China’s Religious Suppression Could Spread if Not Challenged—Interview with William L. Saunders

China’s Religious Suppression Could Spread if Not Challenged—Interview with William L. Saunders

Many religious groups are targeted for persecution in China, including Christians, Catholics, Falun Gong practitioners, Muslim Uyghurs, and Tibetan Buddhists, and if these persecutions are not challenged, the regime’s programs for religious suppression risk spreading around the world. To learn more about this we’ve invited to speak with us William L. Saunders, religious liberty and human rights scholar at The Catholic University of America, and chair of the Religious Liberties Practice Group of the Federalist Society. #China #HumanRights #ReligiousLiberty 📣 Subscribe to Crossroads: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG8y…

Deep State Will Go Down

Deep State Will Go Down 

Explainer: Dueling Electors and the Upcoming Joint Session of Congress

December 17, 2020 Updated: December 21, 2020

Presidential candidates in the United States win elections by winning the most electoral votes.

The Electoral College system apportions a certain number of votes to each state. When voters in a state vote for a party’s candidate, they’re actually casting a vote for that party’s slate of electors, or people chosen to cast electoral votes.

Those electoral votes are counted by Congress. If a candidate gets 270 or more, they win the presidency.

Dueling Electors

In seven states on Dec. 14, a slate of Democratic electors chose Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Republican electors, even though Biden was certified as the winner in the states, also cast votes for President Donald Trump.

The phenomenon created seven sets of so-called dueling electors, or alternate slates. Both groups are sending certificates of votes to Congress, which is slated to convene in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2021, to count electoral votes.

Dueling electors are highly unusual, but they have happened in U.S. history. The last time was in the 1960 election, when the governor of Hawaii certified electors for Republican Richard Nixon. Democratic electors cast their votes for Democrat John F. Kennedy.

A subsequent recount determined Kennedy actually won the state, and he was declared the winner in the joint session in 1961.

John Eastman, professor of law at the Chapman University School of Law, pointed to the Kennedy-Nixon scenario when talking about the seven dueling electors this time around.

“We have historical precedent here, and in each of these states, there is pending litigation challenging the results of the election. If that litigation proved successful, then the Trump electors, having met and voted, would be able to have those votes certified and be the ones properly counted in the joint session of Congress on January 6,” he told NTD.

Epoch Times PhotoA member of Wisconsin’s Electoral College casts their vote for the presidential election at the state Capitol in Madison, Wis, on Dec. 14, 2020. (Morry Gash/Pool/Getty Images)

Gary Gregg II, director of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, told The Epoch Times that short of “actual evidence of fraud” that would move Congress to certify the alternate set of electors, the ones certified by the state’s governors—all for Biden, in this case—will be the ones counted.

The electoral votes have been “officially counted” and the votes have been sent on, he said. “There’s nothing to be done, until it gets to Congress,” he said.

“It’s obviously a very, very long shot,” added Robert Hardaway, professor at the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver, because “all the challenges have not been successful by both Trump and his supporters.”

“But that’s the reason for it,” he told The Epoch Times. “If later it’s determined the Republican slate should have been elected, they’ll have the vote already in place.”

In three of the seven states in question—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—Republicans currently control the state legislatures while Democrats hold the governor’s mansions. In New Mexico and Nevada, Democrats control both. In Georgia and Arizona, Republicans control both.

Republicans have not been able to gain enough support to get the dueling electors certified by the top election official—usually the secretary of state—nor did the state legislatures exercise their constitutional right to take back the power to choose which candidate to give the electoral votes to.

According to the Congressional Research Service, when dueling slates are received, members of Congress in the joint session consider the list when its from a different state authority than the certified list, and conduct a vote. Acceptance of either slate would then require a concurrent agreement in both the House and the Senate.

If there isn’t a conflict in terms of state authority, the one determined to be appointed pursuant to the state’s election laws is counted. If there is no determination by a state authority of which slate was lawfully appointed, the two chambers agree concurrently to accept the votes of one set, or decide not to accept either set. If the two chambers don’t agree, the electors certified by the governor shall be counted.

Joint Session

After electors cast their votes this week, attention turned to the upcoming joint session, which takes place just three days after newly elected members of Congress are sworn in.

At least four people who will be in the House—Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and Rep.-elects Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Barry Moore (R-Ala.), and Bob Good (R-Va.)—have committed to filing objections during the session.

Objections must be made in writing by at least one representative and one senator. No senators have committed to objecting.

