Prime Time Farce

And the War on Free Speech by Governments Continues

Welcome to this week’s edition of Sovereign Sunday, where we delve into the disheartening abandonment of the Democratic primary process—a trend that deeply contradicts the very essence of democratic engagement. For the third consecutive time, spanning over a decade, Democratic Party insiders have anointed their chosen candidate, eliminating with a smirk any notion of the the electorate’s choice in the matter.

The disturbing reality is that we live in a world where an 18-year-old Democratic voter has never experienced a primary where their vote truly mattered since they were a mere child.

Reflecting on the past, every notable candidate—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, and others—underwent the rigorous democratic rituals that defined our electoral process. They engaged directly with voters, fielded challenging questions, and navigated the celebrated New Hampshire primary traditions: debates at Saint Anselm’s College, WMUR Q&As, and countless other public forums where voters actively tested the mettle of their would-be leaders.

Yet, today, these essential vetting processes are dismissed as if they were mere formalities, reminiscent of electoral charades observed in regimes like Iran or North Korea.

The tolerance for such a mockery of democracy within the Democratic Party is tragic and profoundly ironic for a party professing to 'save democracy.' Their acceptance is fueled by a potent mix of propaganda that has shifted from the vilification of the 'Orange Man' to a dangerous philosophy where 'the ends justify the means, democratic process be damned.'

The DNC's superficial excuse relating to New Hampshire, or menacing Bernie to drop out, or hiding Biden in the basement, or hand picking Kamkam after a DNC coup removed the sitting President — all belies a deeper disdain for meaningful electoral engagement that should alarm us all.

As a friend of mine noted, “It’s like Biden didn’t need to be vetted and actually campaign in a conventional way so we can just skip that because we can — and he has dementia we lied about so here’s your new selected ruler — start cheering!”

The Democratic Party literally sees democracy not as a foundation but as an obstacle.

This brazen abandonment of democratic principles, coupled with the blatant censorship and weaponization of the federal government, should serve as a glaring red flag. It's a pivotal moment in U.S. history that demands our attention and action, lest we allow the core values of our republic to be undermined by those who claim to protect them.

And when the prevailing modus operandi of the Democratic Party is, “Democracy is too important to let the people have a say in the matter”… you get sham charades like the candidacy of Kamala Harris.

As I’ve written over the last month, we’ve never quite seen in our history a concerted dark alliance between Democratic insiders, donors and a corrupt and co-opted press to elevate a candidate with a catastrophic track record of failure and re-brand her overnight as a *SUPERSTAR!* despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary from our own eyes and ears.

When media and influential elites neglect the essential vetting process required for running for the highest office in the land, we end up with the kind of masquerade campaign Joe Biden ran, where he remained largely out of public view sequestered in his basement both during the run up to 2020 and for most of his Presidency.

It appears Kamala Harris is now attempting to replicate this approach.

Her prime time farcical interview this week set a new low for journalistic integrity and the minimum preconditions that a sane society should demand for anyone interviewing for an important job, especially the most important job of them all - the one that comes with the nuclear codes.

After an astonishing 39-day silence since becoming the anointed candidate, Harris, flanked by her white male emotional support animal and safety blanket Tim Walz, finally graced CNN with her presence.

The outcome was so orchestrated, phony and poorly handled, that it's conceivable her advisors will barricade her from all future interactions that don’t involve reading someone else’s writing from a teleprompter in front of a friendly crowd.

Before unpacking the calamity of the interview, let’s contextualize this unprecedented event.

Imagine a presidential candidate who hasn’t secured a single primary vote, now thrust into the limelight not through merit but via a shadowy orchestration reminiscent of a quiet coup.

Harris, who holds one of the most bumbling and deficient records in modern political history, now finds herself in an awkward ballet where she is literally campaigning against her lifetime track record and her partner, Joe Biden.

And in an almost comical twist, she's scrambling to appropriate Trump’s policies as fast as she can, while simultaneously attempting to recast the last four disastrous years as a period of resounding triumph.

This revisionism overlooks the stark realities: crippling inflation that has kneecapped the middle and lower classes, a deluge of 15 million undocumented immigrants crossing our borders unchecked, and escalating global tensions nudging us perilously closer to a nuclear conflict than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This interview exposed more than just Harris’s ineptitude—it spotlighted the severe leadership crisis within a party and system that propelled such an unqualified figure into contention for the highest office. On this Sunday, as we reflect on the spectacle, it becomes a stark reminder of the dire state of our political discourse and the manipulation at play in the halls of power.

