Harris and their advisers have all said they will reinstate the Obama administration’s demand that Israel bar Israeli Jews from asserting their property rights to build homes and communities in Judea and Samaria.
As for Jerusalem, while Biden has said that he will not close the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and reinstate the embassy in Tel Aviv, he has pledged to reopen the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem to serve Palestinians. Until Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem operated independently of the embassy. The U.S. consul in Jerusalem was not accredited by the Israeli president because the United States refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is located inside Israel.
Although Biden congratulated Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on signing the Abraham Accords—which Sudan has since joined as well—his advisers have spoken of them derisively. This week, Tommy Vietor, who served as National Security Council spokesman under Obama, spoke derisively of the normalization deals, which just weeks after the accords were signed have already blossomed into a deep and enthusiastic partnership and alliance encompassing private citizens and government ministries in all participating countries.
Vietor said they were not peace deals but a mere vehicle for the UAE to acquire F-35s. Vietor then alleged that the UAE wants to use the deals to help Saudi Arabia win its war against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.
Biden, Harris and their advisers have pledged to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in the war and to reassess the U.S.-Saudi alliance.
If implemented, these policies will not end the Saudi war against the Houthis. They will end the U.S.-Saudi alliance. For the Saudis, the war against the Houthis is not a war of choice, it is an existential struggle. The Houthis are an Iranian proxy regime. Their control over the strait of Bab el-Mandeb threatens all maritime oil shipments from the Red Sea. Houthi missile strikes already temporarily disabled Saudi Arabia’s main oil terminal and have hit Saudi cities. If the U.S. ends its alliance, the Saudis will continue their war and replace their alliance with the United States with an alliance with China.
Supporting Iran’s Yemeni proxy against the United States’ strategic ally is not, of course, the only way that a Biden administration will help Iran to fight its Arab allies and Israel. Biden, Harris and their campaign advisers have all pledged repeatedly to reinstate the U.S. commitment to the nuclear deal the Obama administration concluded with the Iranian regime in 2015. Various reports have emerged in recent days regarding how precisely Biden intends to achieve that aim. But one thing is clear, having committed himself to restoring the U.S. commitment to the deal, Iran will hold all the cards in any future negotiation on the terms of a U.S.-Iran nuclear rapprochement. And that means that the U.S. will back Iran’s nuclear weapons program more or less from the outset of a Biden-Harris administration.
It cannot be underscored enough that these policies are not simply Biden’s positions. They are the Democrat Party’s positions. And this is the big change that has happened in the past four years. Israelis remember that when Obama concluded the nuclear deal, it was opposed by a 2:1 majority in the Senate and a similar majority in the House. But the Democrat Party has changed since then. Today, after four years of radicalization, on issues related to the Middle East generally and Israeli specifically, there is no meaningful distinction between the reputedly moderate Anthony Blinken, who served as then secretary of state John Kerry’s deputy, and the clearly anti-Israel Susan Rice, Obama’s former national security adviser. So it matters little if Blinken or Rice (or anyone else) is appointed secretary of state.
Because these are the positions of the party, they are not subject to change. If Biden’s radical, deeply destabilizing plans for the Middle East somehow manage to destabilize the Middle East, Biden won’t be in a position to reconsider any of his policies. They have been grafted on to his party’s DNA. Representative Elliot Engel was slaughtered in his primary race against new “squad” member Jamal Bowan. Standing with the Palestinians is a party position. That’s why Obama’s former ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told Israeli media that “the establishment of a Palestinian state will return as the strategic goal of the Biden administration.” He didn’t even mention peace in that statement.
Likewise, appeasing Iran and giving it an open road to a nuclear arsenal is a domestic political issue for Democrats.
Talk of Biden’s joviality and personal warmth, and of moderates versus radicals, are soothing distractions for Israelis who are about to face the most hostile U.S. administration in history. But the facts are the facts. And to meet the challenge a Biden administration will pose to Israel’s national and strategic interests, Israel must steel itself for what awaits it, not worry who will occupy which post in a Biden administration.
Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.
This article first appeared in Israel Hayom.


It looks like the second American Civil War has started in Washington D.C. last night between The National Socialist Democrat Atheist Party (NSDAP) and their operatives: ANTIFA and BLM bringing violence against the Republican Party (Trump Supporters) who, according to DC Police, did nothing but protest.  The big problem is: where are the battle lines going to be drawn???

