Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, November 23, 2020

Recommended Reading

For what it's worth...See What We Must Believe to Believe Biden Won: The surreal list of innumerable irregularities, by David Catron at Frontpage Magazine (November 19, 2000).  Comments there are interesting, too.

76 comments:


  1. WASHINGTON — The legal trouble for Biden and his family is far from over, with new charges for possession of child pornography recently filed against Hunter Biden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weird that there doesn't seem to be any news release relating to that......

      Как погода в россии товарищ?

      Delete
    2. What made you so jaded that an anonymous blog accusation is somehow not enough for you, CI?

      Delete
  2. There is a clip out on twitter with Lou Dobbs talking with someone about Dominion back in 2006. Everyone knew....Reminds me of the song by Leonard Cohen "Everybody Knows"

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That’s how it goes
    Everybody knows

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't find it at all incredible that the voting machines are suboptimal, but Trump would have a lot of credibility if he'd started this crusade before losing the election.

    I like tech, but I'm delighted that in the UK we still count our votes by hand. Not that any method is immune from fraud, but the shape of the risk is much better understood. We have an intuitive grasp of what is and isn't possible using the hand-counting method, wheras I suspect many of the claims made against Dominion are very fanciful indeed, but it's hard to dismiss anything without drilling down into the specifics of those machines. Who's going to make that kind of effort??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great point. Instead of rage-tweeting for the last several months, investigate something that was allegedly 'known' about since 2007-ish?

      Or did the grand grift actually not go as intended....?

      Delete
    2. He did, Jez, he did.He said repeatedly that mail-in voting was an invitation to fraud. He said specifically that Democrats were instigating mail-in voting specifically so that they could use rigged vote counting machines to steal the election. He said these things at every rally he held for several months before the election. The media, if they quoted him at all, only quoted sound bites which they could use to mock him.

      Just as your claim, that he never raised the issue of fraud until after the election, misrepresents Donald Trump in the most dishonest way possible.

      Delete
    3. Jayhawk, saying something over and over is not proof. DJT had all the levers of government at his disposal for three years. If he was truly worried about those things, why not investigate those companies, like Dominion, publicly fund the government to provide a safer way to handle mail in voting during a pandemic, and show the evidence that many claim exists, publicly and in court rooms?

      Delete
    4. Strange, I don't remember hearing Trump bellyache about Dominion voting machines during the run up to the election.

      He raised fraud alright, but just like the current legal challenges...all he had was a lot of hot air and very little evidence that such was likely.

      Delete
    5. @Jayhawk: I don't say he didn't mention it, I say he didn't do anything about it. It turns out that whining about problems at a rally is not the same thing as leadership. May you have better luck with a president less allergic to detail.

      Delete
    6. You mean the enquiry he launched over illegal voting after winning in 2016 but everyone blew off and dropped because it might prove embarrassing to the established political parties?

      Delete
    7. Does the man have to do everything, like make peace in the ME all by himself through executive orders, or can a few bureaucrats get off their fat asses and do their jobs for a change?

      Delete
    8. Ah yes, the Kris Kobach investigation. And how did that turn out? or the investigations by multiple states, including Governed and Secretaried by GOP officials?

      Where was the "massive voter fraud" that Trump claimed, ironically calling into question his own 2016 win?

      Delete
    9. Yes, the kobach investigation which trump couldn't be bothered to hand over properly to the DHS. Bureaucrats are happy to get off their asses when given intelligible directives through the proper channels; vague slogans chanted at rallies and issued through tweets are rightly ignored. Sometimes the fat ass that needs to be got off of is the potus'.

      Delete
    10. The investigation was completely stymied and all State voter data withheld... so don't complain that Trump "didn't get to the bottom" of all the fraud.

      Delete
    11. ...that was ALL malingering Deep State bureaucrats.

      Delete
    12. ...who live by maintaining the status quo.

      Delete
    13. What happened to handing it over to the DHS?

      Delete
    14. Weren't they busy at the time protecting us from "Putin's stooge" in the WH?

      Delete
    15. Yep. It's always the fault of the "deep state". What a painless, blissful, uncritical worldview to have. I'm almost a bit jealous. Almost.

      Delete
    16. No, no, no. They are infallible and therefore require no oversight...

      Delete
  4. Georgia's Republican government did a hand recount of the ballots. How was that rigged?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the 64,000 dollar question Silver. Did it change any votes?

      At some point, after you make allegations/affidavits, you have to show some real proof.