I don’t have the stomach or patience to do a full dissection, so here’s a couple of the highlights. It’s more a study in the pathetic and depraved state of modern journalism than anything.

The event, although taped, was misleadingly broadcast as 'Live' by CNN. It was heavily edited, with Kamala frequently consulting notes in front of her—likely scripted responses crafted by her team members with IQs over 110 to questions that CNN almost certainly provided in advance.

Nevertheless, here’s what you missed:

Kamala mostly danced around and refused to answer any questions substantively, instead offering grand precepts like claiming one of her "highest priorities" is to "strengthen and support the middle class."

Kamala is in office RIGHT NOW — and the middle class are suffering more than ever.

Kamala claimed presiding over a record number of illegal border crossings "actually resulted in a number of benefits."

She then continued to profess support for a bill to grant millions of unvetted illegals a fast-track to citizenship.

Kamala insisted "Bidenomics" is a success.

"Bidenomics" brought Americans the worst inflation crisis since the 1980s and has cost the average American family an extra $28,000 paying for the increased cost of living.

Kamala said she has NO REGRETS about covering up Biden's cognitive decline.

She lied to the American people as she and her administration with a big assist from the media perpetuated a massive, wide-reaching fraud — until it was no longer tenable.

For her to spit in the country’s face and say she’d do it again and doesn’t care is abominable.

TimWalz who is another media fabrication and one of the most repulsive people I’ve seen finally got his opportunity to apologize and walk back his lies regarding his service record and rank and refused to address the stolen valor scandal in which he is currently embroiled.

Tellingly, Stolen Valor Walz didn't deny it either, and blamed his repeated lies over 2 decades on ‘bad grammar.’

Walz was also called out for lying about using IVF and lying about his arrest for drunk and reckless driving.

He completely — and predictably — avoided the question.

No matter how despicable I believed he was before this interview for blatantly and repeatedly lying about his service record and rank committing dozens of 'Stolen Valor', my disgust level skyrocketed after this interview.

He had the chance to be a decent person. To apologize and come clean. Instead he doubled down and refused to take any accountability.

He deserves no quarter. And should be arrested the next time he sets foot in a red state with a Stolen Valor law on their books.

In the long run, the bigger story that I hinted at above is how calculated, clever and totally lacking in any ethics or integrity MSM 'journalists' are.

Instead of serving as diligent seekers of truth and facilitators of public understanding, many in the media have abdicated their responsibilities—especially when it concerns a candidate vying for the most powerful position on the planet. This candidate has conspicuously avoided interviews, dodged pressing questions, and remains vague about how her policies would diverge from those of her and Joe Biden's last four tumultuous years, which have been marked by severe economic downturns and arguably the most precipitous decline our nation has faced in recent history.

CNN interviewer Dana Bash's lack of follow-up to virtually any difficult question was egregious tonight. A full-scale betrayal of her supposed journalistic profession. A half-dozen easy follow-ups would have totally fried Kamala's circuits. Bash knew it, which is why she didn't do it.

CNN also danced into unprecedented statist propaganda waters by pretending the interview was 'LIVE' - broadcasting that chyron on the bottom of the screen throughout the interview despite the truth that the interview was taped previously and heavily edited (the broadcast interview was only 18 minutes lol).

Apparently the full interview was over 40 minutes long and this 18 minutes was the only segments they could find where she sounded reasonably competent. 

If this empty 18 minutes was the ‘best’, how bad were the other parts edited out???

Let's see if she goes back into hiding after this.

Unfortunately, my ‘neutral’ lens through the eyes of the typical low-information uninformed American voter is that she did a semi-decent job.

The word salad idiocy, failure to answer any question she doesn’t have notes for in front of her, bizarre cackling laughter and other traits that made her the most unpopular vice president in history were absent for the most part from this interview (willing to bet she was on beta blockers and probably had an earpiece in addition to the questions in advance and her scripted notes right in front of her).

An average American watching this would say, "Not too bad I guess." Not at all the dimwitted, DEI alcoholic we've heard about.

