Democrats Get Something Right – Investigating $300 Million Spent On Defective And Missing F-35 Parts

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The F-35 Lightning II is truly an amazing achievement in military aircraft design and next-general military capabilities. It is arguably the world’s most dominant multi-role fighter. Its detection range, geolocation, threat identification, and system response capabilities allow the jet to precisely zero in on and destroy the most advanced threats in the world. That includes Russia’s latest SA-20 surface-to-air missile (SAM) system. It is promoted as the greatest tactical fighter ever produced. But that title comes with a stunning price tag.

The cost for an F-35 is estimated to be more than $100 million per plane. Adding in development, operations, and maintenance costs, the F-35 fighter initiative is estimated to run well over $1 trillion during its lifetime. Part of that cost is also due to sophisticated hacking operations that have driven up the price tag. This estimate is tens of billions more than the previous projections and the price tag just keeps going ever higher. That does not include the $300 million for missing or defective parts over the last five years. This has raised eyebrows in Congress and surprisingly those looking into this poor use of taxpayer funding are Democrats. The Pentagon also wants answers.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the New York Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has gotten wind of all this. She sent a letter to Lockheed Martin demanding thousands of documents related to the spare parts program.

“The military is spending tens of millions of dollars a year to overcome unresolved issues with the system Lockheed Martin built and maintains to track spare parts for the F-35,” the letter stated. “These problems must be resolved quickly as they create a significant administrative burden for military maintenance personnel.”

The other three lawmakers that signed the letter were Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), chair of the Subcommittee on National Security; Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA); and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).

The letter purports that one military commander told a Congressional delegation that the spare part issues are “pervasive” and a “massive manpower suck.”

While our military deserves the very best in everything we can provide them, with the debt the U.S. is running in all quarters these days, no budget for any item should be open-ended. That’s why an audit of spending concerning the F-35, its parts, and its suppliers should be conducted. A lot of numbers here simply do not add up.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, headed by Republicans, is asking in-depth questions on the spending related to the initiative. Senators want answers regarding the DOD’s plan to spend $17.9 billion to further upgrade the three F-35 variants. Also at issue are questions of funding, parts from Turkey, buying F-35 materials in bulk, and how much money Lockheed is reimbursing the DOD for spare parts that could not be installed.

The cost of an F-35 has reduced 15.3% from previous price estimates through Lockheed Martin. However, their engines have only reduced in cost by 3%. Pratt and Whitney, the manufacturer of the engines, says there will be no further price reductions since Congress killed funding for the F-35 alternative engine contract in 2011, leaving them as a sole-source supplier with no incentive to reduce its profits. Congress and the Pentagon’s audit agency also want answers and solutions for this cost discrepancy.

The F-35 has also been plagued by technical problems, although they have been reportedly cut in half. They were decreased from 13 to seven over the past year. But those problems are costly as well not only dollar-wise but in manpower and combat readiness.

The Pentagon’s five-year budget plan for the F-35 falls short by as much as $10 billion. A number of experts now believe that the complex fighter jet may be too costly to operate and maintain. The Defense Department’s blueprint for the next five fiscal years calls for requesting $78 billion for research and development, jet procurement, operations and maintenance, and military construction dedicated to the F-35 built by Lockheed Martin Corp. But the cost analysis unit estimates $88 billion will be needed.

The Democrats are also not pleased that the Trump administration has formally informed the United States Congress of its intention to sell dozens of F-35 advanced fighter jets and other military hardware to the United Arab Emirates. Israel has signed off on the deal as well. So, while the cost of producing the aircraft is monstrous and ongoing, it would seem that the U.S. will recoup at least some of that spending. The question is whether it is wise to sell military aircraft to the UAE or not. They are ostensibly an ally, but things are very fluid in the Middle East. Nurturing allies over there is in our best interests, however.

The F-35’s spending is clearly a boondoggle that needs further investigation, foresight, and consideration — and all options must be on the table to protect taxpayer funding. But Democrats shouldn’t pretend, as they often do, that even the worst military spending is responsible for our massive deficits in the last two decades. That honor belongs to social spending.

While Democrats seem to believe that military spending is the U.S.’ major debt contributor these days, that simply is not the case. Their reasoning is purely political and not based on factual data. Social Security and Medicare are the real villains in our debt saga.

Our military budget is very large and in many instances managed poorly and handled inefficiently. War-related increases in defense spending have been a significant factor in America’s increasing deficits since the turn of the century.

But it should be noted that the Department of Defense’s budget is shrinking as a percentage of the federal budget. It is currently 14 percent of the budget. That is smaller than expenditures for Social Security and the federal healthcare system. Both of those social endeavors will take up larger portions of the federal budget.

Regardless of our military budget, the spending on the F-35 needs to be looked into. We should have the best military equipment in the world but we should also adhere to Trump’s “Art of the Deal” and not just throw money away without questioning where it is going, what it is being used for, and can a better deal be had.


ASI TV Shows

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

The Communist Network Backing Security Risk Joe Biden

Anti-communist analyst Trevor Loudon examines Biden’s links to the Russians and the Chinese, as well as the communist networks that backed his campaign in states like Georgia. The author of “White House Reds,” Trevor says that while vote fraud may have played a significant role in the Biden “victory,” there is no question that groups, some with ties to Beijing, also played a role. Such groups never came under investigation by the FBI because they are linked directly to the Democratic Party.

Civil War: Trump’s Plan to Thwart the Coup

As America’s political divisions and turmoil grow, geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist examines how China and Russia will exploit our second civil war, with China taking political control of the West Coast (where Biden will be inaugurated as president) and Russia threatening Alaska. Facing a military coup by globalists, Trump will stay in the White House and declare Martial Law. As part of this plan, he has already fired key staffers in the Pentagon and put a supporter into the super-secret NSA. Expect him to can CIA Director Haspel and FBI Director Wray.

More at www.usasurvival.org.


Are You Ready For The Biden/Zeke Emanuel COVID Death Panels?

By: Daniel John Sobieski

New York Governor and nursing home serial killer Andrew Cuomo’s recent interview by George Stephanopoulos on Disney/ABC’s Good Morning America proved an oft-repeated statement by Sean Hannity:

Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday night put the “leftist media” in its place, saying that if President Donald Trump “could actually cure cancer,” the “media still wouldn’t be happy.”