Challenges were made by Democrats in 2016 but failed because no senators supported them. In 2004, Rep. Stephanie Tubb Jones (D-Ohio) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) objected to votes from Ohio, but both chambers voted the objection down.

The basis for an objection appears to be that the electoral vote or votes were not “regularly given” by an electors, and/or that the elector was not “lawfully certified,” based on state election laws, according to the Congressional Research Service.

If an objection meets the requirements, the joint session is suspended, and each chamber withdraws to meet and debate the objection and choose whether to vote to uphold it. Unless both chambers vote in the majority for the objection, it fails. If it’s approved, it nullifies the state’s electoral votes, or could lead to the alternate slate being accepted.

Some experts see an objection succeeding as practically impossible.

“It’s so far out of the realm of possibility,” Gregg said. “The chance of getting a senator to agree, a Republican senator to agree, is a difficulty. Then to get the Senate and the House to agree? At this point … this is not going to happen.”

“Both chambers will not approve objections,” Alan Dershowitz, a constitutional law scholar, told NTD Television via email.

Others aren’t so sure.

“I think when you get to the joint session of Congress, there’s going to be a fight about which of the slates of electors need to be counted based on the evidence and the statutory violations that are presented at the time,” Eastman said.

As of the current certified vote count, Biden has 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. The Epoch Times is not calling the race at this time.

In 1877, a joint session of Congress met to count electoral votes and faced dueling electors from multiple states where vote tallies were controversial. The Democrat-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate eventually came to a compromise, creating a commission that included House members, senators, and Supreme Court justices.

The commission met for weeks before deciding on March 2 to award contested electoral votes to Rutherford Hayes, a Republican, handing him the election.

Kevin Hogan, Cristina Kim, and Paul Greaney of NTD contributed to this report.

Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

 

Dr. Jerome Corsi; The New Year Starts with Trump Win

Dr. Jerome Corsi; The New Year Starts with Trump Win

House Asks Court to Dismiss Effort to Clarify Vice President’s Power in Electoral Counting

January 1, 2021 Updated: January 1, 2021

 

The House of Representatives is asking a court to reject a petition from Republicans that requests judges to say Vice President Mike Pence has the authority to reject some electoral votes.

“This Court should reject plaintiffs’ effort to overturn Congress’s centuries-old role in counting electoral votes and resolving disputes about them in the constitutionally mandated Joint Session,” the House said in an amicus brief on Dec. 31.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and other Republicans this week sued Pence, asking a judge to authorize Pence to pick Republican electors over Democratic ones. They said the U.S. Constitution gives Pence the “exclusive authority” to decide which Electoral College votes to count, and that a portion of the Electoral Count Act of 1877 is unconstitutional.

The suit centers around the joint session of Congress that’s held every four years to count electoral votes. Electors meet in each states under the Electoral College system after presidential elections and cast ballots for the candidate that won the most votes in their respective states.

In seven states this election, competing electors also cast ballots for President Donald Trump.

The Democrat-controlled House in its new filing says the vice president during counting sessions, per the 1877 Act, “opens the electors’ certificates, but does not count the votes.”

The court should reject the claim because the plaintiffs lack standing, the suit is not timely, and the constitutional challenges “have no merit.”

“And the public interest and equities cut strongly against a first-of-its-kind injunction that would rewrite longstanding procedural rules for Congressional vote counting and create confusion just days before the required Joint Session,” it added.

Epoch Times Photo
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, left, and President Donald Trump in file photographs. (AP Photo; Getty Images)

In a statement accompanying the brief, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said: “The Gohmert lawsuit has zero legal merit and is yet another sabotage of our democracy. There is no doubt that, despite this desperate unpatriotic charade, on January 6, [Democrat presidential candidate] Joe Biden will be confirmed by the acceptance of the vote of the Electoral College as the 46th President of the United States.”

Pence, a House member before becoming Trump’s vice president, agreed with the House. He also asked U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump appointee, to reject the suit.

“A suit to establish that the Vice President has discretion over the count, filed against the Vice President, is a walking legal contradiction,” an attorney representing Pence argued in a separate filing.

The lawsuit could have a major impact on the election, which remains contested just five days before the joint session. A constitutional expert told The Epoch Times this week that a less-covered aspect of the case, which seeks a court determination on how Congress should vote when Republicans object to slates of electors from six states where Trump has challenged the state-certified election results, could be a “big game-changer.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that he will challenge electoral votes during the congressional session. A quickly-rising number of representatives are also planning to file objections.