Hopefully, we enter the Kamala doom loop where her performance, as mid as it was, prompts a drop in the polls as Americans really contemplate what another 4 years of Bidenomics means and amnesty for 15 million illegals.

The doom loop is that her interview prompts a drop in the polls, necessitating her to do more interviews and actually answer questions from a real journalist, not a hen pecked DNC activist like Dana Bash (whose husband was one of the infamous 51 intelligence agents that crafted the fictional letter that Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinfo - bet you didn’t know that. Also, she pronounces her name 'Donna' - always a sign of subterfuge and mental illness when a woman selects a novel pronunciation of a name that everyone knows how to pronounce). 

Add in Bash’s OD Botox frozen face, failure to follow up and ask for clarity on Kamala's meaningless answers, and if ‘journalists’ had any remaining integrity or qualifications, she'd be run out of town.

Fortunately for the Dems, journalists are now DNC hacks posing as reporters.

For most Americans, the belief in a neutral and ethical media train left the building a long time ago.

Most of the credit for that goes to President Trump for opening the nation's eyes to the pandemic of 'Fake News'.

And for being the candidate that whether you love him hate him or something in between, he at least respects the country and the role enough to go in public and answer questions anytime anywhere.

---

That’s a Noose, Not a Necktie

In recent years, there has been a concerning trend toward increased censorship and control over freedom of speech by various governments around the world, including notable examples from Brazil, France, and the United States. These actions have profound implications for global security, the sanctity of personal freedoms, and the fundamental rights of citizens to access and disseminate information.

Starting with Brazil, the government's efforts to regulate and censor the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) exemplify a broader push to control the digital discourse. This initiative reflects a growing discomfort among Brazil's leadership with the platform's role in facilitating widespread public discourse and mobilization, which has occasionally resulted in political challenges to the status quo. The attempt to ban or heavily regulate X suggests an intention to stifle dissent and manage the narrative that reaches the public, a tactic reminiscent of more overtly authoritarian regimes.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Brazil ordered the shutdown of X for refusing to comply with a court order.

The order by Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave internet service providers and app stores five days to block access to X. The judge also imposed a daily penalty of $8,900 for users in Brazil who use a virtual private network to evade the ban. In his decision, de Moraes said X will remain blocked until it complies with his orders.

“Elon Musk showed his total disrespect for Brazilian sovereignty and, in particular, for the judiciary, setting himself up as a true supranational entity and immune to the laws of each country,” de Moraes wrote. The suspension was widely anticipated as X said on Aug. 29 that it expected to be shut down in Brazil because of what it described as “illegal orders” to censor political opponents.

Read the full story here›

And of course Kamala supported it. Here she is basically saying Elon, social media platforms, and anyone daring to exercise non-government approved ‘free speech’ should be curbed and brought to heel.

In the country I grew up in and the America of 1776-2000.... this would immediately disqualify her from holding office.

France's approach to digital censorship has also raised eyebrows, particularly with the recent actions against the messaging platform Telegram and its founder, Pavel Durov. France has expressed concerns about the platform's use for coordinating protests and spreading what it views as extremist content (but only when it’s used by groups the government doesn’t like, it’s fine when we use it to foment revolution and uproar in Ukraine, Egypt, Belarus and elsewhere).

The arrest of Pavel signals a severe and troubling move towards silencing platforms that offer encrypted communication services, which are often used by individuals to avoid government surveillance and censorship. This move by France highlights the tension between national security interests and individual privacy and freedom of speech rights.

In the United States, the scenario unfolds with a different backdrop but similar themes. During pivotal events such as the presidential elections and the COVID-19 pandemic, immense pressure was exerted on figures like Mark Zuckerberg and platforms like Twitter to align with the chosen government narratives, irrespective of their truth or public good.

The U.S. government's engagement with these platforms revealed a strategy of using both overt pressure and covert tactics to ensure that only government-approved messages were amplified while dissenting views were suppressed. This strategy was particularly evident in the efforts to control information regarding election security and public health measures, where the line between public good and state overreach became horribly blurred to the detriment of the nation.

These actions across different countries highlight a dangerous inclination toward using the power of the state to control information in the digital age. The implications for global security are significant, as they suggest a move towards environments where misinformation can be officially sanctioned while truthful but inconvenient information can be suppressed under the guise of national security or public health. This not only stifles democracy but also empowers authoritarian tendencies within governments, undermining trust and stability.