The news that thanks to President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, drugmaker Pfizer has a vaccine that is 90 percent effective against COVID-19 and is ready to roll thanks to $2 billion from and a distribution infrastructure built by the Trump administration, did not make the media, Stephanopoulos and totalitarian Democrats in the mold of Cuomo happy. Those who decried Trump’s alleged slow speed response to the pandemic cannot stomach Donald Trump’s warp speed success in finding a vaccine, and perhaps more than one, to end it. They want to wait for Joe Biden and his hand-picked Obama leftover, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. As Breitbart News reported:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told Good Morning America on Monday morning that while the development of an effective coronavirus vaccine was “good news,” it was “bad news” that it would arrive while President Donald Trump is in office….

George Stephanopoulos: We were talking yesterday about the importance of vaccine distribution in the next two months. What do you make of this news?

Cuomo: Well, it’s good news/bad news, George. The good news is the Pfizer tests look good and we’ll have a vaccine shortly. The bad news is that it’s about two months before Joe Biden takes over, and that means this administration is going to be implementing a vaccine plan. The vaccine plan is very important and it’s probably the most ambitious undertaking since COVID began. … And the Trump administration is rolling out the vaccination plan and I believe it’s flawed. I believe it learns nothing from the past. They’re basically going to have the private providers do it, and that’s going to leave out all sorts of communities that were left out the first time when COVID ravaged them.

So what is Joe Biden’s vaccination plan that’s so important that it would be better to have people die from COVID while we wait for it? Perhaps we should ask Dr. Emanuel, one of 13 “experts” picked by Biden to populate his COVID-19 Advisory Board. From January 2009 to January 2011, Dr. Emanuel served as a special advisor for health policy to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. He was one of the architects of Obamacare and held controversial and appalling views about who should live and who should just get out of the way to die, views which prompted 2008 GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin to warn of Obamacare “death panels.” Ironically, Joe Biden is 77 and Zeke Emanuel has argued it is not worth living past 75:

Oncologist Dr. Zeke Emanuel, one of 10 advisory board members named to Democratic President-elect Joe Biden’s coronavirus task force, argued in a 2014 essay that he doesn’t want to live past 75.

Emanuel, 63, wrote that “by 75, creativity, originality and productivity are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us” in his 2014 essay “Why I Hope to Die at 75.”

“Since 1960, however, increases in longevity have been achieved mainly by extending the lives of people over 60. Rather than saving more young people, we are stretching out old age,” Emanuel wrote in the essay….

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., criticized the selection of Emanuel for the advisory board on Monday.

“A member of Biden’s new coronavirus task force is a lockdown enthusiast who has written that living past 75 isn’t worth it,” Cotton wrote on Twitter. “Americans want our country opened up, not creepy bioethicists who enjoy playing God.”

Dr. Emanuel will personally be a key architect in Biden’s plan on vaccine distribution, on who gets the vaccine first and distribution priorities. His selection for Biden’s COVID-19 Advisory Board is cheered on by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who infamously put COVID-infected patient s into nursing homes and senior care facilities, killing them by the thousands. That is perhaps not so surprising considering Emanuel’s views.

“Calls for changing physician training and culture are perennial and usually ignored. However, the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’. to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible,” he writes in a June 2008 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

He sees a problem in the Hippocratic Oath doctors take to first do no harm compelling them “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others” thereby avoiding the inevitable movement toward “socially sustainable, cost-effective care.”

In other words, Dr. Emanuel believes that some lives are simply just not worth saving – or being first in line for a vaccine. One of the proposed Obama constructs was something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) whose purpose was to prioritize the allocation of Medicare spending resources. It was to be the means to the end of cost-effective healthcare or Emanuel’s dream of “socially sustainable, cost-effective care.”

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, called IPAB “essentially a healthcare rationing body” which “will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” wrote Dean, who is also a physician. That is the kind of thing Dr. Zeke Emanuel embraces.

The frightening specter of government appointees deciding who lives and who dies by controlling the availability or withholding of treatment based on cost-effectiveness has been a grim reality in Britain and Canada. Sarah Palin was right when she referred to ObamaCare’s IPAB as a death panel whose decisions would result in the rationing of healthcare to the point that they would be in effect deciding who lived and who died as has happened under Britain’s National Health Service.

The concept behind deciding who lives and who dies and how finite resources should be allocated was once described by Dr. Emanuel. In his paper, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” he expounds on what he calls “The Complete Lives System” for allocating treatments and resources. He says: “When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable…” Allocating is Latin for rationing.

This is scary stuff. With Dr. Emanuel advising Biden, will vaccine decisions be based on whose lives are most worth saving? Will blue states get priority over red states? Will politically correct groups get a higher priority? Will seniors continue to get the shaft as they did in Cuomo’s nursing homes? Will the “woke” crowd be the first in line while the “deplorables” are put in the back. Already there are calls for the making of lists of Trump supporters for retribution.  A list for denying vaccinations perhaps?

Ask Dr. Emanuel, who once thought something like a “death panel” was a perfectly acceptable idea.

*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.


US Election confusion – COVID-19 and the Digital Controversy

Source: Anonymous

With COVID-19 well seeded in our daily lives where social distancing and limited outings were now commonplace, many of us were confronted with trying to vote in the 2020 Election. Many voters were torn at the thought of casting their 2020 Presidential vote in person. Many others, including service members, had no choice but to cast an absentee ballot. However, for those who were able to carry out their patriotic duty in-person, they would be unknowingly plagued with electronic ‘mishaps’ in key states that would raise eyebrows and cast doubt for some while creating unwanted ‘conspiracy theories’ for others during the 2020 Presidential Election.

As a high skill level Cybersecurity Firm that activity performs security research and responsibly discloses numerous zero-day discoveries each year and being a Cybersecurity Firm that performs large amounts of Penetration Testing Engagements, Software and Hardware Testing, Compliance Assessments and more wanted to do a little research on the issue and offer a professional opinion. We have extracted public information primarily in the form of published reports to look at the equipment and processes that are being utilized in the 2020 Election and present them to you. These discoveries are meant to help inform any voter in the United States, raise awareness, and lift the veil to get a better understanding of what is being utilized that has caused so much controversy. We maintain absolute neutrality and impartiality in our research and report only facts in this presentation. We will provide only our professional opinions and professional analysis of the data collected.