Theoretically, objections could lead to the nullification of some state’s electoral votes, but the likelihood of challenges being upheld is considered unlikely because that would require a majority vote in each chamber. Democrats control the House and GOP Senate leadership has repeatedly criticized plans to file the objections.

In the case neither candidate reaches 270 electoral votes during the session, a secondary system would be triggered, wherein the House decides the next president by voting by state. In that scenario, Republicans hold a slight edge.

Biden’s team said this week the electoral counting is “merely a formality” and said Biden is already the president-elect.

Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

 

Arizona Flipped for Trump

Arizona Flipped for Trump 

Ruling in Gohmert Lawsuit Could ‘Be Big Game-Changer’ for Vote Count on Jan. 6, Expert Says

December 31, 2020 Updated: December 31, 2020

A federal judge’s decision in the lawsuit filed against Vice President Mike Pence by a fellow Republican could substantially alter how the events unfold when Congress convenes for a joint session on Jan. 6 to count the Electoral College votes, according to Constitutional expert Rick Green.

While the main thrust of the lawsuit filed by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) is to clarify how much authority Pence will have over the counting of the electoral votes, the case also seeks a court determination on how Congress should vote when Republicans object to slates of electors from six states where President Donald Trump has challenged the state-certified election results.

The lawsuit specifically challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Electoral Count Act which directs how Congress should vote on objections to slates of electors. The lawsuit argues that the Act overrides the Constitution’s Twelfth Amendment, which directs the House to vote by state delegations rather than via individual members.

“Most people realize that if nobody gets to 270, or nobody gets to whatever the definition of a majority of the electors chosen turns out to be, then it goes to the House, but the House votes by state,” Green, the founder of Patriot Academy, told The Epoch Times.

“Louie Gohmert raises the issue in this lawsuit to say, if that’s the only direction given by the Constitution on how the House would vote in any of these scenarios, then they have to vote that way on the question of rejecting or accepting electors as well. And that’s a big game-changer.”

Republicans hold the majority of state delegations in the House, which would mean they would have the majority in the House and Senate required to decide which slates of electors should be counted.

“Most people say, well, you know, the Democrat House is not going to reject the Pennsylvania Democrat electors. But if the House has to vote by state, absolutely, yes, they would reject those electors,” Green added.

“So even if the court only decides that one technical issue in the Gohmert suit and they ignore all of the other issues, that could absolutely change the outcome of what happens on January 6.”

Republican electors in seven states cast procedural Electoral College votes for Trump on Dec. 14. While only the Democrat electors’ votes in those states have been certified by state authorities, both slates will end up before Congress when the joint session starts at 1 p.m. on Jan. 6.

Trump and a handful of third parties are litigating election challenges in each state, including several that are pending before the Supreme Court.

At least 25 Republicans plan on challenging electoral votes during the joint session, according to a tally by The Epoch Times.

Twenty-four representatives and representatives-elect, who will enter office several days before the session, plan on filing objections. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is the only member or member-elect of the upper chamber to commit to an objection.

“You’ve got 74 million Americans who feel disenfranchised, who feel like their vote doesn’t matter. And this is the one opportunity that I have as a United States senator, this process right here, my one opportunity to stand up and say something, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do,” Hawley said on Wednesday.

Objections are filed in writing and must have support from at least one member of each chamber. If they do, they trigger a two-hour debate and a vote by the House of Representatives and the Senate. How that vote is to be conducted could be decided by the judge in the Gohmert case.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this report.

Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov
Follow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek

Juan O Savin What’s in Play! NESARA Coming

Juan O Savin  What’s in Play 

2021 will begin the revealing that many will not believe ever existed and will have a difficult time understanding. Corruption, greed and satanic groups will be exposed at the highest levels. The political system as we know it will change by the people for the people called the National / Global Economic Security & Reformation Act (NESARA).

It will help the people by zeroing out all credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt due to illegal banking and government activities. Income tax will be abolished along with the IRS. IRS employees will be transferred into the US Treasury national sales tax. A flat rate non-essential tax of 14% to 17% will be created for revenue for the government. Constitutional Law will return to all courts and legal matters and retrains all judges and attorneys on constitutional law. We are witnessing the implementation of Constitutional Law through the Presidential Election process.