      Delete
    2. I cannot tell you haw many times I have been sent into a factory to find out why their processes were not working properly. Each time I have been told of the extensive tests they have performed to find out why things are not working. Each time I have asked them to show me the tests they have performed. Unfailingly, the tests have consisted of doing things the way they always do them and not seeing anything wrong.

      So you count ballots and get a total. Count the again the same way you did the first time and claim proof of validity when you get the same totals. To prove validity, you need to arrive at totals by using a different method. Not to mention checking ballots for validity, accuracy and authenticity. Simply recounting proves nothing.

      Delete
    3. So, counting ballots by machine...then counting them by hand....isn't arriving at totals by two different methods?

      Delete
    4. Does the hand recount not rule out software, if nothing else?

      Delete
    5. DId they review the voter signatures? Nope.

      Delete
    6. Did they throw out the uncreased mail in ballots that have never been put into an envelope?


      Nope.

      Delete
    7. One question at a time: can we eliminate the software from the Georgia inquiries?

      Delete
    8. I'm sure that the software worked as designed. Can we audit all external User commands and Keystrokes given to it during the count?

      Delete
    9. What would be the point, if the hand recount matches? Wouldn't you just be reviewing a string of commands and keystrokes which made had no effect on the outcome?
      It's like the doctor who orders invasive scans even though the outcome will not change is prescription. Will you never be satisfied?

      Delete
    10. The point would be to identify root cause of the glitches. You like recurring voting problems that never get solved?

      Delete
    11. ...and ps - theirs is now a "machine recount" this time... not a "hand" recount. It's to verify that "software" issues don't create a significantly different result.

      Delete
  5. I wonder how much Trump has personally invested in this legal exercise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not nearly as much as the DNC invested in ensuring that the mail in vote debacle would materialize...

      Delete
    2. I think you're right. Has Trump even put any of his own money into this?

      Delete
    3. I can think of a few reasons why he wouldn't.
      To answer your question: as a measure of his level of conviction. If he were sincerely fighting for democracy, why wouldn't he give it all he's got, including $$?

      Delete
    4. Its not his job to "personally" save the Republic.

      Delete
    5. Sure, but if he really thought democracy was under threat, isn't it weird that he not donate money towards its defence? Especially as he's inviting his supporters to donate, wouldn't it be natural for him to put in a little something himself?

      Delete
    6. He is. He works for it 24/7 and donates his salary.

      Delete
    7. The 'golfer-in-chief' works 24/7....who knew?

      Delete
    8. I didn't know he'd donated towards his lawsuits.

      Delete
  6. It makes perfect sense that Biden would pick an old rehashed corrupt bunch of Obama's retards to surround him. These DemoRats are most likely the only ones that he knows.
    Get ready for the same old crap that has been flung at us before to screw up the country once again

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed.

      Thank you, NeverTrumpers and Dem idiots. We are on the road to serfdom. Again.

      Delete
  7. We continue to give our country to the party of hate and now they are eating their own. Feinstein lost her committee chair because she was civil to barrett and graham. The party of inclusion will promote free speech and thinking as long as it conforms to their way of thinking.

    We need to accept obama lite as the next fiefdom followed shortly by cruella's kingdom. Is joey going to pick any of his own people or just rely on obama's picks. Now that we have had the election for couch potatoes we have to accept the results and pray georgia shows they are for gridlock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One immediate outcome will be government approval of social media censorship of inconvenient speech.

      Delete
    2. SF - Can you better define 'government approval' of speech allowed or disallowed on the platforms of non-governmental entities?

      Delete
    3. CI: You know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'll spell it out anyway.

      FB, Twitter, YouTube, etc will double down on silencing speech that violates the progressive orthodoxy.

      Delete
    4. I'll make it even clearer: Corporations now own the digital public square, so they should be declared public utilities under the law, and they should be compelled by law to respect our God given rights of free expression, and the standard could be the same as an actual public square, no "fighting words", death threats, libel, slander, etc.

      Delete
    5. But that won't happen under Harris. "Climate change denial" will be censored.

      When you hear totalitarian progressives in government and business raising libertarian arguments, you know bad things are going to happen.

      Delete
    6. I respect your fervor for declaring these companies as public utilities, and that's an argument worth having.

      But you know as well as I, that if you want the government to be involved in speech police on Twitter, FB, etc.....then you're going to have them involved in every facet of online speech....Gab, Parler, Blogger, etc.

      The short-sightedness....of "there ought to be a law!!!!" is a large part of why we are where we are, as a society.

      Delete
    7. More free speech, not less.
      This is not complicated.

      If you have a forum dedicated to fly fishing, I have no problem with you kicking people off for talking politics, or cooking, or anything non-fly fishing related.