Many electronic voting platforms have been put forward as viable options to the American Election System for review and use in the United States Elections. However, 3 vendors are the primary suppliers of the platforms which are: Dominion Voting Systems, American Hart InterCivic, and the American Election Systems & Software (ES&S). These systems undergo routine and constant testing of their policies, hardware, software, and source code. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), develops Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG). These guidelines rely on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the technical guidelines.

Testing and Certification of the Voting Systems differ a bit for each state. When we focus on the states that have found themselves in the news the most (Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada), we find they all have different requirements for testing:

Nevada – requires testing to federal standards

Georgia – requires full federal certification

North Carolina – requires full federal certification

Pennsylvania – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Michigan – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Wisconsin – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory Arizona – requires testing be performed by a federally accredited laboratory

Some states like Kansas only comply with compliance, while some like Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey have no federal testing or certification requirements at all.

With such vast requirement differences and standards of testing or none at all, it is difficult (and in some cases impossible) to identify exactly how each state is verifying and validating correct system functionality as well as resistance to a cyberattack of the Voting Systems. Later in this paper, we identify some publicly available information pertaining to the testing and concerns of some Voting Systems in the span of the past 15 years.

The word ‘glitch’ reported on several media outlets during the 2020 Presidential Election. Anytime we hear the word ‘glitch’, we must take a very close look at the issue and validate whether the ‘glitch’ is real, then test to validate if it can be duplicated. If it can in-fact be duplicated, we then need to look at the scenario that caused the glitch. Knowing there are multiple vendors that provide equipment for US Elections, a ‘glitch’ must be fully investigated and reported on using the precise setup and conditions where it was discovered so that it can be accurately duplicated and recreated. The same scenario should then be investigated on any other ‘similar’ platform to test if the ‘glitch’ can be duplicated on those systems as well.

Live testing is never an ideal scenario, however, it should be expected and planned for. Being able to quickly determine if an issue is isolated or if it propagates over one, some, many, or all similar platforms can be the difference between responsibility and controversy. Full Transparency in these situations is critical.

What we have found during our research is a common theme played out time and time again.  What we have found is authorized vendors are permitted to test the Voting Equipment and Platforms.  However, what we do not find is information on if the source-code is properly tested if it is tested at all.  The lack of transparency has led to controversially scenarios and concerns. Some examples of scenarios causing the greatest concern whereby technical evidence to the contrary cannot be found include:

  • Can votes be switched?
  • Can votes be automatically switched with software?
  • Can votes be removed?
  • Can votes be removed automatically with software?
  • Can invalid votes be cast for a given party?
  • Can invalid votes be cast for a given party automatically?
  • Can bulk votes be introduced for a given party?
  • Can bulk votes be removed for a given party?
  • Can access be gained to the voting system remotely and information changed?

Important to Understand

CISA has reported there was no indication of fraud or mishaps in the below publication.


However, this assessment is based on flawed information and a misleading process. The process cited is the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) compliance report which focuses on the calibration of the voting machines and a limited look at the voting software.  The type of testing applied and methodology used does not appear to factor or test critical security elements in a meaningful way or thoroughly examine the actual source code and cannot with any certainty be used to substantiate the security posture of the voting system.

Below is the link to the Pro V& V report that documents the type of testing performed on the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5c under the EAC evaluation process.


The report document in Analysis Item 8 is the only actual Red Team / Penetration Test of the Dominion Democracy Suite that we could locate in the public domain. The report definitively demonstrates the Penetration Testing team having discovered and exploited many significant vulnerabilities with the Dominion Democracy Suite leaving significant concerns about the voting platform’s security and resistance to fraud and unauthorized manipulation. While this report was published in 2014, continued reports from State evaluations (although not penetration tests) show a trend of continued security failures.

Analysis of Discovered Reports and Documents

Our Analysis on Published Documents and Reports Relating to Dominion Voting Machines (many of discovered reports are heavily buried and likely not known to the host but are indexed by Google and publicly available nevertheless):

1. MAJOR Findings Significantly Downplayed – The following link is the Test Report for the Dominion Democracy Suite 5.2 Source Code performed by SLI Compliance in Wheat Ridge Colorado – this report details no major findings were discovered, which when the entirely of the report is taken into context is not accurate. There are indeed major findings, but they wrap them with only ‘an insider’ would be the one to take advantage of discovered vulnerabilities and the report does not detail the findings. These are serious vulnerabilities that are commonly exploited by attackers such as SQL Injections, memcopy, strcopy, and more. Best practices and a thorough testing approach would be to test these in an ‘assumed breach’ scenario and detail exactly what would be required to exploit them. Immediately following this information would be a thorough analysis of what the consequences would be if exploited. As it stands in the published report, this is a major gap that should be examined as soon as possible.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/vendors/dominion/ds52- sc.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGRQYJJuOjcigVwR6P4sSE LzfRMPw

2. MAJOR Findings Significantly Downplayed – The following link is the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-A.1 Voting System with Adjudication Version 2.4 ‘Source Code Review’ results performed by Asec & Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group on 11/14/2014. ALL findings in this report are reported as ‘Low’ including the use of SHA-1 for key generation, code exceptions that can cause a denial of service and potentially access to the platform, and the potential for buffer overflow exploit. Many of these should be classified as a high criticality vulnerability and from experience, we regularly successfully exploit the same type of vulnerabilities on other systems.  Further, the report contains only 12 pages which beg questions as to how thorough the testing was.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://verifiedvoting.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/08/adjudication.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000& usg=AFQjCNERb8F65NdqjYuC-2CJfldk0vTygQ

3. Significant Concerns with Voting System Not Addressed and System was not Approved for Future Releases The following link is the Dominion Democracy Suite Release 4.14.37 Version 2 Voting System Qualification Test Report prepared by The Bureau of Voting Systems Certification (BVSC) Florida Department of State Division of Elections in January 2020. While the system presented passed inspection, the Bureau did not recommend the approval of any future releases for this voting system unless the issues in the Continuous Improvements/Recommendations section were addressed and no longer an issue, including unexpected ICP system shutdown and ‘confusing’ data output.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://dos.myflorida.com/media/702601/dominion- democracy-suite-release-41437-version-2-test- report.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNEMrQGySUhEZV7Wg CTJGOqVCig9PQ

4. Voting System Failed Texas Certification and Denied for Use in Texas Elections – The following link is the Report of review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A by The State of Texas Elections Division on October 2-3, 2019. The findings in this report include ‘multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.