After NESARA announcement, new Presidential and Congressional elections will be established within 120 days while the interim government will cancel all national emergencies and return us back to constitutional law. Elections will be monitored and will prevent illegal election activities of special interest groups. The Federal Reserve System will be eliminated. During the transition period the Federal Reserve will be allowed to operate side by side of the U.S. treasury for one year in order to remove all Federal Reserve notes from the money supply.

There will be release of over 6,000 patents of suppressed technologies that are being withheld from the public under the guise of national security, including free energy devices, antigravity, and sonic healing machines.

All aggressive action by the U.S. government military worldwide will cease and peace will be established throughout the world. There will be releases of enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes.

Pray for our PresidenT, his Family and the Patriots…..God Wins

We Are Watching the Corruption in Congress

We are Watching

Georgia Senate Panel Requests Forensic Audit of Fulton County Absentee Ballots

December 30, 2020 Updated: December 30, 2020

Georgia Senate’s Election Law Study Subcommittee unanimously passed a motion during a Dec. 30 hearing to request an audit of absentee ballots in Fulton County.

The senators are asking the state’s largest county to make the ballots “available for inspection” through a method outlined during the hearing by digital ID systems inventor Jovan Pulitzer.

Pulitzer suggested all absentee ballots in the state of Georgia be forensically examined and fraudulent ones identified in just a matter of hours. He called on state officials to allow the examination.

Officials in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment on the subcommittee motion.

“Fulton County did not participate in today’s hearing,” county spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez said in an email to The Epoch Times. “We will continue to collaborate with the Secretary of State and General Assembly as we execute elections in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws.”

Georgia is one of the states where election results are being contested by the campaign of President Donald Trump and others. The current count in the state shows former Vice President Joe Biden ahead by some 12,000 votes.

The state has conducted manual and machine recounts, and an absentee ballot signature match audit in one county. These uncovered some issues and irregularities, but not enough to flip the results.

The brunt of the fraud allegations has been aimed at the heavily Democratic Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.

One of the county’s polling managers previously told state lawmakers that she opened a box of mail-in ballots with a batch of 110 that were “pristine” and not folded, indicating that they were never put in secrecy envelopes, as is required.

Pulitzer said that he and his team can detect if that’s the case.

Security camera footage from election night shows that in Fulton County, what appears to be tens of thousands of ballots were counted in the absence of party or state monitors. The video seems to show that election workers scanned the same batches of ballots repeatedly. This could be a legitimate action when there’s a scanning error in the batch, such as when the ballots get jammed in the scanner.

In that scenario, the workers are supposed to discard the whole batch of scans and scan the ballots again, but the video quality makes it hard to discern if that was the case in each instance.

Pulitzer said that he and his team could detect if that was the case as well.

“We would be able to tell if they were folded, if they were counterfeit, whether they were filled out by a human hand, whether they were printed by a machine, whether they were batch-fed continually over and over, we can detect every bit of that,” he testified.

The ballot paper itself, when scanned, becomes a piece of code, he explained. Every time the paper is physically handled, such as folded or written upon, the code would change and the change can be detected.

The examination he proposed can be done expediently, he said.

“All of these problems that you’ve heard today can be corrected and detected now by the simplest of things. It takes you days or weeks to recount votes. Give me these 500,000 ballots, we’ll have them done in two hours,” he said, apparently referring to the 528,777 ballots cast in Fulton.

About 5 million ballots were cast statewide.

Pulitzer criticized state authorities for refusing to allow a full-scale forensic audit.

“This is the historical artifact of a voter. And states are telling voters, ‘You have no right to that,’” he said.

“The very voter that pays your salary, that paid for that ballot, that paid for that piece of paper, and paid for the machine that you’re running it in. And so those people that pay your salary, that you work for, and do this for, you’re telling them, ‘You can’t look at them.’

“That is both unacceptable and un-American.”

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Trump Files Suit Against Wisconsin Elections Commission in US Supreme Court

December 31, 2020 Updated: December 31, 2020

President Donald Trump on Wednesday filed an election-related appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the high court to declare the Wisconsin election unconstitutional and order the legislature to appoint a different slate of electors who would cast their votes for Trump.

Citing “multiple violations of law,” the lawsuit (pdf) asks the Supreme Court to void the Wisconsin election and order the state legislature to nominate electors in line with Article II, Sec 1.2 of the U.S. Constitution. Trump lost the battleground state to Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden by about 21,000 votes, according to official records.