Moreover, the push for censorship and control of digital platforms poses a threat to the very foundation of a globally connected world. It suggests a future where information flows are not free and open but are instead heavily monitored and controlled by state actors with their own agendas. This could lead to a fragmented internet, where access to information is dictated by geopolitical boundaries, and where freedom of speech is a privilege granted by the state, rather than a universal right.

In conclusion, the efforts by countries like Brazil, France, and the United States to restrict freedom of speech and promote censorship represent a troubling trend towards more authoritarian governance styles, even within democracies. These actions jeopardize the integrity of information, the freedom of individuals to express dissent, and the overall health of democratic societies. As this trend continues, it is imperative for global security analysts, policymakers, and citizens to remain vigilant and push back against any encroachments on fundamental freedoms that form the bedrock of democratic and free societies.

One additional sensemaking tactic I’ll offer to the above, whenever you see governments come together to work in tandem to censor ‘dangerous’ or extremist content, it’s almost always dangerous to their totalitarian tendencies, not to our fellow citizens.

And Barry Goldwater put it best 60 years ago, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

---

The encroachment on free speech and assembly by various governments presents a significant challenge to democratic values and individual liberties. However, there are numerous strategies and technologies that liberty-minded individuals can leverage to safeguard these fundamental rights. As we confront this totalitarian trend, it is crucial for citizens to actively participate in preserving the sanctity of free expression and the free flow of information.

Decentralized Technologies and Networks: One of the most potent tools in combating censorship and surveillance are decentralized networks and technologies. Blockchain technology, for instance, offers a censorship-resistant platform where information can be stored and shared without central oversight. This technology underpins various decentralized social media platforms that are inherently resistant to governmental control and manipulation. Encouraging the use of and participating in these platforms can significantly dilute the power of centralized entities to control speech.

Encryption and Privacy Tools: Utilizing encryption tools is vital for protecting communications from surveillance. Tools such as Element, Signal and other end-to-end encrypted messaging services ensure that conversations remain private, even from state actors. Encouraging widespread adoption of these tools within communities can help secure personal communications and promote free expression.

Legal and Policy Advocacy: Engaging in policy advocacy is crucial. Supporting organizations that fight for digital rights and free speech through litigation and lobbying can effect change at the legislative level. Citizens should be urged to support and engage with civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which actively challenge oppressive laws and advocate for policy reforms.

Public and Educational Campaigns: Educating the public about the importance of free speech and the dangers of censorship is fundamental. Workshops, seminars, and online courses can equip citizens with knowledge about their rights and the tools to protect those rights. Awareness drives can also change public opinion and build pressure on policymakers to uphold constitutional liberties.

Networking and Collaborations: Building coalitions with like-minded individuals and groups can amplify the pushback against restrictive measures. Networking can facilitate the sharing of resources, strategies, and support systems that bolster the collective capacity to resist censorship and surveillance.

Voting and Civic Participation: Active participation in the democratic process is essential. By voting for candidates who stand firmly for civil liberties and holding elected officials accountable, citizens can influence government policies directly.

Support for Independent Media: Financially supporting independent media outlets that endeavor to uphold journalistic integrity and resist censorship is another crucial step. These platforms often provide alternative narratives and vital checks on mainstream media biases.

Checklist for Citizens to Protect Their Rights:

1. Use and promote decentralized platforms and privacy-focused technologies.

2. Engage with and support legal advocacy groups that defend free speech.

3. Participate in educational campaigns to spread awareness about digital rights.

4. Build and engage in networks that support civil liberties.

5. Remain actively involved in the electoral process to support pro-privacy and free speech policymakers.

6. Financially and publicly support independent media outlets.

7. Employ encryption and other privacy tools to secure personal communications.

By implementing these strategies, citizens not only protect their own rights but also contribute to a global movement advocating for the preservation and expansion of free speech.

This collective effort is crucial in countering the trend toward authoritarianism and ensuring that future generations inherit a free and open society.

---

Zuck’s Mea Culpa

In a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan on Monday, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologized for yielding to the Biden White House’s pressure to censor information about COVID. This is the angle that made the headlines.

This pervasive censorship significantly impacted the public's ability to access crucial information about COVID-19, to the severe detriment of businesses, children, adolescents, and families. In place of full disclosure, the public was presented with carefully curated information promoting mRNA gene therapies. Despite emerging evidence of their ineffectiveness, these therapies were touted as a desperate solution to the virulent virus. Alarmingly, millions of people worldwide have suffered disabling health conditions, with their immune systems permanently compromised by the actual components of this "vaccine"—details of which were systematically hidden from public view through meticulous censorship facilitated by platforms like Facebook.

Zuckerberg’s readiness to sideline our Constitutional freedoms enabled the deliberate suppression of any information that contradicted federal mandates. This act of censorship not only curtailed free speech but also played a critical role in shaping public perception and acceptance of the government's health policies.

The secondary story around Zuck’s apology involving the Hunter Biden laptop and other critical information surround the 2020 election, was at least as important, arguably more.

The underlying question that has me scratching my head is, “Why now?” Why is Zuckerberg admitting that he was openly used by the Obama-Biden Administration and US Security State to censor their political opponents and suppress any story that didn’t fit the approved government narrative?

The two most likely answers I’ve come up with is either the Zuck transformation is real, and that training jiu-jitsu, lifting weights and hanging out with actual men has increased his testosterone to a level where he now sees the error of his ways and can accurately determine who the good guys and bad guys are in our current poltical landscape.

After all, there are scientific studies backing testosterone level and physical fitness to a more conservative political outlook.

It’s likely one of the many reasons that the government in conjunction with Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Ag continues to poison our food, water and environment with testosterone and health damaging additives.

The ‘beta soy boy’ stereotype of leftist men is real and may in fact have a scientific explanation.

Sperm count has declined by 51,6% between 1973 and 2018 worldwide. Testosterone levels are down by 60%. Birth rates have ‘suddenly’ plummeted in the past 2 years. And 45% of women between the ages of 25 and 44 are expected to be childless & single by 2030.

The more plausible explanation for Zuckerberg's recent apology and apparent change of heart is self-preservation. Like many in positions of power today, he is likely motivated by fear of a potential second Trump administration and the consequential accountability that could follow for their actions, which many view as both unconstitutional and inhumane. This concern likely drives his current stance, suggesting that his apology is less about genuine remorse and more about strategic self-interest.

Either way, the change is welcome. The free exchange of information is a cornerstone of our Republic. Without it, we have nothing.

For the full video see below ‘What I’m Watching and Reading.’

Here’s Jack Cashill with more on the story and a reflection of the damage Zuckerberg, Twitter and the US Security State led by the FBI, CIA and key figures of the Obama and Biden administration all conspired to lie to the American people in order to shift the outcome of the 2020 election.

If Trump wins, every single one of these people and the 51 ‘former intelligence agents’ that signed the Hunter Biden Laptop ‘Russian Disinfo’ letter despite knowing that it was a carefully crafted scam deserve to be held accountable.

And by ‘accountable’, I mean actual jail time. Not a leave of absence followed by a multimillion dollar contract to be a talking head on CNN or MSNBC as most of these traitors typically get as the compensation for selling out their fellow countrymen.

“Why did as many as a million Americans come to Washington on January 6, 2021? The answer is simple: they knew more about the current state of America than their fellow citizens, and they cared more.

For several of the women with whom I spoke, the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was the last straw. They watched the FBI collude with the intel community, Big Tech and Big Media to steal the election and would not submit to the theft in silence.

In the course of Ashli I profile ten women, eight of whom survived the day. Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland did not. Each died as a result of police action. At least nine of ten women openly resisted the tyranny engendered by what Ashli called the “controla virus.” Said Dr. Simone Gold, one of the women profiled, “The real agenda was to shift us to a people that would accept government control over our daily lives.”

That control was on full display in the final few weeks of the 2020 presidential race. Confident to a fault, a conspiratorial elite asked America to accept the most flagrant disinformation campaign in anyone’s memory. There was nothing spontaneous about it. On October 14, when they saw the New York Post headline, “Smoking-Gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad,” their apparatchiks were ready to roll.

The conspirators had known since December 2019 that this story might drop. That was when Mac Isaac alerted the FBI to a laptop Hunter Biden had abandoned at his computer repair shop in Delaware. Before handing it over, Isaac made a copy of its contents. Had he not done so, we would still be unaware of the role the “Big Guy” played in the Biden family’s seamy global enterprises.