Therefore, the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system and corresponding hardware devices to not meet the standards for certification prescribed by Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code’ The Democracy Suite 5.5-A system was thus denied certification for use in Texas Elections, signed by Deputy Secretary of State, Jose A. Esparaza on January 24th, 2020.

-d-suite-5.5- a.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNG6Ey27tBkMIt6COPqsdD wpXKhR7w

Here is the link to Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code:


It is very short and specifies the following:


  • A voting system may not be used in an election unless the system:
    • preserves the secrecy of the ballot;
    • is suitable for the purpose for which it is intended;
    • operates safely, efficiently, and accurately and complies with the voting system standards adopted by the Election Assistance Commission;
    • is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation;
    • permits voting on all offices and measures to be voted on at the election;
    • prevents counting votes on offices and measures on which the voter is not entitled to vote;
    • prevents counting votes by the same voter for more than one candidate for the same office or, in elections in which a voter is entitled to vote for more than one candidate for the same office, prevents counting votes for more than the number of candidates for which the voter is entitled to vote;2020.
    • prevents counting a vote on the same office or measure more than once;
    • permits write-in voting; and
    • is capable of providing records from which the operation of the voting system may be
      • Repealed by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., S., Ch. 404 (H.B. 25), Sec. 8, eff. September 1,
      • The secretary of state may prescribe additional standards for voting systems consistent with this The standards may apply to particular kinds of voting systems, to particular elements comprising a voting system, including operation procedures, or to voting systems generally.
      • Effective January 1, 2006, a voting system may not be used in an election if the system uses:
        • mechanical voting machines; or
        • a punch-card ballot or a similar form of a tabulating card.
      • For an election for federal office in which a state or federal court order has extended the time for voting beyond the time allowed by Subchapter B, Chapter 41, a voting system must provide a separate count of the votes cast after the time allowed by that

5. Voting System Determined to have a High Risk of an Insecure Configuration when Installed, even when Installed by the Vendor In response to the Voting System failing TX certification, the following link is a ‘concern’ by Mr. Brandon T. Hurley. He begins by stating he is a newly appointed voting systems examiner under Texas Election code 122.035 and points out many problems and concerns he has with the Democracy Suite 5.5-A platform including: Many  Security features are not automatic, rather they rely on the end-user following instructions, the system is difficult to build and implement and caused issues even for the Dominion installers, the system can be without question connected to external communication networks and can       only be avoided if the end-user takes proper precautions to prevent such connections, thus his recommendation was for non-certification and non-use in Texas Elections:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/oct2019- hurley.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNFIV7uZkXiMD5v667_ DE4AVklAeAA

6. Voting System Again Determined to Fail Texas Certification Requirements – The following link is a summary of all of the findings by Tom Watson another Texas certified voting systems examiner. His report details many concerns including: problems installing the Dominion Software which led to software failures; the difficulty verifying the integrity of the software will likely result in many jurisdictions that simply decide not configure the product in a secure manner before the elections; Party affiliations were missing from candidates; Ethernet ports were active; system crashes which would cause adjudication to be redone; firewalls are not configured as part of hardening and left to each jurisdiction; and much more:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/oct2019- watson.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNEBRxxb5g- ifwBTOU0Gq8aYxQywkQ

The below link is to yet another failed certification in 2019:


7. Dominion Vulnerability Disclosure Program Only Factors Peripheral Elements The following link is to the Dominion Voting Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Program. This Program encourages transparency and permits the public and 3rd parties to report potential vulnerabilities to Dominion.  However, this appears to only be for vulnerabilities related to the Dominion hosting platform, and not for the source code that actually processes the data. Our research indicates that only certified election voting equipment testers can access the actual code for testing but even that appears to be restricted to peripheral code (and not source code). Without testing the actual source code via a skilled penetration testing resource and mimicking real-world operations, it is impossible to assess if the code is secure from manipulation.

disclosure- policy/&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGI5NISUGjbcB3RmT8W e6q8V_z3BQ

8. Voting System has History of Being Implemented with Significant Security Flaws – The following is the link to the Red Team Test Report for the Dominion Democracy Suite 4.14-A and4.14.A.1 w/Adjudication 2.4. This test report from Freeman, Craft, McGregor Group on November 18th, 2014 details the test methods and findings for the systems. These findings include: System/Hardware failures; Users have Administrative permissions; Display failures; No centralized GPO configuration management; Missing Windows Updates; Anti-Virus was in evaluation mode; Missing Trust Relationships; Encryption Keys could be and were recovered; User credentials recovered from memory; Flash drive doors could be opened and seals removed; ballot scanner box door could be opened during an election and ballots added or removed without detection, and much more:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://verifiedvoting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/red- team-support.pdf&sa=D&source=hangouts&ust=1605278658967000&usg=AFQjCNGjITVe- qTdzK3Bf83PhsDeD9w0Gw


National Election Fraud: Evidence of National Chicanery During America’s 2020 Presidential Election

By: Sam Jacobs | LibertasBella

Regardless of where one falls politically, the sanctity of the vote is a bedrock of a functioning representative democracy. Voters have to believe their vote matters. And that the vote is free, fair, and accurate.

The basic facts of the 2020 American Presidential election are concerning because mounting evidence indicates there’s been a concerted effort by state Democratic Parties to flip the election from President Donald Trump to former Vice President Joe Biden in a number of key swing states with the help of notoriously corrupt Democratic Party machines in at least five American cities — Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Atlanta.

Here are the basic facts of the case: On Election Night when America went to bed, President Trump had a commanding lead in virtually every swing state, as well as Virginia, which no one expected him to win. However, when America woke up the next day, we found that he’d lost these leads, largely on the basis of mail-in ballots found in the middle of the night and out from under the watchful eye of legal election monitors.