Top News – Sponsored By Newser

10 attachments — Download all attachments View all images

Sidney Powell Releases the Kraken on Sunday Morning Futures – She Has Proof of Fraud

In modern terms, the phrase “release the
Kraken” means to kick someone’s
a** or to take a dump.

Sidney Powell said in an interview to Fox News that she has “staggering”
statistical evidence and testimony to show how Dominion voting machines
altered ballots. This deception stems back to Venezuela, Cuba and China.
Then, she said, “I’m going to release the Kraken,” a phrase that immediately
started to trend on Twitter.

All eyes are on Georgia – The difference between a Republic or Socialism

All eyes are on Georgia as we work toward a conservative victory in the January 5th runoff election.
Georgia’s January 5th Runoff Election Explained


Share this graphic on Twitter and Facebook
Why is Georgia having a runoff election?
Georgia election law stipulates that a candidate for office must receive a majority of the vote to win. In other words, a vote-getter must receive at least “50 percent plus one vote” to win public office.
In the November 3rd election, no candidate in either Senate race received a majority of the vote, and so there will be a special runoff election on January 5th between the top two candidates in each Senate race.
Mark your calendar with these important dates:

GA Key States.gif

Who are the candidates?
There are two Senate races in Georgia.

In one race, incumbent Republican Senator David Perdue is being challenged by Democrat candidate Jon Ossoff.

In the other race, incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler is being challenged by Democrat candidate Raphael Warnock.

Worth noting—Senators Perdue and Loeffler were the first two U.S. Senators to sign the Police Pledge, committing to “oppose any bill, resolution, or movement to defund the police.”

Why is this race receiving so much attention?

The future of our nation is on the line in Georgia.

The special election on January 5th will determine whether or not Chuck Schumer and his Liberal counterparts control the Senate… and potentially control the country.

Schumer has already made his intentions clear as to what he plans to do. Speaking at a Joe Biden rally in New York City, Schumer told his supporters, “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world.”

America cannot afford for the conservative agenda to lose in Georgia. With control of Congress, they would pack the Supreme Court, pass the radical Green New Deal, increase taxes, and allow our nation’s police departments to be defunded.

What is Heritage Action going to do?

Screen Shot 2020-11-13 at 11.28.42 AM.png

“State law allows those observers to be in there,” he said, adding if the law isn’t being followed then this election is “illegitimate.”

Trey Trainor to Newsmax TV: Voter Fraud Is Taking Place

(Newsmax TV/”The National Report”)

By Marisa Herman    |   Friday, 06 November 2020 11:54 AM

During a Friday appearance on Newsmax TV’s “National Report,” Trainor said locations not granting observers access to watch the ballot counting process could be involved in voter fraud.
“I do believe that there is voter fraud taking place in these places,” he said. “Otherwise they would allow the observers to go in.”
Despite winning a court order, which allows the Trump campaign to send observers to watch ballot counting in Pennsylvania from six feet away, Trainor said ballot watchers “have not been allowed into the polling locations in a meaningful way.”
He said when observers have been permitted to watch, the goalpost has been moved away from the six feet required by the court order.
“They have not been allowed that meaningful access,” he said, adding there has not been transparency in the election.
“Our whole political system is based upon transparency to avoid the appearance of corruption,” he said pointing out that Pennsylvania and other states are not conducting counting in a transparent manner.
“State law allows those observers to be in there,” he said, adding if the law isn’t being followed then this election is “illegitimate.”
He said the lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign are “very valid allegations” that need to be “fully vetted” by the court system. He predicts some of the legal challenges will likely end up in the Supreme Court.
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTV Ch. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, CenturyLink 1209, Mediacom Ch. 277, Frontier 615 or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