The complaint alleges that, during the 2020 presidential election, “the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) and local election officials implemented unauthorized, illegal absentee voting drop boxes, compelled illegal corrections to absentee ballot witness certificates by poll workers, and encouraged widespread voter misuse of ‘indefinitely confined’ status to avoid voter ID laws, all in disregard of the Legislature’s explicit command to ‘carefully regulate’ the absentee voting process.” It also alleges that “tens of thousands of invalid absentee ballots” were received and counted in violation of Wisconsin election laws.

The allegations have been addressed in general terms by the Wisconsin Elections Commission in a series of statements on its website, including around the use of drop boxesballot curing, and “indefinitely confined” status.

“We understand that some voters still have questions about how the election was conducted and how the winners were determined,” said Meagan Wolfe, administrator of the WEC and Wisconsin’s chief election official, in a statement. “It’s our job to answer those questions with facts and to explain what procedures Wisconsin’s election officials use to follow state election laws,” she added.

An appeals court on Dec. 24 dismissed Trump’s contest-of-election lawsuit on the basis of an unreasonable delay in filing the suit, known as the doctrine of “laches,” and upheld an earlier district court ruling that found Trump’s initial lawsuit “lacked merit, as he objected only to the administration of the election.”

“On the merits, the district court was right to enter judgment for the defendants,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in its ruling (pdf). “We reach this conclusion in no small part because of the President’s delay in bringing the challenges to Wisconsin law that provide the foundation for the alleged constitutional violation. Even apart from the delay, the claims fail under the Electors Clause,” the appeals court added.

However, the court also concluded that Trump’s complaint “presents a federal question, despite its anchoring in alleged violations of state law,” paving the way for the case to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration.

“The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals specifically held that if the Trump Campaign proved its case, it could void the election as ‘failed,’ and order decertification of the Biden electors, requiring the Wisconsin legislature to appoint electors,” the Trump campaign said in a statement.

“In Wisconsin, guardrails against fraud were repeatedly lowered by unelected bureaucrats who changed the rules on the eve of the election without authority to do so,” Bill Bock, a Trump attorney, said in a statement.

Bock said the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is asking for the high court “to find these last-minute changes unconstitutional and conclude that they make it impossible to determine which candidate received the most valid votes.”

“Nothing is more important to our national fabric and our future than integrity in our electoral process. This lawsuit is one step in the direction of fairer, more transparent, more professional, and ultimately more reliable elections in America,” Bock said.

Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

Jan 6th Comes into Focus

Jan 6th Comes into Focus 

Trump Says China ‘Biggest Winner’ of US National Defense Bill, Vows to Veto

December 13, 2020 Updated: December 13, 2020

President Donald Trump said that he will veto the defense bill that passed with bipartisan support in Congress last week.

“THE BIGGEST WINNER OF OUR NEW DEFENSE BILL IS CHINA!. I WILL VETO!” the president declared on Twitter on Dec. 13.

The Senate on Dec. 11 passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in an 84–13 vote, after the president said he would veto the measure. The House had earlier approved the bill by a 335–78 vote.

“I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will VETO,” the president wrote on Dec. 8. “Must include a termination of Section 230 (for National Security purposes), preserve our National Monuments, & allow for 5G & troop reductions in foreign lands!”

For months, the president has railed against Section 230, a federal law that provides blanket liability protections for social media and tech companies. Trump and Republicans have said the bill allows those companies to essentially make discretionary choices about what content should be allowed, adding that the companies have unfairly targeted conservatives.

The NDAA bill also doesn’t support Trump’s efforts to draw down troops in Afghanistan and Germany.

“Today, we passed the 60th annual National Defense Authorization Act,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said in a statement on Dec. 11 following its passage. “NDAA keeps America safe by giving troops a well-deserved raise, providing them with cutting-edge technology, [and] funding important defense projects.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) said, “This legislation is a vital step in the process of funding America’s defense to provide protection for our country and care for our troops.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill will “keep our forces ready to deter China and stand strong in the Indo-Pacific,” and provides “more than $740 billion for the training, tools, and cutting-edge equipment that our service members and civilian employees need to defend American lives and American interests.”

One of those who voted against the measure, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), said he doesn’t support a bill that limits Trump’s actions in drawing down troops from Germany and Afghanistan.

Should Trump veto the bill, some lawmakers said they believe they will be able to override it.

“I think we can override the veto, if in fact he vetoes,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Dec. 8. “I hope he does not veto, I hope he reconsiders. And I think he will get substantial pressure, advice (from Republicans) that, you know, you don’t want to put the defense bill at risk.”