In an August 2022 interview with Joe Rogan, Zuckerberg casually shared the inside scoop on how Facebook came to defuse the New York Post bombshell. Fearing the story might break at any time, the FBI reached out to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms well before the 2020 election and warned them of a potential Russian “hack and dump” operation.

On the day the Post story broke, representatives from the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force met with Facebook execs. As would later be confirmed at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, the FBI knew the laptop was, in fact, Hunter Biden’s.

Zuckerberg did not need to have his arm twisted. He and his wife, Priscilla Chan, had already invested $300 million, in CNN’s words, toward “enhancing access to voting in the United States.” (In his letter, Zuckerberg all but admitted to being duped into supporting a partisan effort.)

Without protest from the FBI, Facebook promptly “deamplified” the Post story, dramatically reducing its circulation. On the same day the story broke, the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force also leaned on Twitter. The Twitter people needed little persuasion—some 98 percent of their political donations went to Democrats. They were all in for Biden, and Twitter blocked not only the Post story but also the Post itself.

A May 2023 report by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Intelligence spelled out the details of the plot’s master stroke. The scheme was hatched on October 17, 2020, when Biden campaign advisor—now secretary of state—Antony Blinken contacted Michael Morell.

Morell had served as acting director of the CIA under Obama. At Blinken’s request, Morell began assembling the draft of a statement that would dismiss this epic October surprise as more of the same old Russian disinformation. “Thereafter,” reads the subcommittee report, “Morell contacted several former intelligence officials to help write the statement, solicit cosigners, and help with media outreach.”

On October 19, Morell emailed Nick Shapiro, his former deputy chief of staff, asking him to place the statement in major publications. “On background,” Shapiro was to tell reporters that Morell, in talking to Russian intel experts, “was struck by the fact that all of them thought Russia is involved here.” In truth, Morell had talked to no Russian intel experts before organizing the draft.

Politico bit first, running a story on October 19 under the bold headline, “Hunter Biden Story Is Russian Disinfo, Dozens of Former Intel Officials Say.” As Morell testified to the House subcommittee, one major purpose of the statement was “to help Vice President Biden in the debate.”

In an October 19, 2020, email, Morell told former CIA director John Brennan he wanted to “give the [Biden] campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue.”

During the October 23 debate, when Trump played the laptop card, Biden countered with the Russia card as planned. “Look, there are fifty former National Intelligence folks who said that what this, he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan,” said a well-rehearsed Biden. “They have said that this has all the characteristics—four—five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him, his, and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

In an estimate more conservative than many, Trump pollster John McLaughlin found that 4.6 percent of Biden voters would not have voted for Biden if they had known about the contents of Hunter’s laptop. Even if those people had simply not voted, their absence at the polls would have handed several swing states to Trump.

Kept purposefully in the dark, too many Americans chose to believe Biden and his co-conspirators. “On November 3, 2020, the American people went to the polls to elect the president of the United States with the false impression that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation,” the House subcommittee concluded three years too late. “The American people cannot get back the 2020 election.”

The women I profiled knew all about the laptop scam, but when they voted on November 3, 2020, they did so with muted optimism. They were sure Trump would do better than he had done last time. They all knew people who did not vote for Trump in 2016 but would in 2020, and almost none who would do the opposite. They would be proved right. Trump would beat his 2016 numbers by nearly twelve million votes.

Yet in the last few weeks of the campaign, Trump supporters saw—if their liberal friends and relatives refused to—just how ruthless was the opposition. They watched a massive story be deep-sixed in real time, right in their faces. This fraud was unprecedented in boldness and in scope. So, too, they feared, would be the fraud on Election Day. The real question is not why these women went to Washington on January 6. The real question is why the rest of us did not.

A Zuckerberg apology is a useful first step, but restitution for those January 6 families whose lives he helped ruin would do a lot more good.” - Jack Cashill

---

What I’m Watching and Reading….

Venezuelan Gangs Take Over Colorado Town

Nothing to see here. Just the future of America under a KamKam administration.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/aurora-colorado-mayor-blames-government-after-gangs-take-over-apartment-blocks-5715558

---

Best of Twitter

---

Memetic Warfare

---

Parting Words….

That’s it for this week folks! Hope you enjoyed. Have a terrific Labor Day and get ready for the real hard work the next 60 days. Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote and actually voting. We’ve got a country to save! -MK