There is a judge in Florida that denied custody rights to a mother, because she didn't wear a face mask. Not to mention that at the beginning of the "Pandemic" Dr. Fauci said that we didn't need to be running around with face masks on. We need them for the healthcare workers. That was right before he said that we do all need to be wearing masks.

Melanie Joseph wants to see her son, but a judge won’t let her — for no reason except that she won’t wear a mask.

Joseph’s 14-year-old son has asthma, a condition that could put him at risk of contracting COVID-19 during this pandemic, court filings show.

Broward Circuit Judge Dale Cohen called the mother an “anti-mask person” who had the “audacity” to brag about it on Facebook.

Conservatives take issue with the decision, but it illustrates how judges in family court now must consider the health risks of COVID-19 on top of juggling the interests of feuding ex-spouses, single parents and reluctant child-support payers.

An appeals court quickly overturned the decision, and the child’s estranged parents eventually resolved their custody disagreement.

The survival rate amongst children is so high, there's no need for any concern --asthma or not. I wrote about this in September of last year, the survival rate was known before this judge made his decision.

There were two more court cases, also in Florida that went the same way, then another in New York!

Last week, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Bernard Shapiro suspended Dr. Theresa Greene’s custody rights to her four-year-old daughter. The judge agreed with her ex-husband’s contention that Greene’s work as an emergency room physician in Plantation posed a risk that she might infect the child with COVID-19. Judge Shapiro decided the husband would have full custody rights for the duration of the pandemic.

“It's cruel to ask me to choose between my child and the oath I took as a physician," Dr. Greene told CNN.

On Tuesday, the Third District Court of Appeals issued a stay, allowing Dr. Greene to retain custody until the matter can be thrashed out in court. A similar custody claim involving an emergency medical technician has been filed in Orlando. The New York Times reported last week that a New Jersey doctor was only allowed to retain custody of her children after she promised not to treat coronavirus patients.

The pandemic, apparently, has added an asterisk to the Hippocratic Oath.

Of course, such decisions aren’t without a perverse kind of logic. Call it plague logic. We can add warped ethics to the list of coronavirus symptoms. Fevers, dry coughs, a willingness to sacrifice grandma.

Remember "follow the science?" In court, the science doesn't get you very far.

This is a case where judges are ruling based on false data trumpeted by the news media. Hysterical reporting and Fake News narratives do have consequences. The only question is, will you be impacted by those consequences?

You thought you had rights, well we'll see about that! The state can use any "crisis" to limit those rights, even if the crisis is perpetuated by hysteria, not facts.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

For any of those out there that don't believe that there are people trying to reshape society on a global scale, here's your wakeup call!

I took snippets from this article but you should read the whole thing! This is the most important article I've seen on the issue of mass migration.

Everything you've been watching in the legacy media has been to keep you from looking at the following:

The United Nations’ role in immigration policy is growing worldwide with the establishment of a UN “Network for Migration” in dozens of countries to facilitate large migratory flows, sparking alarm among American border-security advocates already concerned about mass migration and the escalating crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The UN networks, which are led by a coalition of UN agencies, exist to support the implementation of the controversial “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” (GCM) adopted by the UN and over 150 of its member states in December of 2018.

Under the new administration [Biden], “the U.S. government has attended several GCM regional reviews, reviewing progress on implementation of the compact in all the regions of the world,” UN Network on Migration Communications Coordinator Florence Kim told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

The UN’s refugee agency already “works closely with U.S. government agencies and [Non-Governmental Organizations] responsible for resettling refugees in the U.S.,” the international organization says, adding that the U.S. program is the largest in the world.

In 2018, citing concerns over sovereignty and the interests of the American people, the administration of President Donald Trump rejected U.S. involvement in the UN’s signature immigration effort to date, the GCM. Numerous other governments in Europe and beyond followed suit.

The growing UN push on global migration, combined with ongoing changes in immigration policy between the Trump and Biden administrations, has numerous U.S. organizations dedicated to border security very concerned.

In interviews with The Epoch Times, several leading figures in the immigration debate spoke out against the UN migration networks and the UN effort to get the U.S. government officially involved.

“The International Organization for Migration (IOM) applauds President Joe Biden’s plans to address the drivers of migration and advance safe, orderly and regular migration in the region,” the UN organization said in a statement released in early February using the precise language of the global migration pact.

The Biden administration’s executive actions on immigration “will provide a framework to expand refugee resettlement,” the UN IOM added in reference to Biden’s orders increasing the cap on refugees from less than 20,000 per year to over 120,000.

As soon as Biden took office, the UN suggested that the U.S. government should re-engage in the UN’s international efforts on global migration.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, for instance, issued a statement on Biden’s first day expressing hope that the new administration would join the GCM.

“This partnership is needed now more than ever as we seek to provide assistance, protection and sustainable solutions to the displacement of record numbers of people who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict, violence or disaster, or are migrating in the hopes of finding a better life for themselves and their families,” said the statement issued by Guterres’s office.

“You don’t need to adopt the GCM to actually implement it,” she said. “They will implement it at their own rhythm.”

“Sometimes it can be politically sensitive, so countries [governments] did not adopt it,” added Kim, who works at the UN’s offices in Geneva. “But a majority of those countries are implementing at least some parts of it.”

The United States is actually surrounded by nations where governments are enthusiastic supporters of the UN effort. In fact, the governments of both Mexico and Canada are considered “champions” of the GCM, Kim said.

“Mexico has agreed and requested to pilot some tools developed by the UN agencies through the Network for Migration,” Kim said, adding that the Mexican government served as “co-facilitator of the negotiations.”

“The fact that Mexico can be supported by the UN in protecting migrants leaving or crossing can have an impact on the United States,” continued Kim. “We are talking about international migration here, so anything implemented by one country has an impact on neighboring countries.”

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also referred to as UN Agenda 2030, represent a comprehensive global effort to reform governance and the economy to be more in line with what the UN considers to be sustainable.

The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”

Leading the Networks for Migration are a number of key UN agencies, including several that are run by Chinese officials loyal to Beijing.

She also argued that attempting to stop mass migration was futile.

“You can build all the walls in the world that you want, but when people have to leave, they will,” she said.

“These are domestic policy issues,” he said. “Each nation should make these decisions based on their own criteria.”

“What happens when these kinds of international organizations get involved, you basically have other countries telling the United States and Germany what they should do,” added Mehlman. “Once you throw this into the international arena it becomes very easy for other countries to sit back and tell ours what we should be doing when it’s not really their business.”

“The American public should resist these United Nations programs because they are designed to facilitate and increase harmful third world legal and illegal immigration into America and Europe as part of a wider plan to overwhelm our nations and force Americans into a global form of government which will be dominated by China,” he argued.

National identity, borders, and the independence and freedom enjoyed by Americans are a major obstacle to “socialists, communists, global corporations, and robber baron billionaires who feel they should be able to rule and dictate by fiat,” he said.

“The problems in another country is where the problem needs to be solved, not in ours,” said Gibboney, whose family fled the communist regime in Hungary via Brazil before eventually finding their way to the United States legally.

The US is surrounded by countries that are already taking part in these plans to move massive amounts of people from one country to another.

The UN is involved in this effort as part of "The International Organization for Migration (IOM)" and the "Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM)." How many of you have heard of these organizations, or these initiatives?

The Chinese Communist Party boasted that it played a “crucial role” in the SDG plan, which UN leaders said represents a “master plan for humanity” that will “transform our world.”

Now you know why they don’t teach history anymore! There’s no other reason to do this other than control!

I have a question. Why the hell isn't the UN involved in solving problems in the countries that people are fleeing from? Wouldn't it make more sense to help the people where they are rather than move them to a foreign land? It's sort of the opposite of colonialism, instead of going over there and changing things for the better, we're going to move the majority of a population to a place that is already doing better. But, there's one really big problem with it. THIS IS WHAT THE ROMANS DID! It serves two main purposes. First, it moves one group of people away from their homeland, making them less likely to push back and easier to control. Second, the place where they migrate to is destabilized due to the large influx of people and is also much less likely to push back (dealing with internal problems) making them easier to control as well.

This is some dark evil stuff here! For all of those people who called anyone paying attention a "conspiracy theorist," your time's up. There is a huge conspiracy to push the world toward a one world governing body. The people involved are coming out about it now, because they don't think that anything can be done to stop it.

Make no mistake, the people involved in this effort are moving the pieces into position right now. This article details what they are trying to do. I hope that we aren't too late to at least save the US. But I can't tell at this point.

From what I see, the globalists are looking to drive the US into another civil war. Every time the US government threatens to take guns away, what happens? People go out and guy more guns.

We have a public that is armed to the teeth, and we have an education system that is teaching young children and adults to hate each other because of their race and past grievances (Critical Race Theory). There's nothing "critical" about it, other than it's needed to divide the country.

Critical Race Theory is an ideological, non-solvable narrative that doesn't allow for logic and reason. The outcome of this, one could only assume, would eventually be a war. Once enough people are tired of being pushed and blamed for things they don't believe and crimes they didn't commit, there will be a breaking point.

Some states like Florida have taken steps to slow, or stop some of this nonsense. But many states have not.

The US is being hammered on many fronts, in a coordinated effort. Biden (friendly to China) in the White House, mass migration, Critical Race Theory. These facts are not debatable. The people behind this push for one world government are coming out and admitting it, and China is at the forefront of it. Even more insulting, the United States provides the majority of the funding for the UN.

I think the American people have been played by both sides. Many Republican state legislatures are passing laws to deal with mail-in voting, and other measures that will secure the vote. If they can pass these measures now, when the media has said repeatedly that there was no fraud in the 2020 election; in other words they don't have any media backing --why couldn't they have passed these measures before the 2020 election? I don't have the answer to that question. I can only assume it's because the Republicans were in on the fraud from the beginning. There's no way that these Republican state legislatures didn't know what was happening in their states. Now the Republicans are playing theater and passing laws that they know will be overridden when the filibuster is removed, and H.R.1 is signed into law.

If they can’t get (H.R. 1 / S. 1) passed outright, they will create a new czar to oversee elections, that czar will have the authority (granted by congress) to make it happen. This is how it’s done in Washington. Obamacare was the same way. They created a position called the “Health Choices Commissioner” (in the original ACA bill) later renamed. They didn’t pass Obamacare in one swoop. They created the framework by which they could mandate all the necessary parts of Obamacare through intermediaries --effectively side-stepping congress..

I think that we've been under the rule of a single party system for much longer than many people are willing to admit.

Only time will tell if we can pull out of this as a nation.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The FBI is worried that people are going to fake their vaccine cards.

If You Make or Buy a Fake COVID-19 Vaccination Record Card, You Endanger Yourself and Those Around You, and You Are Breaking the Law
The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) and the FBI are advising the public to be aware of individuals selling fake COVID-19 vaccination record cards and encouraging others to print fake cards at home. Fake vaccination record cards have been advertised on social media websites, as well as e-commerce platforms and blogs.

Vaccination record cards are intended to provide recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine with information about the type of vaccine they received, and when they may be able to receive a second dose of the vaccine. If you did not receive the vaccine, do not buy fake vaccine cards, do not make your own vaccine cards, and do not fill-in blank vaccination record cards with false information. By misrepresenting yourself as vaccinated when entering schools, mass transit, workplaces, gyms, or places of worship, you put yourself and others around you at risk of contracting COVID-19. Additionally, the unauthorized use of an official government agency's seal (such as HHS or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)) is a crime, and may be punishable under Title 18 United States Code, Section 1017, and other applicable laws.

Because individuals may use fake vaccine cards to misrepresent themselves as vaccinated, we strongly encourage businesses, schools, places of worship, and government agencies to follow CDC guidance and continue to maintain social distancing and use personal protective equipment. If you did receive the vaccine, we recommend you do not post photos of your vaccine card to social media websites—your personal information could be stolen to commit fraud. For more information about the dangers of sharing your vaccination status on social media, see...

Why are they so worried about people faking vaccination record cards? Could it be that many people are refusing to get the vaccine? Of course it is!

The question now is how can the government use "coercion" to get people to "accept" the vaccine?

The vaccine passport is the next logical step. After all they are already spending money on it right now. The Biden regime claims that they aren't going to implement it. Why spend money on it if you aren't going to implement it. Of course they are going to implement it.

The Biden administration previously said the federal government should not be involved in efforts to create a vaccine passport system to verify that people have been vaccinated.

The Post, citing five officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, reported the effort "has been driven largely by arms of the Department of Health and Human Services, including an office devoted to health information technology."

The administration official told CNN Monday the standards are still in the early stages of development but expects them to look similar to what Zients outlined -- that the ultimate product should be free, private and safe from being duplicated or forged.

CNN previously reported that several companies and technology groups have begun developing smartphone apps or systems for individuals to upload details of their Covid-19 tests and vaccinations, creating digital credentials that could be shown in order to enter concert venues, stadiums, movie theaters, offices, or even countries.

The government shouldn't be involved in the process, but the process is being spearheaded by the Department of Health And Human Services? This is all a lie to try and get it done before people have the chance to fight against it.

They are going to limit people's ability to move without some sort of government issued ID, or smart phone app. This is already being done in China.

“Today’s economic business models all encourage people to share data,” says Lokman Tsui, a privacy expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In China, he adds, we are seeing “what happens when the state goes after that data to exploit and weaponize it.”

Some 1,500 miles northwest of where Mrs. Chen recovered her purse, surveillance in China’s restive region of Xinjiang has helped put an estimated 1 million people into “re-education centers” akin to concentration camps, according to the U.N. Many were arrested, tried and convicted by computer algorithm based on data harvested by the cameras that stud every 20 steps in some parts.

In the name of fighting terrorism, members of predominantly Muslim ethnic groups—mostly Uighurs but also Kazakhs, Uzbeks and Kyrgyz—are forced to surrender biometric data like photos, fingerprints, DNA, blood and voice samples. Police are armed with a smartphone app that then automatically flags certain behaviors, according to reverse engineering by the advocacy group Human Rights Watch. Those who grow a beard, leave their house via a back door or visit the mosque often are red-flagged by the system and interrogated.

Sarsenbek Akaruli, 45, a veterinarian and trader from the Xinjiang city of Ili, was arrested on Nov. 2, 2017, and remains in a detention camp after police found the banned messaging app WhatsApp on his cell phone, according to his wife Gulnur Kosdaulet. A citizen of neighboring Kazakhstan, she has traveled to Xinjiang four times to search for him but found even friends in the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reluctant to help. “Nobody wanted to risk being recorded on security cameras talking to me in case they ended up in the camps themselves,” she tells TIME.

This same sort of tech is already here in the U.S. they just aren't using it yet. This is the end game, or should I say, "just the beginning of the game." Technologies like BitCoin and blockchain technology will be employed, so faking these sorts of IDs becomes nearly impossible.

When they build the surveillance state here in the U.S., they'll do it much better. They already have so much data from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, they will start this process with much more information than the Chinese did.

This is another reason that they Democrats are going to do away with the filibuster rule. The Democrats must get these laws implemented before the majority of the population catches on to what they are doing. Because very few people know this is coming, and few think it's a good idea.

Everyone's in for a wild ride! Buckle-up and prepare to be gently nudged in the direction that the surveillance state wants you to go.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

While I always hate to be the bearer of bad news, I don't think that there's any way out of the current situation. Historically, whenever a republic has fallen to tyranny, it has never been able to rebound from it.

Here's what I believe we're looking at right now.

There are many theories over the years on how to destroy the United States of America. Most were thought up by foreign adversaries, like the Chinese, some were though up by citizens. No matter the case, we are seeing a large number of these strategies being enacted right now. I'll list a few and let you take from it what you will.

First we'll start with the Chinese. The Chinese have figured out the easiest way to defeat the U.S. It's subversive, so as to elude most people's senses. Plus getting cheaper products on Amazon keeps most people mesmerized.

A leading Chinese professor—who is also an adviser to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—laid out a comprehensive plan for the communist regime to overthrow the United States as the world’s superpower.

The professor’s multi-pronged strategy involves a range of malign actions to subvert the United States while strengthening the Chinese regime. They include: interfering in U.S. elections, controlling the American market, cultivating global enemies to challenge the United States, stealing American technology, expanding Chinese territory, and influencing international organizations.

Jin suggested that the CCP should interfere in U.S. elections to bring pro-Beijing candidates to power. He singled out races for seats in the House of Representatives as an easy target.

“The Chinese government wants to arrange Chinese investments in every single congressional district to control thousands of voters in each district,” Jin said.

“The best scenario is China can buy the United States, and change the U.S. House of Representatives into the second Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress,” he said, referring to the committee that oversees the CCP’s rubber-stamp legislature.

He said the Chinese regime wants Chinese business people to control the U.S. market, and also for them to develop their businesses in the country.

To reach this goal, the Chinese regime had tried to negotiate with Washington for the U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The agreement was actively negotiated for the decade prior to 2017, but fell off the agenda during President Donald Trump’s administration.

Some U.S. companies wishing to enter the Chinese market, and the U.S.-China Business Council have advocated for the signing of a BIT.

The professor admitted that the CCP has depended on stolen American technology to fuel its growth.

In June 2016, China’s Long March 7 rocket sent an orbital debris clean-up satellite Aolong-1 to space. Beijing claimed that Aolong-1 only brought space debris back to earth, but Jin suggested the satellite had another mission.

“The U.S. said that [Aolong-1] was collecting American satellites [from the space], and bringing them back to China,” Jin said. “We can disassemble [the American] satellites and reassemble them into Chinese ones.”

Jin also explained the CCP’s plan to exert greater influence over global bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, Interpol, the International Monetary Fund, the International Olympic Committee, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The Chinese regime’s goal is for “all these international organizations to be controlled by China. We can appoint someone who speaks Chinese [who represents China] to be its leaders,” Jin said.

“No matter how much power you have, it’s nothing if you don’t dare to use it,” Jin said. “Chairman Xi dares to use it. [Xi’s authorities] have the power, dare to use that power, and all of its attacks make the other party bleed.”

Xi’s ambitions, however, cannot be revealed to the outside world, the professor said.

It would appear from the information above that the Chinese have a pretty good plan on how to knock the U.S. down to the number (2) position globally. I think they are succeeding. We know that Joe Biden is beholden to the Chinese, by way of his family connections. We know that the World Health Organization is compromised, because their investigators are Chinese paid.

World Health Organization COVID-19 investigator Peter Daszak has worked on over 20 research endeavors that list “affiliations” with Chinese Communist Party-linked entities, including studies funded by the Chinese government and co-authored by military-linked researchers, The National Pulse can exclusively reveal.

The global media has unquestioningly hosted Daszak, his Chinese Communist-aligned talking points, and failed to inform viewers and readers of his multiple conflicts of interest. Daszak has donated to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and blasted critics of the Chinese Communist Party.

So far I've only listed the things that the Chinese are obviously connected to. But what about the other things that have been going on?

If you don't know by now, there's a crisis on the southern border. Joe Biden wrote executive orders undoing all of the measures put in place by the Trump administration. As a direct result, there has been a migrant flood at the border. There has also been a media blackout along the southern border by way of the administration's requirement for Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to clear all statements through the administration, before going to the press. Also they are keeping the press from taking video along the border and in the areas where they are processing the migrants. This is all by design.

One of the ways to keep the U.S. distracted is to have many crises on many fronts. In fact there is a well planned strategy for this sort of weakening of the U.S. It's called the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.

But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in
--------------
*In public statements, it would be important to distinguish between the Income distributing function of public welfare, which should be replaced by new federal measures, and many other welfare functions, such as foster care and adoption services for children, which are not at issue in this strategy
--------------
establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests.

The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.

Basically the Cloward-Piven Strategy is to overwhelm the system by means of a "manufactured crisis" and usher in socialism. The crisis at the border is indeed a real crisis, but it's one that could have been avoided by leaving Trump's border policies in place.

Now you know the exact reason that Biden's executive orders did the exact opposite of what the Trump orders did. Guaranteed manufactured crisis.

If you paid any attention to Joe Biden's speech on Thursday 03-25-21, you might have noticed that he admitted that if they cannot get their agenda passed through the Senate, they will do whatever they have to. If Biden is good for one thing, it's telling the truth when it doesn't suit his agenda.