      If you are a news outlet, you obviously have editorial standards and laws to follow.

      If you are a social media platform that entertains all kinds of speech, you need to stay true to that.

      I don't need to explain to you the dangers of censorship, regardless of who is doing it.

      Delete
    8. Sure, but censorship where it regards the 1st Amendment [as was argued below] can only come from government.

      We've already allowed the news media to become corporate fronts, and they're regulated, to an extent anyway. Do you want to institute a licensing scheme for social media, that government can then control access to? Because that is the only way you're going to ensure that social media companies 'stay true to all kinds of speech'.

      You're clearly targeting FB and Twitter for alleged censorship of Conservative speech....should Gab and Parler be likewise regulated to allow Liberal speech?

      Delete
    9. I don't know why you're fixated on gab and parlor, but yes, I mean all social media outlets.

      Yes, I am for laws that protect everyone's right to free expression in the digital public square. Last I checked, we are a nation of laws.

      Delete
    10. Certainly not 'fixated', just pointing out that the ramifications will affect more than the easy targets.

      I do find it fascinating that you'd want State licensing and regulation for online speech. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

      Delete
    11. "State licensing and regulation" is your characterization, not mine.

      If you can't understand a simple free speech argument, I cannot help you further.

      Delete
    12. Free speech has to be protected, no? And by who.....yep, the State. That State 'protection' requires parameters and regulations, in order to be lawful and 'equitable', no?

      You're not making a simple free speech argument....you just haven't seemed to think this through.

      Delete
    13. If you have an innovative idea that I'm not seeing [primarily because you haven't offered one up]....I'm all ears.

      Delete
    14. We The People established this government to protect our God-given rights. It does this by implementing laws and regulations.

      Delete
    15. That briefs well....looks great on paper too. But the indisputable fact remains that you and I have neither a Constitutional, nor a 'god-given' Right to convey whatever speech we desire, on someone else's venue. You know this.

      Delete
    16. I never said "whatever speech we desire."

      Keep flailing. We live in a constitutional republic where our rights are secured by the government.


      BTW, go Yahoogle 'Public accomodation.'

      Delete
    17. You're correct....our Rights are indeed secured by the government. When it actually regards Rights.

      But at least now you're offered a potential solution. I'm familiar with public accommodation, enough to know that it doesn't include social media. You can certainly pursue that option, though most legal minds on the subject seem to think that using statutes of the Civil Rights Act would be more successful in policing social media venues.

      Do you, like Trump, favor repealing Section 230?

      Delete
    18. "Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin".

      Is being Conservative a religion? Maybe it's a disability?

      Delete
    19. So......you don't actually have a point then?

      Delete
    20. I would enjoy a hearty schadenfreude guffaw if government repealed Section 230, but that is the opposite of what needs to be done.

      A restaurant or store doesn't usually provide a venue for personal political beliefs but they did discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

      I'm putting up a blog post on this next week. Stayed tuned and please add your arguments in the comments section. Like most things, this is not a simple topic with easy answers.

      Delete
    21. Like most things, this is not a simple topic with easy answers.

      I concur.

      Delete
  8. I can.
    Not obeying their Oaths of Office to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of the Citizens.
    Their silence is "Approval" of some entity stomping on our rights.
    Yes the latest hearings with Twitter and or Facebook and or others is a dog and pony show --- no action was taken---as of yet. Government "Approval".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't.

      Do you have a Constitutional Right to convey whatever speech you desire, in a privately owned [non-government] venue?

      No. You do not.

      But apparently, you support government speech police on social media. Cool....

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. AND ALSO:
    THE BILL OF RIGHTS was passed after the Constitution.
    Several of the Founders were not satisfied that the Constitution was strong enough to stop a Dictator.
    The Bill of Rights was passed and deemed
    UNTOUCHABLE BY ANY GOVERNMENT.
    Not State Gov. or Federal Gov. can suspend the Bill of Rights. Not with National Security or National Emergency.
    The Constitution has been suspended; altho could have been fought against, but WWII scared enough not to fight against - in that time period. The 22nd Amendment brought the Constitution out of suspension and restored to full force.
    No U.N. Resolution can touch THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
    The Churches should file a complaint about these Governors
    edicts, of lockdowns.
    Who will stand up for our Bill of Rights when our Public Gatherings to protest grievances against the Government (State and Local) and our Speech,Religion,Guns, and Bibles are deemed a hazard to public safety and Political Correctness?
    The Politicians don't seem to want to. They are in favor of suppressing our Rights by their silence! Approval

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--