sinking foix

Leftists Preparing Assault on the Second Amendment

Leftists Preparing Assault on the Second Amendment

Michael Swartz

While recent events have sown the seed of electoral doubt, it’s clear that Patriots should consider a timeless mantra: “Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.” In the case of the Second Amendment, the worst would be a victory for the media-anointed winners, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
Back in August, our Mark Alexander warned of the prospects of this ticket should it be victorious. While Biden tried at times to run away from the leftmost elements of his party, his party’s platform is likely only the beginning of its leftward lurch. (As the top… eh, we mean bottom of the ticket, Harris could be more open with her party’s intentions, although she had a lot of ideas of her own during her abortive Oval Office run.) Biden, for his part, took the platform paragraph Democrats had devoted to making the streets safe for criminals everywhere and turbocharged it with additional agenda items, such as mandating “smart” guns, eliminating “ghost guns,” and prohibiting the use of federal funds to arm educators, to name just a few.
Biden’s “frontal assault on this individual right” is well-defined by the NRA’s Frank Miniter, who adds that Biden “also wants to nominate judges who would rule that the Second Amendment is just kidding when it says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'”
Miniter’s point on the judiciary is well-taken. While President Donald Trump has done his level best to fill every vacancy in our federal courts and shore up a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Day One of a Biden administration will also be the first day on which the courts could begin tilting back in a negative direction. While SCOTUS seems secure for now thanks in part to the recent confirmation of Second Amendment friend Amy Coney Barrett, bear in mind that behind 82-year-old Stephen Breyer — who would likely retire shortly after Biden is inaugurated to ensure his leftist replacement — the next two oldest justices are Clarence Thomas (72) and Samuel Alito (70). If we’re unfortunate enough that Biden gets to replace three members of SCOTUS, that 6-3 (or is it 5-4?) conservative majority could swing to a 5-4 leftist Court once again.
On the other hand, a strong Republican showing in House elections and the reasonable likelihood of a GOP-controlled Senate pending January’s Georgia runoffs would make the Biden gun grab more difficult. What’s more, 2022 redistricting could cause moderate Democrats to align with the GOP and provide just enough opposition to thwart the Brady Bunch.
Unfortunately, even with SCOTUS and the courts in good shape for the moment, and a likely congressional bottleneck, Biden will still have options. To paraphrase his old boss, Barack Obama, he has a pen and a phone. Don’t be surprised if he and his handlers use them early and often.
As Alexander concluded back in August, “It will be a pitched battle to defend the Second Amendment under a Biden-Harris regime, as Democrats long ago betrayed their solemn oaths ‘to support and defend’ our Constitution and the Rule of Law. And if American Patriots don’t get their ground game together now, that will be the battle we face.”
Should Biden prevail in this still-disputed election, it will be our duty to resist as we can, knowing that law enforcement is also reticent to send their personnel on a “suicide mission” of gun confiscation. Short of that, however, there’s a lot of damage that still can be done to our Second Amendment rights.
Share Tweet Comment

PATRIOT POST – Not a Blue Wave Nor Even a Trickle

Not a Blue Wave Nor Even a Trickle

Douglas Andrews

What are the odds that a political party could lose a presidential election by 3.5% and five million votes, and yet not lose a single one of the nearly 200 congressional seats it was defending all across the nation?
We ask because that’s how things are shaping up for the GOP. On Election Day, 198 Republican representatives were defending their House seats against a Democrat Party that “experts” were predicting would add between five and 15 seats to its majority. Granted, many of these 198 GOP seats were in districts considered safely Republican, but according to the Cook Political Report, 18 of them were toss-ups.
If a toss-up is a coin toss, what we saw on November 3 was either a crappy bit of prognostication by the Cook Political Report and countless other “experts,” or a flipped coin that landed “heads” 18 straight times. What are the odds?
House Republicans did more than defend, though. They went on the attack. At this point, they’ve flipped at least nine seats that were held by Democrats, and they’ll pick up at least a handful more when the dust has finally settled. And the new Republican House caucus will boast more women and more minorities than ever before.
So much for the double-digit gain that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was predicting this summer. Instead, she (or whichever fed-up Democrat finally wrests the speaker’s gavel from her) will preside over an extremely slim House majority — and she’ll have anything but a vote of confidence from the American people.
National Review’s Rich Lowry called the election a “Blue Trickle” instead of a “Blue Wave,” but we don’t even see the trickle. “There has been Democratic backbiting where there was supposed to be celebration,” he writes. “Virginia moderate Representative Abigail Spanberger, who barely won her reelection bid, loosed a profanity-laced tirade against the party’s Left during a House Democratic conference call, outraged that it had handed Republicans so much ammunition.”
And that’s just the House. A couple of weeks ago, all the talk was about the inevitability of a Democrat-controlled Senate; meanwhile, court packing, statehood for deep-blue DC and Puerto Rico, and the filibuster’s funeral were all but assured.
But a funny thing happened on the way to single-party rule.
As West Virginia (Trump by 39 points) Senator Joe Manchin put it, “Under no circumstances would I support packing the court or ending the filibuster if there is a 50-50 tie. … Defund the police? Defund, my butt. I’m a proud West Virginia Democrat. We are the party of working men and women. We want to protect Americans’ jobs and healthcare. We do not have some crazy socialist agenda, and we do not believe in defunding the police.”
We’d take strong issue with Manchin’s claim that the Democrats are “the party of working men and women,” but the rest of his rant is well taken.
Somehow, Joe Biden, the guy who couldn’t draw flies to a campaign rally, racked up a lot more population-adjusted votes than a young, dynamic Barack Obama got in his once-in-a-lifetime 2008 campaign. Somehow.
But everywhere else? The Democrats and their stank-nasty statism got kicked to the curb. And that’s just as it should be in a healthy Republic.
Share Tweet Comment