House Votes to Override Trump’s Veto of 2021 Defense Policy Bill

December 28, 2020 Updated: December 28, 2020

The House voted late Monday to override President Donald Trump’s veto of a defense spending bill for 2021.

The override measure, passed by a 322-87 vote, is now headed to the Senate for consideration, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has indicated that his chamber would vote on Tuesday to override Trump’s veto. The override would need a two-thirds majority to succeed.

“In the event that the president has vetoed the bill, and the House has voted to override the veto, the Senate would have the opportunity to process a veto override at that time,” McConnell previously said on Dec. 22.

The bill, the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), outlines the national security policy for the Department of Defense in 2021 and authorizes $740 billion in spending. It passed the House on Dec. 8 by a vote of 335–78, and later passed the Senate on Dec. 11 by a vote of 84–13.

Trump vetoed the bill on Dec. 23, saying that it fails to remove Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act, among other reasons. Section 230 provides blanket liability protections for social media and tech companies.

“Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions,” the president said in a Dec. 23 statement. “It is a ‘gift’ to China and Russia.”

There’s no mention in the NDAA defense bill of Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act, he noted. Trump said the 1996 law “must be repealed,” as it facilitates “the spread of foreign disinformation online,” making it a “serious threat to our national security and election integrity.”

Both Republicans and Democrats have called for Section 230 to be repealed. Conservatives have said it enables social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook to make discretionary choices in censoring dissenting views, while some progressives have said the law fails to take “hate speech” posted on those platforms into account.

Trump, in his statement, noted that the NDAA doesn’t support his ability to “withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea.”

“Not only is this bad policy, but it is unconstitutional. Article II of the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and vests in him the executive power. Therefore, the decision regarding how many troops to deploy and where, including in Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea, rests with him. The Congress may not arrogate this authority to itself directly or indirectly as purported spending restrictions.”

The House late on Monday also voted to increase COVID-19 relief direct payments from $600 to $2,000, a measure supported by the president.

Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

Follow Mimi on Twitter: @MimiNguyenLy

We have to Fight for Freedom

 

We have to fight for freedom 

See the source image

Flynn: Foreign Intelligence Agencies Were Monitoring US Election, Willing to Provide Information to Trump

December 20, 2020 Updated: December 20, 2020

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn said he was provided information that foreign intelligence agencies were monitoring the U.S. election on Nov. 3 and are willing to provide evidence to President Donald Trump.      See the source image

“We have evidence now of foreign countries … were watching the attacks on our election system, our election process, on the 3rd of November,” Flynn told Fox Business on Friday. “So we now have that evidence and we received that today,” he said.

He didn’t elaborate on what foreign intelligence agencies were involved, how he obtained that information, or the nature of the alleged attacks on the election system.

But the foreign governments “are willing to provide that directly to the president,” Flynn remarked. “There are foreign partners and allies that are willing to help us,” he said.

The Epoch Times reached out to Flynn, the White House, and the Trump campaign for comment.

Flynn had been making reference to the SolarWinds cyberattack that impacted a considerable portion of federal government agencies. It is not clear if Flynn’s previous remarks about foreign countries monitoring the Nov. 3 election was linked to the SolarWinds hack.

“I would say is SolarWinds is an entry point into the rest of our entire U.S. critical infrastructure,” Flynn added. “So everything that touches the United States government, if you enter through this SolarWinds attack that we perceive you basically have keys to the vault.”

Earlier in the week, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cybersecurity agency warned that the hack presents a risk to the Federal Government and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments as well as critical infrastructure entities” as well as the private sector.”

These hackers compromised agencies, critical infrastructure programs, and private sector organizations starting in March 2020 or possibly before that, according to the agency.

“You’re able to rummage around and do [expletive] near anything. So it’s a very, very serious attack … We’ve known about it for about six months as I understand it,” Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, added to Fox’s Lou Dobbs. “So when we talk about our election security, Lou, I think this is all part of it because there’s a relationship between these SolarWinds attacks which has basically penetrated our entire infrastructure as well as our election securities.”

Flynn noted that there is “evidence of foreign influence in the election and this too,” adding that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), North Korea, Iran, and Russia are involved.

But Flynn said that “we are in an information war,” the main perpetrator “is China,” and the CCP are “masters at it.”

“We’re in a very, very dangerous period right now for our country,” he said.