“I want to get things done. I want to get them done consistent with what we promised the American people, and in order to do that, in a 50-50 Senate, we’ve got to get to the place where I’ve got 50 votes so the Vice President of the United States can break the tie, or I get 51 votes without her,” the president said.

Biden has appointed the wife one of the Republican holdouts (Joe Manchin) when it comes to removing the filibuster.

President Biden is nominating Gayle Manchin, Sen. Joe Manchin’s wife, to be what it calls a “key member” of his administration. pic.twitter.com/a79KvyBuxj

— Daniel Lippman (@dlippman) March 26, 2021

Biden's plan to get rid of the filibuster will result in the passing of HR1, which will make all of the things that happened in the 2020 election legal. ALL OF THEM. Basically we will be guaranteed one party rule, because no more conservatives will ever hold federal office again. There will be one party in control of elections in the country.

This ABC News article from September 22, 2020 explains a lot of the changes the activists were able to get through.

Thanks to legal challenges from voting rights advocates, some states that typically require ballots to be received by polls closing time will accept ballots postmarked by Election Day for the 2020 election.

In the three "Blue Wall" states the president won in 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- judges have recently issued rulings that extend the deadline for mail ballots to be received.

In Michigan, a court of claims judge ordered clerks to accept ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 2 and received within 14 days of the election, the deadline for results to be certified. These ballots have to be counted as provisional ballots. In Wisconsin, a U.S. district judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 can be counted as long as they are received by Nov. 9. And in Pennsylvania, not only will mailed ballots that are postmarked on or before 8 p.m. on Election Day and received by 5 p.m. the Friday after it be counted, due to a ruling from the state Supreme Court, but any ballots that arrive within that time frame without a postmark, or with an unreadable postmark, will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point, unless evidence indicates otherwise.

In Minnesota, ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a week after the election will be counted. Both Massachusetts and Kentucky are allowing postmarked ballots received by Nov. 6 to be counted. In New Jersey, ballots received by 8 p.m. on Nov. 10 will be counted if they are postmarked on or before Nov. 3, but additionally, ballots without a postmark due to a postal error will be counted as well if they are received by 8 p.m. on Nov. 5.

In Georgia, a federal judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Election Day will count if election officials get them by the third day after the election, but the secretary of state, the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party are challenging this order in court. The RNC and Georgia GOP are arguing the ruling only applies to 17 counties that were "cherry picked" to be advantageous to Democrats. The judge's order extending the deadline doesn't specifically state it applies statewide, but it does order that those under Raffensperger's "supervision, direction, or control shall accept and count otherwise valid absentee ballots from qualified voters" that meet the postmark requirement and arrive by Nov. 6.

Everything was hinging on the postmark date of the mail-in ballots. But none of that mattered, when they were allowed to count them irrespective of the postmark date.

Pennsylvania effectively did away with any and all verification on mail-in ballots, "...ballots that arrive without a postmark, or with an unreadable postmark, will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point, unless evidence indicates otherwise." People could just produce as many ballots as needed without postmarks and they, "will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point." Do I need to point out how absurd this is?

It is also worth mentioning that the requirements to recall most state and local elected officials, require a much more secure process be followed. Think about that for a minute, it's easy to cheat and get into office, but when the public determines that there's a real need to remove someone from office, that process is REALLY well guarded.

I believe the added security at The Capitol is because Democrats plan to implement changes that the vast majority of the American people will be opposed to. They are worried that there might be a real insurrection.

How many Democrat voters really thought that the Biden administration was literally going to open the border? The vast majority of Democrat voters that I've run into, don't believe that the politicians they vote for will actually go through with all of the leftist policies they run on. Most Democrat voters figure it's pandering, and when their candidate gets in office they will "govern from the center." Democrat voters have been lulled to sleep by liberal politicians, but these aren't liberals, they are leftists.

Governing from the center is never the goal of these leftists. Tyranny is the goal of leftists.

I'm worried that we might not be able to recover from this.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I first read about Judge Laurence Silberman's ruling in an Epoch Times story.

Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along,” he added.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman concluded. “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

It made me think about the first time I remember realizing how collective the voice of the major news outlets truly are. It was when John Kerry used the term hubris. The word is not that widely used, but once Kerry said it in relation to the Bush Whitehouse, it was parroted for months by the media.