Mid-Day Digest · Nov. 13, 2020 Read Online Subscription
“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.” —Patrick Henry (1775)

Good News and Words of Encouragement
Mark Alexander

Patriot Brothers and Sisters, some of you are discouraged. On behalf of your Patriot team here, I can tell you that wading through the leftist detritus day after day would indeed be discouraging if we allowed ourselves for even a moment to lose sight of what defines us — eternal Truths, not temporal circumstances.
Let me remind you: You are NOT alone. There are more than 80 million grassroots American Patriots of all ages across our nation, and our ranks are growing.
On November 3, we gained ground across our nation. We picked up nine House seats with others leaning our direction. We expanded control of state legislatures. We added a Republican governor for a 27-23 total. We are going to hold the Senate after the Georgia special elections. Even in California, there was a grassroots shift as voters there defeated leftist ballot initiatives.
We made all of those gains despite the massive Democrat Party bulk-mail voter fraud.
Patriots, we have always held the line in dark seasons, and we will overcome the challenges we face today. We will do so with the vigilance, strength, preparedness, resolve, and faith that has sustained generations of American Patriots.
When Samuel Adams signed our Declaration of Independence, he said, “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.” Amen.
John Adams declared, “I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means.”
In 1777, amid a string of defeats in our first quest for Liberty — as the fall of Philadelphia and the brutal winter at Valley Forge approached — George Washington wrote his commanders: “We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.”
Defending American Liberty and our Republic’s Rule of Law has never been easy. The forces of tyranny — the forces of evil — always have been and always will be relentless. We are bound by our “sacred honor.”
Hold the line. Remember who YOU are, brothers and sisters — who WE are together — and from what stock you come.
We are mothers, fathers, and other family members nurturing the next generation of young Patriots. We are farmers, craftsmen, tradesmen, mechanics, millworkers, and industrial producers. We are small- and large-business owners, service providers, and professionals in medicine and law. We are employees and employers. We are consumers and taxpayers. We are in ministry at home and missionaries abroad. We are students and professors at colleges and universities, often standing alone for what is good and right.
We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, standing in harm’s way at home and around the world, bound by our revered oath “to support and defend” our Constitution and Republic.
We are not defined by race, creed, ethnicity, religion, wealth, education, geography, or political affiliation.
We are, first and foremost, defined by our affirmation of the unalienable Rights of Man, which are irrevocably endowed by our Creator, and the Liberty entrusted to us, one and all.
We are Patriot sons and daughters from all walks of life, heirs to the blessings of Liberty bequeathed to us at great personal cost by our Patriot forebears, confirmed in the opinion that it is our duty to God and Country to extend that blessing to our posterity.
We are bound by our “sacred honor” to that end. We will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER give up or give in.
Be heartened by the awesome power that has emboldened Patriots from the dawn of our nation, who understood, as George Washington declared, “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of all mankind.”
On behalf of your Patriot Post team, thank you for supporting our mission. God bless our great nation, and God bless each of you standing firm in defense of Liberty!
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Share Tweet Comment
P.S. One of the most significant things you can do to promote Liberty is to support our efforts. Since we launched The Patriot Post more than 24 years ago, we have grown to become the Web’s most influential grassroots journal of Liberty. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots — people like you. Please support The Patriot Fund’s Year-End Campaign today. These funds ensure our daily operating expenses are funded into 2021. Thank you for your support.


William P. Barr | The Constitution and the Rule of Law

William P. Barr is the Attorney General of the United States. Following his
remarks is a Q&A with Larry P. Arnn, President of Hillsdale College.

Presented by Hillsdale College – Big Tech and Political Manipulation | Robert Epstein | CCA II: Big Tech

Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith. The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law. By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.

Hillsdale College -The DEPTH of the Swamp – True size and power of the Government

Adam Andrzejewski | The Depth of the Swamp

Adam Andrzejewski is the founder and CEO of, the world’s largest database of public sector spending, whether at the federal, state, or local level. Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminars are held in various locations across the country two to three times each year and address issues of politics, economics, and culture.



John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :