Mark

There is a ready, simple explanation at hand. I've given it. Blackmail is not a sensible explanation without giving good reasons for it.

Sessions was beholden to Trump, so legally he had to recuse himself. If he had remained, Trump’s eventual exoneration would have been tainted. His enemies would have yelled quid pro quo. MSK says he thinks Sessions was blackmailed into recusing himself. Why think that? -oOo- Right now, in our lifetimes, we are witnessing an attempted coup in the United States of America: FBI Is Nowhere to be Found — Rudy Giuliani (video starts at 1:06) Ellen may well be right. The state legislatures might save the day. At least it looks viable in Georgia.

Just so it’s clear, I don’t want to “take down” Barr in the sense that I began with that desire. I’d looked into his history and it’s the history of a gangster-shyster-mouthpiece. As a consequence, not an initial desire, I want to correct public statements about him being an honorable man. Thanks for posting the Judge Jeanine Pirro video. Barr knows precisely what he is doing. Her words won’t sting him but they might worry him. He doesn’t want his pretenses exposed. One criticism: her dig at Sessions as “hiding under his desk for two years” (quoting from memory, it was something like that). Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation because he had a conflict of interest. Trump shouldn’t have fired him for that reason, and Trump was a double-dyed idiot for appointing Barr in his place.

Read about Barr’s corrupt past at: William Barr’s Connection to Ruby Ridge, Defending FBI Snipers by James Bovard The American Conservative, 16 January 2019 And look at Barr’s face. Does he deserve it, as Orwell would ask?

Thanks. I corrected the article and added a footnote to the Rev transcript. I'll look into Mike Adams and Monkey Werks. After reading much of the work of the late Rodney Stich I'm open to what some people smear as conspiracy theories. Luke Setzer over on Rebirth of Reason unearthed this quote from "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'" by Rand: "Everyone who has seen the efficient, almost military organization of the agitators’ program has a reasonable basis for believing that skilled personnel and money are being dispatched into the Berkeley battle.... Around the Berkeley community a dozen “ad hoc committees to support” this or that element of the student revolt sprang up spontaneously, as though out of nowhere." So, as Luke says, Rand was willing to consider a conspiracy in that case.

Michael, Thanks for the transcript. I didn’t make an exact count but there were forty or fifty transcription errors, such as ... precedent --> president ... Then --> And ... floored --> flawed ... with the --> witnessed ... and valid --> invalid ... of science wore an --> signed sworn ... balanced --> ballots etc. Many times the transcriptionist omitted “But” or “So” or “And” with which Trump began a sentence. The punctuation frequently gave the wrong impression. Still, considering the length of the speech you got your money’s worth from Rev. And I stole it all, LOL. I listened to the speech carefully from beginning to end, some parts several times, in order to make a correct version, and I added an introduction: Trump’s First Election Fraud Speech

I Know Sidney Powell and She Is Telling the Truth by John Zmirak

Speaking of the Deep State, it was the Deep State's planted explosives inside the Murrah Federal Building that caused practically all the damage. McVeigh's fertilizer bomb caused very little damage. See the links at OKC Bombing.

From Whither America? by Nick Griffin ... Despite widespread attempts at sabotage by NGOs, law enforcement agencies and Democrat activists, the turn-out was fantastic. In Britain and online, the absolute silence by the right-wing flagship the Daily Mail, and the sneers and absurd lies about numbers from the Guardian, Independent and the BBC, spoke volumes for how shocked the liberal elite were by the endless convoys and the vast and enthusiastic crowd. And, at the end of a great day, despite waiting until they could pick off stragglers, the paid and cowardly thugs of Antifa frequently got the painful lesson they so richly deserve. But we have to be realistic; the historically significant highpoint of the day was the President’s failure to join his vast army of loving, angry and motivated supporters. This was a terrible and tragic error which will cost Donald Trump and America dear. What should have happened? At the very least, the President should gave given up an afternoon’s golf and spent a couple of hours with his crowd, chatting and giving the lucky few the selfies of their lives. A couple of hours returning the love and telling the faithful to be on standby and to get organised. This isn’t exactly political rocket science, it’s just common sense and decency. You can measure the missed opportunity and the mentality of the man by asking: what would George Washington have done? Or Teddy Roosevelt, or JFK, or even Reagan or Obama? Anyone of them would have stood on the back of a pick-up, taken a bullhorn and given the speech of his life, the speech that made all the difference. Donald Trump gave a few waves and went off in his armoured limo to play golf. ...

MSK may not be getting it. The point is not that David Martin doesn’t like Bossie but rather why Bossie is unlikable. Martin is the author of the books The Assassination of James Forrestal and The Murder of Vince Foster. He unearthed the Navy’s report on the death of Forrestal, known as the Willcutts Report. (Perhaps the Nurses Notes in the report's appendix is the most accessible evidence for assassination.) Martin is also a poet, and the text rhymes and scans. Most of his poems are political commentary but not all, for example, The False Bee.

He is quoting NBC News: NBCnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2020-11-06-trump-biden-election-results-n1246707/ncrd1246842

From: Divine Intervention in Trump Vote Challenge? by David Martin Late last week we encountered this surprising and disturbing announcement: “President Trump’s campaign has tasked David Bossie, his deputy campaign manager in 2016 and the head of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United, to lead its efforts to challenge election results in several states, including Arizona and Pennsylvania, according to a person familiar with the decision.” It’s surprising because Bossie appears to be manifestly unqualified for the task. Most obviously, that is because these challenges are legal challenges, and Bossie is not a lawyer. In fact, from what I have been able to learn, the Massachusetts native, Bossie, hardly even has any college education, having “dropped out [from Towson University] to pursue politics.” Other than politics, the only thing that seems to have kept him busy in his adult life has been serving as a volunteer firefighter. Based upon credentials alone, the placing of a responsibility, with the fate of the country and, indeed, the world, into such hands should be reason enough for anyone to find the announcement disturbing. But ... that’s not the half of it. Why Trump would even consider such a man for such a key position is a real puzzler, but, when it comes to puzzling personnel choices by Trump, Bossie is almost par for the course. ... Consequently, upon hearing of the choice of Bossie for such a vital position, my first thought was that it was a sign that President Trump was throwing in the towel, or maybe a better boxing expression would be that he was taking a dive, appearing to put up a fight while actually intentionally taking a loss. That’s certainly what Bossie did in the Foster case, first when he was working for Citizens United and later when he was working for Rep. Dan Burton. I turned my attention to the media to see how Bossie was going to throw the fight in the case of the vote challenge, but he was nowhere to be seen. Instead, the folks I see being interviewed on behalf of the Trump challenge are the highly qualified legal bulldogs Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell. Then I discover that Bossie has tested positive for the coronavirus. That’s where the headline for this article comes in. It’s an ill wind that blows no one any good, as the saying goes. Could it be that Trump has been rescued from another of his bad personnel moves at the most opportune of moments? In case you might be inclined to disagree with my assessment of Bossie, I have reproduced below in its entirety ...

ARI’s board chairman is unconcerned

... mole people?

Some years ago in a moment of sanity Peikoff denounced hispanic immigration (a stand-in for Third World immigration) in the strongest terms, only to completely reverse himself later after a public discussion with Yaron Brook. If he is sincere about his position on Trump he will get rid of Brook. He has the power to do it – recall the case of John McCaskey. Carl Barney is an unrepentant – indeed self-righteous – former Church of Scientology franchise owner who afterwards went into another fraud: * republicreport.org/2020/big-win-for-students-colorado-court-slaps-carl-barney-colleges-with-3-million-fraud-verdict * republicreport.org/2020/devos-must-cut-off-taxpayer-dollars-to-college-chain-hit-with-fraud-verdict * republicreport.org/2020/independence-university-ceo-tells-staff-school-will-fight-effort-to-end-taxpayer-funding When Peikoff was producing podcasts, he had on his website a permanent thank you to Barney for sponsoring them. A few months ago he gave Barney permission to publish all his recorded lectures and to use the “Ayn Rand” trademark. Peikoff celebrated his last birthday at Barney’s mansion, videos of which Barney posted on his website. Now, by participating in a celebration this year which included Barney’s fulsome praise, Peikoff further associates himself with Barney. Rand chose an idiot for her “intellectual heir.” Critics of the Ayn Rand Institute who haven’t given up on the organization entirely want to find a hero there, someone they can root for to clean the place up. Peikoff is not that person. Even if he were to pull the plug on ARI he has already turned to Barney’s Prometheus Foundation and indirectly to the Objective Standard Institute (headed by Craig Biddle and financed by Barney) which are just as bad or worse. The only value of the video clip of Peikoff saying he’s voting for Trump is that it shows him, for now at least, baldly contradicting Yaron Brook and the other shysters at ARI (see the original post above). The squabbling might get some of ARI’s robotic followers to think for themselves.

[withdrawn]

I don’t mind the quoting but here's the original in an easier to read format: Presidential Elections – Ayn Rand 1932 to 1980

New on ARIwatch.com : An HBL Member on the Election (HBL being the Harry Binswanger Letter)

ARE THEY MURDERING PRESIDENT TRUMP ? It looks as if the Establishment has found a way to assassinate Trump! Why didn’t Trump call in Dr. Vladimir Zelenko from New York or Dr. Didier Raoult from France?! Why is Trump being given experimental drugs and not the known safe HCQ cure? To Scott Atlas, White House coronavirus advisor from Jon Rappoport October 3, 2020 Scott: If media reports are correct, the president is receiving 2 experimental drugs: the antibody cocktail, Regeneron, and the antiviral, Remdesivir. Aside from their individual adverse effects… THESE DRUGS HAVE NEVER BEEN STUDIED FOR THEIR COMBINED EFFECTS ON A PATIENT. AND NOW THAT PATIENT…THE FIRST PATIENT RECEIVING THEM…IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. You know the adverse effects of Remdesivir, Scott. They’re more than worrisome. Acute kidney injury, for example. And this drug has only emergency authorization, and it’s explicitly for patients who are SEVERE COVID cases. Trump is not a severe case. What’s going on? Why are the Walter Reed doctors piling on? The other drug, Regeneron, the antibody cocktail, synthesized versions of mouse and human antibodies, is still in clinical trials. There is NO authorization for its use. In past trials of antibody drugs, highly increased infection has occurred. Very dangerous. And pray these doctors don’t suddenly opt for a ventilator. They could do that, if Trump’s condition worsens, because of the effects of the DRUGS. They will call those effects “serious COVID decline.” In a large New York study of COVID patients in Trump’s age group, 97 percent of the patients receiving ventilator treatment died. Ventilator treatment, as you know, involves heavy and prolonged sedation. The president is in a very dangerous situation. Every damn doctor who has any ethics at all should be screaming bloody murder right now. This is not supposition. Would you prescribe a patient not one, but two highly experimental drugs, each of which has very damaging effects? Would you prescribe them TOGETHER? EVER? Especially when the patient is not close to being seriously ill? Especially when the drugs’ combined effects have never been studied? WHY ARE THE WALTER REED DOCTORS TREATING TRUMP AS IF HE WERE IN DESPERATE STRAITS? They’re going after the president as if he’s hanging on to life by a thread and they have to throw everything they’ve got at him. Who is watching over the president’s life? Are these doctors trying to kill him? GET BUSY, SCOTT. NOW. unz.com/proberts/are-they-murdering-president-trump

It’s worrying that Trump is in hospital – too easy to be a victim of the Deep State in a hospital. There’s no question James Forrestal was assassinated at Bethesda Naval Hospital and it’s likely Joe McCarthy was as well. I don’t trust this “cocktail” of new drugs Trump was given. I’m not reading Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Azithromycin. He needs to bring in Dr. Meryl Nass or other doctor who has had great success with this combination.

Shysters This article, about ARI and the presidential election, was complete as of a few days ago. Then I discovered more ARI people had weighed in so I added a stub section (“stub” as Wikipedia uses the word) called “More Shysters” and will add to it in a few days.

I don't like Biden either but Trump's alleged excerpt sounds like it was made from words cut and pasted together from Biden's speech. It sounds phony. Below is Biden's original speech. I haven't listened to all of it but what little I did listen to was cogent.

Personally know of, but did you know them personally? Reason I ask is that I don’t know anyone who’s gotten very sick from covid, and after asking random people if they know anyone, the answer so far has always been no. They just have read about or heard about deaths. At this point even if I get a yes it will be a very rare yes. (I don’t really know you face-to-face, so maybe a yes from you does’t count, but I’d like to know anyway.) One susceptibility factor that the 49 year-old might not have been checked for is sub-clinical vitamin D deficiency. (For what it’s worth I was taking a D3 supplement regularly long before covid – 5,000 IU twice a day.) ADDED: There is also the question treatment, for it has improved a lot since the beginning. Some links to articles about it can be found here.

A Tyranny Perpetual and Universal? Is the leftist dream now within reach? If President Trump loses, we will find out. Great article by Michael Anton, famous for the essay “The Flight 93 Election” during the last election.

Ellen, Spiro Agnew, 13 November 1969 ---------------------------------- Tonight I want to discuss the importance of the television news medium to the American people. ... Are we demanding enough of our television news presentations? And are the men of this medium demanding enough of themselves? ... [He criticizes how newscasters treated Nixon’s last public address.] The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting the great issues in our nation. First, let’s define that power. ... [He describes how large is the audience of the three television networks.] Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that’s to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what 40 to 50 million people will learn of the day’s events in the nation and in the world. ... these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break by their coverage and commentary a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. ... [He gives a few examples and repeats someone’s claim that the powers of the networks represent “a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.”] Now what do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence seemingly well-informed on every important matter. We do know that to a man these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C., or New York City ... ... [and he repeats someone’s claim that this is “the most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.”] Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men read the same newspapers. They draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints. Do they allow their biases to influence the selection and presentation of the news? ... ... [He repeats a few TV commentators confessing to their bias and gives an example of it from one of them.] Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government? The views of the majority of this fraternity do not ... represent the views of America. That is why such a great gulf existed between how the nation received the President’s address and how the networks reviewed it. ... ... As with other American institutions, perhaps it is time that the networks were made more responsive to the views of the nation and more responsible to the people they serve. Now I want to make myself perfectly clear. I’m not asking for Government censorship or any other kinds of censorship. I’m asking whether a form of censorship already exists when the news that 40 million Americans receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only to their corporate employers and is filtered through a handful of commentators who admit to their own set of biases. The question I’m raising here tonight should have been raised by others long ago. They should have been raised by those Americans who have traditionally considered the preservation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press their special provinces of responsibility. They should have been raised by those Americans who share the view ... that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. ... ... ... [He elaborates at length on the power of the limited number of networks compared with the many newspapers. He gives further examples the networks misrepresenting current events.] And in the network’s endless pursuit of controversy, we should ask: ... What is the end result—to inform or to confuse? How does the ongoing exploration for more action, more excitement, more drama serve our national search for internal peace and stability. ... Bad news drives out good news. The irrational is more controversial than the rational. Concurrence can no longer compete with dissent. ... Normality has become the nemesis of the network news. Now the upshot of all this controversy is that a narrow and distorted picture of America often emerges from the televised news. A single, dramatic piece of the mosaic becomes in the minds of millions the entire picture. And the American who relies upon television for his news might conclude that the majority of American students are embittered radicals. That the majority of black Americans feel no regard for their country. That violence and lawlessness are the rule rather than the exception on the American campus. We know that none of these conclusions is true. Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not the offices of the Government in Washington but in the studios of the networks in New York. ... ... ... when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well? In this search for excitement and controversy, has more than equal time gone to the minority of Americans who specialize in attacking the United States—its institutions and its citizens? Tonight I’ve raised questions. I’ve made no attempt to suggest the answers. The answers must come from the media men. They are challenged to turn their critical powers on themselves, to direct their energy, their talent and their conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation. They are challenged to structure their own civic ethics to relate to the great responsibilities they hold. And the people of America are challenged, too, challenged to press for responsible news presentation. The people can let the networks know that they want their news straight and objective. The people can register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations. This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen, not the Government, must be the reformer; where the consumer can be the most effective crusader. ... ... we’d never trust such power, as I’ve described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected Government. It’s time we questioned it in the hands of a small unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America’s airwaves for decades. The people are entitled a full accounting their stewardship.