Rush Limbaugh had a 3+ minute montage of different media outlets using the term hubris. They weren’t quoting Kerry either, they were applying it to the Bush administration at every turn. I don’t think it was just because they liked the sound of the word. It’s because they wanted “hubris” to become synonymous with the Bush Whitehouse. Hubris became a household word in 2004 when Kerry used it in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.

He vowed that if elected he would go directly to the United Nations in the first 100 days of his administration to "make it clear that when the secretary of state speaks, he or she speaks for America -- not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger."

It was obvious to me at that point that there was no coincidence in the use of the word. This phrasing was coming from pretty much every major news outlet. Different shows, different hosts, all using the exact same phrasing when describing the Bush Whitehouse.

Far from parroting the same lines. Some news outlets even go after each other. They attempt to discredit news outlets that they disagree with. Project Veritas an undercover news outlet exposing many large companies and left leaning organizations sued The New York Times. The suit was based on a story in which the NYT reporters made up sources, and tried to make it appear as if the reporting from Project Veritas was false, or misleading. The NYT moved to have the case dismissed, but the judge disagreed and is allowing the suit to go forward.

In the ruling, where the NYT motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied, the judge said that the writers used “reckless disregard” and “acted with actual malice” by denigrating Project Veritas without supporting their claims with actual evidence.

Last year, NYT writers Tiffany Hsu and Maggie Astor made unverifiable claims that a video by Project Veritas about election irregularities in Minnesota was deceptive in five articles. The non-profit journalism group’s lawsuit claims the articles contained falsehoods and defamation.

“Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas have a long history of releasing manipulated or selectively edited footage purporting to show illegal conduct by Democrats and liberal groups, ” wrote Astor, in one of her articles.

In one of Hsu’s articles, she claimed that the organization “magnified the reach of the deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by conservative activist James O’Keefe.”

“The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally,” Hsu added.

Of course this is not true. Project Veritas goes to great lengths to make sure that they verify the people in the videos. In fact the majority of their footage is taken by whistleblowers from within these organizations. The NYT didn't just attack Project Veritas, they also went after the credibility of the whistleblowers.

Think about all of the stories about Trump that use "unnamed sources" from wherever. There's a reason for that, it's called making things up. The sources are too often unnamed. Most readers assume that the publisher, often some of the largest in the world, would verify their sources. In many cases there isn't a source, they are simply making it up to shape public opinion, take this Washington Post article for example.

President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to “find the fraud” in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a “national hero,” according to an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.

Of course that's not what was said on the call.

The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should “find the fraud” and that she would be a “national hero,” based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments.

In fact, he did not use those precise words.

Rather, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize Fulton County, where she would find “dishonesty,” he said.

He also said, “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.”

When The Post first reported on the call, state officials said they did not believe that a recording existed. Officials located the recording on a trash folder on Watson’s device while responding to a public records request, according to a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal process.

The Washington Post ran with the story knowing it was false. They did this because they didn't think they would be caught, they didn't know that the call was recorded. I can think of another time this happened. Remember the first impeachment attempt? The phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump called their bluff and declassified the call, then released the transcript.

Then you have the Big Tech aspect of the media. They do more to suppress news they disagree with. This happens any number of ways. Either by banning President Trump from Twitter, or simply stopping people from sharing links to news sources, like what happened to The New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop.

The judge [Silberman] also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.

Funny how it's always a mistake with Facebook and Twitter when they ban someone. It's not a mistake, until they are called out. But they have very complex systems including AI and who knows what other moving parts. They can always blame the bans on the AI, this provides them with plausible deniability. Twitter and Facebook like to give the impression that they are unware of what goes on within their own platform. This becomes less likely when the "mistakes" keep happening to conservative voices. How many Democrat lawmakers have had their accounts mistakenly banned?

Judge Silberman's ruling does give me some hope though, that there are at least some people within the system that know there is something wrong, and are willing to do something about it!

For too long now the media have worked together, in total lock step, on almost every political issue, always pushing further and further left. The media today are little more than propaganda outlets for the left. The real "Big Lie" is that the media are objective and are providing their readers with accurate news.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.