The progressive assault on speech is entering a new and more sinister phase, advancing beyond censorship by social media companies and crossing the line into government censorship. This new phase is aptly characterized in a January article found in Defense One, entitled “Regulate Social Media Companies.” The article commingles many different errant ideas, but its most disturbing attribute is the reckless way in which various sorts of speech formerly considered to be free are suddenly judged to be subject to progressive discipline. Take the very first sentence, for example:
“The events of January 6 showed existing approaches to quell disinformation and incitements to violence on social media platforms have failed, badly.” 
The first thing to be noted in this sentence is the mischaracterization of the origins of the January 6th Capitol protests and the dismissal of the legitimate concerns with election fraud held by much of the U. S. electorate. But beyond that bit of chicanery, of greater concern is the underlying mindset displayed here, which conflates both disinformation and incitements to violence as examples of prohibited speech. While incitement to violence is clearly prohibited in the U. S., disinformation is nothing of the sort. Terms like disinformation suffer from a critical malady, which is that someone must define them for any given issue. And since every issue has at least two sides, then one side’s definition is not by itself sufficient. All sides must be represented in the free and public exchange of views.
Continue reading “The Escalation of the Progressive Attack on Speech”
The mainstream media, big tech, and the establishment political parties are spending the day today expressing their outrage against President Trump for continuing to attack the 2020 election fraud and encouraging his supporters to demonstrate at the capitol yesterday. While such anger is a popular and entirely predictable preoccupation for these groups, it really has nothing to do with holding the President accountable for dangerous rhetoric.
That stentorious wrath is actually all about two things: pure and unadulterated vengeance against President Trump for managing to disrupt the political establishment for four years; and the effort to damage him for the future. Why an effort to damage him for the future? Because Democrat and Republican establishments alike realize that the President is the single most formidable candidate for the 2024 elections, and anything they can do now to remove him from the scene is to their political advantage.
Amidst all of this indignation, one important fact is being missed: the frustration expressed by President Trump is not simply his alone. The establishment elites completely fail to understand this. President Trump speaks for a very large percentage of the country, and therefore, the baseless attacks proceeding against him today are also attacks upon those who support him. Among those supporters must be realistically included the 80 million or so (I am counting the votes which were fraudulently deprived from the President) citizens who voted for him (since we all know that non-citizens voted exclusively for Biden).
Continue reading “The Demise of the Republican Establishment”
If you had the misfortune to be a long-time San Diego Chargers fan, you know well the sick feeling you got when the Chargers began to sit on a lead in the fourth quarter, and they commenced three and out run plays on offense, along with something called the “prevent defense.” And you knew before it happened: they were going to lose again.
The very same feeling engulfed me on election night, when the vote counts in the key swing states mysteriously stopped updating, and then later, on the morning of November 4th as huge numbers of votes came rolling in for Biden, and suddenly the President’s commanding lead in those swing states was lost. You didn’t want to acknowledge it, but you couldn’t avoid the certainty: something had gone grievously wrong, and your team was going to lose.
It is apparent now, two months later, that massive fraud  happened that night, on a scale never before attempted in an American election. The evidence is overwhelming, including: a thousand affidavits  signed under penalty of perjury by election observers describing every type of election malfeasance imaginable; video evidence  of hidden ballots counted in Georgia without observers present; statistical analyses of wildly improbable vote spikes and vote ratios  in Biden’s favor coming late in the morning after those inexplicable voting shutdowns  in the key swing states; and computer forensics analyses  of Dominion Systems in Antrim County, Michigan, revealing a system which flagged 68% of all votes as having errors. The implications of such a high error level are devastating to the integrity of the election:
Continue reading “Blank Stare Jurisprudence, Lethargic Law Enforcement, and Blind-eye Journalism: The 2020 Presidential Election”
In 2020, as in 2016, the Trafalgar Group provided accurate presidential election polls for the swing states. However, despite remarkably consistent precision, Trafalgar’s win predictions for the swing states were, on average, incorrect. At the same time, the conventional pollsters, even though far less precise, were correct as to their predictions for the winner in the swing states. This seems on the surface to be rather anomalous: why would the more precise pollster get the wrong overall answer?
One answer to this question could be that fraud conducted during the election occurred on such a large scale that the resulting distortion of the vote caused otherwise very accurate polling to appear to be wrong, when it really was not. There is already plenty of evidence that substantial election fraud occurred, especially in the swing states. [1,2] In particular, the numerical analyses of voting patterns are quite disturbing. [3,4,5] The purpose of this article is to show that Trafalgar polling was better in the swing states Trump won, and significantly worse in swing states Trump lost. Similarly, the reverse was true for the conventional pollsters. Both of these circumstances support the hypothesis of election fraud, since this sort of polling dichotomy would not be expected for pollsters who routinely produce consistent results. Election fraud could explain this unanticipated difference, because it would cause the “actual” vote to depart significantly from accurate pre-election polls.
Continue reading “Trafalgar 2020 Swing State Polls Signal Election Fraud”
It is now the day before the election, and the professional progressive political prognosticators are still predicting an overwhelming victory for the Democrat candidate, just as they so wrongly did in 2016. And once again, that pesky Trafalgar Group, which correctly predicted almost the exact electoral college vote in 2016, is producing swing state polls which are not in line with the main stream polling consensus. But how do the electoral vote totals look if the main stream polling consensus is adjusted to take the Trafalgar results into account?
Continue reading “Is President Trump Really That Far Behind?”
I am writing this the morning after the
Mueller hearings. And I am pinching myself to try and find out if
what I recall of the hearings yesterday actually happened.
I mean – are the Democrats really as
stupid as they appeared to be yesterday?
Did they really intend to showcase the
Mueller report’s fundamental departure from the rule of U. S. law,
wherein the President was not afforded the presumption of innocence,
as required by the due process enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U. S. Constitution? Did they not expect that
Representative Ratcliffe, or one of the other Republican
representatives, would use the opportunity presented by the hearings
to ensure that everyone understands that no prosecutor, ever, has any
authority to make statements about “exoneration?” Did they
not understand that the great unwashed masses are at least alert
enough to realize that if the President himself can be treated this
way, then there is no hope for the rest of us?
Continue reading “The Morning After”
Alabama Human Life Protection Act signed into state law on May 15th
seems to have engendered a noticeable increase in intensity beyond
the usual aggrieved progressive response to the introduction of
restrictive abortion laws. [1,2] This is somewhat curious, since
this is only one of several bills introduced in states this year to
restrict abortions.  I suspect it is because the sponsors of the
Alabama abortion bill have stated that their intent is to directly
challenge Roe v. Wade, and that they will focus on the personhood of
the baby in the womb:
“It was about creating something that was meant to go all the way to the Supreme Court and it also needed to have the most value when talking about a pro-life bill if you are going to try and pass it,” Collins said. 
Continue reading “The Alabama Abortion Bill and the Vulnerability of Roe v. Wade”
“The point is it acknowledges there is a baby, there is a person there,” Collins said. “Under Alabama law right now, that baby, that presence, is already acknowledged under current law.” 
One of the most important ongoing fights against progressives is the battle to protect the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Although the 2008 Heller case was initiated over the issue of possessing firearms for the purpose of self-defense in the home, it was especially reassuring to see that Justice Scalia in the majority opinion went to great lengths explicating the foundational justifications for and meaning of the Second Amendment.  However, the Heller case did not address the scope of legitimate actions that can be taken in self-defense. This is an important topic – after all, what good is it to possess a firearm if the laws in your state do not strongly support its use in self-defense?
Continue reading “Virginia is NOT a gun-friendly state”