What’s more, these massive caches of votes – almost all of which were for former Vice President Biden – came via large dumps primarily from the five aforementioned cities in states predominantly run by Democratic governors.

When one looks at the statistical likelihood of the reported turnout, the numbers are so improbable they’re more at home in a one-party state like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or North Korea.

What’s more, Biden’s victory does not square with the results of the Republican Party nationally: Republicans won 28 of 29 competitive House seats and Democrats were unable to flip a single state legislature. Joe Biden secured a scant three of the so-called “Bellwether Districts” that almost always choose the winner, one of which was in Delaware. Judicial Watch found 353 counties in 29 different states who had higher than 100 percent turnout.

Anecdotally, swing states tend to follow Florida in terms of swinging left or right. This is particularly true in Michigan, which has voted in lockstep with Florida since 1968. Nearly three dozen states had counting machines connected to the Internet during the election, which is inherently insecure. Joe Biden’s lead among mail-in ballots was massive in two states — Michigan and Pennsylvania — while it was in the single digits in most states.

Evidence of chicanery, irregularities, and outright manipulation have poured in from a variety of states — PennsylvaniaMichiganGeorgiaWisconsinNorth CarolinaTexasNew JerseyNevada, and Arizona. This evidence could easily be dismissed as simply weird if one is being generous or naive.

While much of this took place at the state level, there are also irregularities that are occurring across state lines and these are worthy of consideration. It’s not evidence per se, but there was a massive spike in the number of Google searches for “election fraud punishment” in swing states in the 30 days leading up to the election.

Below we explore the details and the data of what happened across the nation on Election Day, with flagrant and often sloppy irregularities occurring from coast to coast. Elsewhere we explore similar efforts in the key swing states of PennsylvaniaWisconsinMichigan, and Georgia.

All of the posts in this series will be updated as more credible information is uncovered.

The General Landscape of American Election Fraud

The media is trying to weave a narrative with ever-shifting goalposts. They began by saying that not only did voter fraud not happen but that it’s impossible. Now, they have shifted their story to say that there is always minor fraud, but that it never really matters much.

The Heritage Foundation has identified 1,200 elections where voter fraud made the difference in recent decades, long after the era of Jim Crow when election theft was de rigueur. Of these, fully 15 were thrown out specifically because of cheating by mail-in ballot.

Mail-in ballots are largely banned in Europe, where voter ID requirements are likewise the normFlorida has been recognized specifically as an offender.

Another narrative in the controlled media is that illegal aliens and other non-citizens don’t vote. This is patently untrue. In fact, they vote at alarmingly high rates. A 2019 study found that approximately 2.2 percent of respondents admitted to voting illegally, which implies a little under a million ballots cast by non-citizens every year.

The counterargument is that respondents are either lying or misunderstood the question, but this is simply not true — those who conducted the study verified their votes.

So we can see that electoral fraud is not only impossible, it is common. It is not negligible, it has determined elections in living memory. With this as our backdrop, we will now investigate voter irregularities throughout the nation during the 2020 Presidential election.

What Constitutes Evidence of Electoral Fraud?

Before going further, it is worth discussing what constitutes evidence for electoral fraud. Well, the Carter Center has a set of standards that they use to determine whether or not there has been electoral fraud somewhere.

These are the standards used by globalists to determine whether or not elections they disapprove of have been conducted fraudulently. Several of them are present in the contested states:

  • Counting procedures should be verifiable.
  • Votes should be presented for independent review.
  • Elections should be subject to recounts.

Additionally, the Carter Center states that it is the right of dissidents to challenge and question the results of an election that they believe to be fraudulent. Harassing dissidents is considered evidence of chicanery in and of itself.

“Effective redress” is the term they use and it is considered by the Carter Center to be vital for establishing an election as legitimate. The resistance of the Democratic Party to recounts and audits should be a red flag in and of itself.

There are also mathematical anomalies that are worth looking into because, regardless of turnout and outcome, elections will follow certain patterns. One of these is that, because of mail sorting, mail-in ballots will consistently show the same ratio of support for each candidate. We did not see that, however — there is a significant spike in support for Biden and fall off in support for President Trump as Election Night dragged on.

Indeed, in Wisconsin, this anomaly became massive around 4 a.m., the same time that the massive ballot drops without supervision began. The same phenomenon occurred in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, all four of these states with copious amounts of electoral chicanery and irregularity. Virginia was another state with similar mathematical irregularities.

Benford’s Law is another area where we see mathematical irregularities. Put simply: When we have large datasets of numbers, there is a pattern we can find with regard to the final and penultimate digit of each number in this data set.

Benford’s Law analysis is one of the first things run by forensic accountants looking for financial malfeasance or tax cheating.

Many of the electoral tallies in disputed states violate Benford’s Law — but only for Joe Biden, whose distribution more closely resembles the curve when people type “random” numbers in. President Trump, Jo Jorgensen, Howie Hawkins, and Kanye West’s numbers do not violate this law, but former Vice President Biden’s do in disputed areas.

The Wikipedia article about Benford’s Law was altered and locked after several enterprising Twitter users began investigating this strand of the 2020 election theft.

The Glitch From Coast to Coast

One recurring theme throughout the 2020 election is the glitch. There have been a number of glitches, many detailed in our series on irregularities in different states. This, in and of itself might not be cause for concern — however, in every case, these so-called “software glitches” favor former Vice President Biden at the expense of President Donald Trump.

Again, we have detailed these in our state series article, but we will mention some here just to give you a general idea of what has been going on with these “glitches.”

One in Michigan sent 6,000 votes to Biden that were meant for Donald Trump. Another in Wisconsin robbed Donald Trump of 19,500 votes. Another similar glitch in Georgia saw an unspecified number of votes go to Biden that were, once again, meant for the President.

There appears to be a pattern here. Were these all bona fide mistakes, we would likely find votes that were meant to go for Joe Biden going to Donald Trump before the situation was corrected. But we are unaware of any such error in favor of the President.

The common denominator? The voting software used to calculate the vote made by a company with deep connections to the DNC.

The Turnout That Wasn’t

The DNC’s victory in the 2020 Presidential election relies heavily upon a massively increased turnout, again centered around a handful of large cities controlled by the Democratic Party. One example of this is 90 percent turnout in the entire State of Wisconsin, which would not only be the highest level of turnout in American history but also comes close to the 92 percent average in Australia where voting is mandatory. In the city of Milwaukee alone, the turnout was 84 percent.

Compare this turnout to Cleveland, a culturally comparable city not in a swing state, which had a comparatively scant 51 percent turnout. This is an important city to draw a contrast with because, while it is a Democratic stronghold, as are most large cities, and it has a similar minority population, it was not in a state that was considered in play this election. Democrats attempted to steal the election by fabricating astronomical turnout in urban areas they control in swing states.

The turnout gambit becomes even more laughable when one considers that Biden is one of the least invigorating Democratic candidates since John Kerry or Mike Dukakis. Yet somehow this candidate was able to increase his vote above what Barack Obama enjoyed, with some districts in Milwaukee putting up more votes than there are registered voters in the area.

A broad study conducted by Judicial Watch found that 353 counties across 29 states had turnout exceeding 100 percent of registered voters. Eight of these had turnout exceeding 100 percent across the entire state: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Perhaps more damning, the study was limited to 37 states publishing their voter registration data. This means that, of the 37 states that Judicial Watch had access to, 78 percent of them had turnout exceeding 100 percent.

Vetting of Mail-In Ballots

The American public was warned for months in advance that mail-in balloting, illegal throughout most of Europe, is inherently insecure and lends itself to the kind of mass voter fraud that we are seeing in action right now.

But the mail-in ballots that we are seeing in this election are not just nonspecifically “suspect.” They are rife with irregularities and a lack of accountability that should cause them to be closely investigated, audited and, where appropriate, thrown out entirely.

Mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania are particularly questionable. This is a state where Biden enjoyed a 60.5 percent lead in mail-in voting. More damning is the fact that many of these ballots seem to have arrived before they were even sent, arrived the same day, or arrived within one day of being sent. This is an abnormal amount of processing time, especially when we consider the surge in mail due to the election.

James O’Keefe found two whistleblowers at USPS, one of whom was willing to come forward, who told of backdating ballots. This whistleblower was intimidated by the feds and it was falsely reported that he recanted his report.

Vetting of mail-in ballots is particularly important because they are widely open to electoral fraud, as we have discussed above. So it is troubling that we have multiple reports, including in the form of sworn affidavits presented before the court, of poll watchers being thrown out, mocked, intimidated, and even physically assaulted during the course of counting mail-in ballots.

Of special note is the strong resistance to poll workers in swing states to allow anyone to watch them. In Pennsylvania, poll workers were caught on video expelling poll watchers despite knowledge of a court order preventing them from doing so. Reports of expelled poll watchers were part of the lawsuit filed in Michigan and there were similar reports out of Georgia. This raises the obvious question — why don’t they want anyone watching them?

Biden Outperformed Obama

Biden’s turnout when compared with Barack Obama is another area warranting special investigation. It is worth noting that Biden was generally viewed as a less-than-ideal candidate in no small part because he generated very little enthusiasm among Democratic Party voters. In contrast, Obama was a rock star candidate who had just defeated the party’s presumptive nominee in a hard-fought primary. Biden, on the other hand, was largely foisted on the party through backroom deals in an attempt to prevent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders from obtaining the nomination for President.

Biden also barely campaigned throughout the primary season. Most of the campaign was characterized by the candidate calling “lids,” a term meaning that he was home for the day and would be doing no more press, with the occasional teleconference. Not only did he start with an unenthusiastic base who would have preferred nearly anyone else, he did little to motivate his base throughout the course of the election.

Yet somehow, he outperformed Hillary Clinton who won a hard-fought primary against Senator Sanders and kept pace with numbers from Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, being able to boast that he has received more votes than any other candidate for President in American history. In some cases — tellingly in areas crucial for winning the election — Biden was able to outperform Barack Obama.

For example, in Chester, Cumberland, and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania, he outperformed Obama by approximately 25 percent. In Montgomery County, he was able to double Barack Obama’s margin of victory. He increased the raw vote total there by fully 80,000 votes. The population of this county only increased by 22,000 in the years between Obama’s victory and Biden’s alleged one.

Not only should we be skeptical of the numbers, we should be skeptical of them because of where they came in from. Such dubious numbers were not coming in from places that we could assume were Democratic Party strongholds like New York, Chicago, and Miami where Biden actually saw a decrease in voters relative to Hillary Clinton. So why is he putting up these high totals only in a handful of cities (Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia) controlled by Democrats in swing states?

Biden-Only Ballots

Another area of suspicion is the Biden-only ballots. Tens or hundreds of thousands of voters marked their ballots only for Joe Biden, with presumably no interest in down-ballot races. While it’s not unusual for people to take an outsized interest in the Presidential election, it is unusual for 450,000 people to have no interest in down-ballot races and for this to be concentrated in a handful of swing states.

The strange dichotomy here is that people were far more likely to do this in alleged swing states with competitive Senate races like Georgia, while deep red states like Wyoming did not see a massive number of Biden-only ballots. In Georgia, there was only a difference of 818 votes between Trump and down-ticket Senate races. Biden, on the other hand, received over 95,000 more votes than either Senate candidate on the ballot in Georgia. In Wyoming, there were a mere 725 more votes for Biden than the Democratic Senate candidate in the state.

Raheem Kassam reports on five states with anomalous Biden-only voting, all of which keep coming up with various irregularities: Pennsylvania (98,000), Georgia (80-90,000), Arizona (42,000), Michigan (69-115,000), and Wisconsin (62,836).

All told, Republicans won 28 out of 29 competitive House races as of November 8 and flipped three state legislatures, but were somehow unable to deliver the White House to the President. So we are expected to believe that not only did Joe Biden receive more votes than Barack Obama and that these came largely on the back of massive inner-city turnout, but that this massive turnout for Joe Biden was unable to flip a single state legislature.

Biden-only ballots are a recurring theme in all of the states in question. While they are by no means a smoking gun, they do point toward significant irregularities that need to be investigated before Joe Biden can begin claiming victory.

Who Counts the Votes? Irregularities In Counting Systems

There is a quote often attributed to Joseph Stalin, but is probably apocryphal: It doesn’t who votes, it matters who counts the votes. It doesn’t really matter who, if anyone, actually said this. The point is that it doesn’t matter what votes actually say if the votes are ignored or altered by the person doing the counting.

In the 21st Century, most of our vote-counting is done by machines that use proprietary software. Most states used systems supplied by Dominion Voting Systems. What’s more, the irregularities in vote counting, in particular the “glitches” that universally favor Joe Biden, come from these voting systems.

First, we should note that there were 92 donations made by Dominion employees over the last year according to the FEC. Of these, 80 went to Democratic super PAC ActBlue, seven went to Senator Bernie Sanders, four to the Trump campaign and one went to the DNC. What’s more, Dominion Voting Systems has a partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative as well as former employees of the Clinton Growth Initiative on staff, according to One America News Network.

Rudy Giuliani claims that the legal campaign to protect the election has whistleblowers from Dominion ready to go on record.

A bit in the weeds, but worth mentioning, is the allegation that intelligence software was used to change vote counts. There is a video on this subject here. As we say, this is a bit in the weeds, but worth mentioning for those who wish to go down that rabbit hole.

The NOQ Report has been kind enough to do a deep dive on the topic of Dominion’s role in the 2020 Presidential election. They found significant vote switching in Georgia (17,407, where Biden leads with 14,148 votes) and Pennsylvania (with over one million votes switched in favor of Joe Biden). The article is mostly just a list of switched votes and lost votes, but it bears reading because it sheds light on just how massive a role vote switching played in the 2020 election, further cementing the theory that Dominion played a role in the theft.

Fight Back to Save America

Don’t let any of this get you down, because the fight is far from over. Both President Trump and Congressional Republicans are working hard, both in the public sphere and in the courts to make sure that the 2020 election is fair and transparent.

So what can you do to join in the fight?

First, you should call your elected representatives. That means calling your state rep, your state senator, your House Rep, and your U.S. Senator. You should do this be they friend or foe — either way, they need to know that you insist on having all legal votes counted. Insist on concrete steps to ensure the integrity of the vote. Do not settle for stock answers about the importance of democracy. A Twitter account has made what is actually a very good script for you to follow when you call in. Be firm, but polite.

If you want to take to the streets, there are opportunities. Stop The Steal is the movement dedicated to putting bodies in the streets of our nation’s state capitals to let our elected officials know that we are not going to stand for seeing our elections stolen in a manner befitting Zimbabwe. There are almost daily rallies at the state capitol building and the TFC Center in Detroit. What’s more, a nationwide rally in DC called the Million MAGA March is scheduled for November 14. The Democratic government of Washington, DC has responded with new COVID restrictions designed to cripple the march.

What can you do? Quite a lot. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. If they can steal this election, don’t expect another one to be free and fair. But do expect a lot of gun grabs and speech laws.

More information can be found here…


It’s Hard to go Forward when you’re Stuck in Reverse

By: Carolyn Alder

The battle every four years to capture the White House is a lose/lose situation.  It seems we are on the verge of self-destruction as the battle rages in the streets, in the media, in Congress, and in the courts.  We have civil unrest instead of domestic tranquility. The other party is not the enemy, party politics is the enemy.  I do not like being stuck in reverse in the political swamp of deceit, revenge, and despair.  But how do we move forward out of the political quicksand pulling us under? The solution is staring us in the face, but we have been ignoring it and abusing it for over 200 years—return to the Constitution.

The original Constitution was designed to select a president without a battle. Sadly, even many of the Founders and Framers took up party banners and were part of the trend to become partisan politicians instead of statesmen.  Instead of following the non-partisan path to statesmanship designed in the Constitution, they pushed toward a democracy of party politics.  George Washington expressed his dismay of this reversal in his farewell address:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”

When all else fails—go back and read the instructions. The original Constitution outlined a far superior, non-partisan, multi-step, indirect process to elect a statesman (rather than a partisan politician) to be President of the United States.

The Presidential Electors were to be the first step in the process—not a meaningless rubber-stamp, after years of campaigning, advertising, political revenge, and a popular vote based on campaign promises and government handouts.

Article II, clause ll:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives…”

It was presumed that the Presidential Electors, would be persons carefully chosen based on their wisdom and experience.

“The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.”

The constitutionally assigned duty of each Elector was to nominate two presidential possibilities worthy of such a high office.  (Voting for two precluded campaigning for one.)  There were no pre-printed ballots because the Electors were to provide the names of potential candidates, not choose between predetermined candidates.  The Electors were independent and expected to always vote their conscience.  Now, if an Elector casts a vote different than the name submitted by their party, he is called a faithless Elector.  The Electors in each State did not need to agree.  Each Presidential Elector was to submit names of outstanding individuals who had proven themselves to be wise, responsible, uphold the principles of freedom, and the Constitution.  Then,

“They shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government…”

This was the original nominating process outlined in the Constitution. Now we send party delegates to party conventions and support candidates who have effectively self-nominated, to decide who is most likely to defeat the opposing party’s candidate.

The machinations of party politics early-on hijacked the constitutionally assigned duty of the Presidential Electors.  These machinations led to a hastily written and hastily ratified 12th Amendment in order for parties to select both a President and a Vice-president. It states:

“The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of the government…”

Even with separated lists, Presidential Electors could discuss outstanding statesmen with other Electors in their State. Each Elector was to be an independent thinker, not a rubber-stamp to someone else’s opinion or even to a consensus of opinions.  They were the ones charged with the nominating process.

Then in a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate opened the sealed certificates and the votes were tallied.  This is when the candidates would be known.  A majority vote of the whole number of Electors appointed (This would be extremely rare without manipulation.) is required for each office. Otherwise,

“the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each having one vote…a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice,”

This type of federal system construction meant that the States (the House of Representatives) would, with extremely rare exceptions, make the final election.  Each State having one vote is an important safeguard to liberty in a federal republic.

Even the 12th Amendment did not actually authorize a popular vote for president even though it greatly facilitated this perversion by political parties of the original plan.

Party politics have destroyed constitutional government in many ways, too numerous to describe here.  Every State Legislature has turned their constitutionally assigned duty of choosing wise Presidential Electors over to the political parties.

The battle of an endless war rages on.  We can’t go forward because we are stuck in reverse in the political swamp. To go forward, a start to restoring the Constitution would be for the States to take back their constitutional responsibilities, such as appointing Presidential Electors who can do their job as described above.

The structure of the original Constitution was intelligently designed to establish and safeguard freedom.  The United States was to be a constitutional representative republic not a democracy.


The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College


Weekly Profile – Jess Sundin


Jess Sundin

Jess Sundin is a leading member of the pro-China communist group Freedom Road Socialist Organization in Minnesota. She is the wife of FRSO Political Secretary Steff Yorek.

Sundin is the leader of the anti-police group Twin Cities Coalition 4 Justice 4 Jamar which was the group responsible for sparking the April riots in Minneapolis after the police killing of George Floyd.

In 2007, Jess Sundin was a member of the Twin Cities-based Anti-War Committee and the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War which caused major havoc at that year’s Republican National Convention.

In 1998, Jess Sundin led a delegation of Minnesota activists to Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq.

In 2000, Jess Sundin, of the Colombia Action Network, led a small delegation of three North American activists to Bogata Colombia, to attend a conference “responding to U.S. military aid” for the Colombian government. The delegation also traveled to the area in Southern Colombia controlled by the guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army. A State Department-designated terrorist group.

Jess Sundin with Raul Reyes

While there, Jess Sundin met the late Colombian revolutionary leader Raul Reyes.

In November 2010, the FBI raided the home of Jess Sundin and Steff Yorek and more than 20 other FRSO comrades in search of evidence of material support for terrorism.

The Eric Holder Justice Department dropped the indictments.

(See more|Jess Sundin…)


Joe Biden is a Sore Loser

By: Cliff Kincaid

Joe Biden lost the November 3 presidential election but is claiming to be “president-elect” based on stolen votes. People magazine proclaims, “It’s time for America to unite,” featuring Joe Biden and the real presidential candidate, Kamala Harris. But as numerous observers have noted, Biden himself was asked whether he would declare victory only after the results were certified and he replied, “yes.” He’s a big liar. The Big Steal is underway. He doesn’t want to wait for an honest vote count. In any case, under Supreme Court precedent, he can’t win. His fraudulent vote-stealing effort makes any claim to a Biden-Harris victory to be completely false.

Long-time Washington observer David Martin comments that “The perps at the top of this criminal Democrat conspiracy have conned the American body politic into believing that Team Trump must peel away each and every electoral vote that was explicitly won through fraud and/or theft until Biden’s total drops below 270.” In fact, he notes that under Supreme Court precedent, in the landmark case United States v. Throckmorton, “fraud vitiates everything.”

This means, according to the article at the “Darkmoon” website, that when wholesale fraud, corruption, and criminality are employed to steal the presidential election, the victor automatically becomes the other presidential nominee with the greatest number of electoral votes. “Hence,” it states, “the prematurely and illegitimately declared Biden victory is now null and void under the law.”

In the midst of this assault on our institutions, Tucker Carlson opened up his Friday night show by talking about the beauty of our national parks. This was a feel-good story that perhaps should have been included at the end of his program. It was almost as if Carlson was throwing in the towel on the Big Steal.

This isn’t the time to visit Yosemite. It’s time to fight and consider revolutionary strategies. Larry Klayman’s new book, It Takes a Revolution: Forget the Scandal Industry, looks at what lies ahead.

Klayman said on my ASI TV program that he is doubtful that the courts will save the Trump presidency.

Citing the Declaration of Independence, Klayman points out that when faced with tyranny, people have the right, in theory, to abolish that government and form a new one. If the legal actions ultimately fail in the courts because of corruption, he suggests that conservatives create their own alternative government, perhaps installing Trump as the president of a new regime. He points to French patriots forming an alternative to the government of Vichy France in Nazi-occupied France during the Second World War. Charles de Gaulle created that alternative government in London and it became the base of the Free French forces.

His book looks at the never-ending battle against corruption and calls on people to take back the country, after getting away from addictive watching of cable news shows.

It’s on the Internet, as long as it remains relatively free, where people can find the truth, he says. That’s why I relaunched my Internet TV show America’s Survival TV. Left-wing legal groups and organizations tried to censor me over the years but I have come back, seeking supporters and sponsors.  “We don’t hear enough from you, Cliff,” said one commenter. “This is the only platform informed enough to ask the right questions.” We’ve already done five shows and plan many more, with experts and eyewitnesses to the fraud.

Veteran correspondent Martin Arestogui told me in an interview that the situation in America reminds him of what happened in communist Venezuela when the regime “defeated” the opposition through vote fraud. He covered that fraud and recounted how diplomats acknowledged the fraud but didn’t do anything about it.  Cables from U.S. diplomats given to WikiLeaks discussed allegations that simple changes to Microsoft software and Smartmatic voting systems could change results and outcomes.

In Venezuela, of course, the Marxists ran the regime. Here, the Marxists are trying to steal the government away from the legitimate president and election-winner Donald J. Trump.

Biden is not president-elect and cannot be legally certified as president. That’s the bottom line.

Some Republicans are calling for Sleepy Joe to be given access to intelligence from the Deep State. That’s not justified, since he is not the president or even president-elect, but there’s probably nothing wrong with that because Joe can’t comprehend the briefings anyway. Most of the “intelligence” is useless or fed to the CIA by the Chinese and the Russians anyway. The headquarters of the Deep State is in Moscow or Beijing, depending on which leg of the communist apparatus has the best disinformation on any given day.

One of the worst aspects of this attempted coup d’Etat is the cover given to Biden’s phony victory by elements of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis and the Catholic Bishops in the U.S. have congratulated Biden. Worse, the Society of Jesus, known as the Jesuits, have run articles claiming Biden is a legitimate Catholic and that President Trump should concede the election.

Conservative Catholic Ted Flynn of “Signs & Wonders” magazine explained to me in an ASI TV program how many are waking up to the systematic infiltration of the church over the course of decades by communists and homosexuals.

In defeating the Deep state, we defeat the Deep Church and save our Christian nation.

*For updates, please use the contact form at www.usasurvival.org