See the source image

 

Georgia Senators: Coordinated Illegal Actions Appear to Have Taken Place During Election

December 21, 2020 Updated: December 21, 2020

A recently released report from Georgia senators studying the Nov. 3 election found evidence of illegal activity carried out by workers at State Farm Arena.

“The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of the presidential election and the senatorial contests,” the report from the state Senate’s Election Law Study Subcommittee reads.

“Furthermore, there appears to be coordinated illegal activities by election workers themselves who purposely placed fraudulent ballots into the final election totals.”

Workers counted mail-in ballots at the arena. According to surveillance footage and witness testimony from Election Day, workers stopped counting ballots around 10:30 p.m. but resumed after observers and media left.

A spokesman for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger didn’t respond to a request for comment. Gabriel Sterling, an official who works out of the office, has acknowledged there was an 82-minute period that night when no monitor was present, but the office blamed media and observers for leaving after the announcement that counting was stopping for the night.

The Georgia Election Law Study Subcommittee is part of the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Subcommittee Chairman William Ligon, a Republican, the report hasn’t been formally approved by either the subcommittee or the committee.

Requests for comment sent to the five members of the subcommittee weren’t immediately returned.

In the report, legislators note that scores of witnesses and experts testified about irregularities and fraud allegations during a public hearing earlier this month.

In summary, legislators wrote, the general election “was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy.”

Lawmakers heard evidence about proper chain of custody protocols being violated, about fraudulent ballots likely being introduced into the pool of ballots being counted, about pristine ballots whose origin looked suspicious, and about unsecured ballots.

“A great deal of testimony supported evidence of a coordinated effort to prevent a transparent process of observing the counting of ballots during the absentee ballot opening period and on election night. Witnesses testified to hostility to Republican poll workers during the recount—directional signage was unavailable, doors were locked, and Republican poll watchers were sent home early or given menial assignments,” the report states.

“Monitors throughout the state were often kept at an unreasonably long distance—some social distancing was understandable, but monitors were blocked from having the visual ability to see what was written on the ballots or to have any meaningful way to check the counting or to double-check that what was counted was actually assigned to the right candidate.”

Two of the poll observers who testified were later terminated by Fulton County. Raffensperger has called for them to be rehired; Fulton County hasn’t responded to requests for comment.

Among the recommendations outlined in the report are that unqualified voters should be purged from voter rolls; violations for state law should be be prosecuted; forensic audits of ballots and machines should be carried out; and the state legislature should consider moving to choose the slate of electors.

Ligon led a push to convene a special session of the legislature to consider taking back the power to appoint electors, but that effort didn’t garner the required support. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, can also call a special session, but has thus far refused to do so.

Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

The People Are Deciding

The People Are Deciding

 

The Cure will spread Worldwide

Flynn Says Trump Could Use ‘Military Capability’ to Re-Run Election in Battleground States

 

December 18, 2020 Updated: December 18, 2020

Retired general Michael Flynn said Thursday that President Donald Trump has options regarding the hotly contested presidential election, including seizing voting machines and using “military capabilities” to rerun the election in key battleground states.

Flynn, who is a supporter of Trump’s claims of election fraud, told Newsmax in an interview that while he doesn’t know if the president will pursue these options, he said Trump needs to “plan for every eventuality because we cannot allow this election and the integrity of our election to go the way it is.”

“He could immediately on his order seize every single one of these machines around the country on his order. He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. It’s not unprecedented,” Flynn told the outlet.

He also clarified his position around the imposition of martial law, saying he isn’t calling for it, noting that “we have a constitutional process … that has to be followed.”

At the same time, he expressed concern about the U.S. Supreme Court, presumably in the context of its refusal to hear a contest-of-election lawsuit brought by Texas, which the high court dismissed on grounds of lack of standing.

“I’m a little concerned about Chief Justice John Roberts at the Supreme Court,” Flynn said. “We can’t fool around with the fabric of the Constitution of the United States.”

Epoch Times Photo
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts arrives to the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington on Jan. 16, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Since Election Day, Trump and third-party groups have pursued legal challenges to the outcome of the election in the six battleground states. None of the efforts have so far borne fruit, including an interstate Supreme Court challenge brought by Texas and backed by 19 Republican attorneys general.

Flynn sparked controversy when he tweeted a press release from an Ohio-based conservative political organization called “We the People Convention,” which called for Trump to “invoke limited Martial law in order to allow the U.S. Military to oversee a new free and fair federal election if Legislators, Courts, and the Congress do not follow the Constitution.”

“Unfortunately, we are at the point where we can only trust our military to do this because our corrupt political class and courts have proven their inability to act fairly and within the law,” the group argued.

In remarks to Military Times, Bill Banks, a Syracuse University professor with expertise in constitutional and national security law, expressed his opposition to martial law under the current circumstances.

“Apart from the fact that state and now federal investigators have found no evidence of election fraud that would change the election outcome, martial law has no place in the United States absent a complete breakdown of civil governing mechanisms,” he told the outlet.

Yet evidence of irregularities in the 2020 election, including outright voter fraud, has been mounting. Peter Navarro, an adviser to Trump, on Thursday released a detailed report summarizing such allegations in six battleground states, concluding that they are serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to overturn the results.

“If these election irregularities are not fully investigated prior to Inauguration Day and thereby effectively allowed to stand, this nation runs the very real risk of never being able to have a fair presidential election again,” Navarro said in the report.

Epoch Times Photo
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro listens to a news conference about a presidential executive order relating to military veterans outside of the West Wing of the White House in Washington, on March 4, 2019. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

Flynn, in his remarks to Newsmax, said that while he’s not calling for martial law, he suggested it’s an option that should remain on the table.

“These people out there talking about martial law like it’s something we’ve never done,” Flynn said. “Martial law has been instituted 64 times. I’m not calling for that.”

“President Trump won on the 3rd of November,” Flynn said. “The things that he needs to do right now is he needs to appoint a special counsel immediately. He needs to seize all these Dominion and other voting machines we have across the country. He needs to go ahead and prioritize by state and probably by county… if he looks at probably a couple of random sampling of some of these counties, he’s going to find exactly the same problem,” he added.

A recent forensics report based on an examination of Dominion products in Antrim County, Michigan, concluded on Dec. 14 that the software was “intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results.”

Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, which conducted the audit, said in the report that Dominion’s system “intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors.”

“The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud,” he stated.

Dominion disputed the findings on Dec. 15, writing that there were “no software ‘glitches’ that ‘switched’ votes in Antrim County or anywhere else,” adding that the errors in Antrim County were “isolated human errors not involving Dominion,” referring to reports that the Dominion system flipped thousands of Trump votes to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden on Election Day.

House Administration Committee Holds Hearing On 2020 Election Security
President and CEO of Election Systems & Software Tom Burt, President and CEO of Dominion Voting Systems John Poulos, President and CEO of Hart InterCivic Julie Mathis testify during a hearing before the House Administration Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Jan. 9, 2020. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The company’s CEO, John Poulos, told legislators in Michigan on Dec. 15 that all audits and recounts of Dominion’s technology used in the 2020 election have validated the accuracy and reliability of the election results, adding, “No one has produced credible evidence of vote fraud or vote switching on Dominion systems because these things have not occurred.”

On a Thursday call with reporters explaining his findings, Navarro said his top-line conclusion regarding allegations of voting irregularities, including ones relating to Dominion machines, is that “the emperor, in the election, has no clothes.”

Fielding questions about what, at this stage, can be done, given that numerous legal challenges brought by the Trump campaign have been dismissed and the Electoral College has already voted, giving Biden 306 electoral votes, Navarro said, “with every day that goes by, it becomes more complicated” and “options narrow.”

Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, in a recent interview with The Epoch Times, said there’s still time for state legislatures to convene in special sessions and authorize alternate slates of electors. This could pave the way for the joint session of Congress, when it convenes on Jan. 6 to count the electoral votes, to declare Trump president for a second term.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Flynn’s remarks.

Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM

CDC numbers reveal hospitals counted over 130K deaths from pneumonia, influenza heart attacks as Covid19

CDC numbers reveal hospitals counted over 130K deaths from pneumonia influenza, heart attacks as covid 19

From Epoch Times: Did you know that our documentary on the irregularities of the 2020 election. Who’s Stealing America? was produced in only 40 days? We  started investigating after allegations of voter fraud and irregularities began to emerge on the night of the election. And what we found alarmed us. We knew right away that the results of our research had implications for the outcome of the 2020 election.

Excellent video that Everyone should watch!!!!! Who’s Stealing America? 

One America News Network (oann.com)

I cannot keep doing this 

Ivermectin Highlighted for Early Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19

December 14, 2020 Updated: December 14, 2020

Doctors at a recent Senate hearing stressed the importance of more research and guidance on the early or preventative treatment of COVID-19 in the fight against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, even after the roll-out of vaccines.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, led by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), held a second hearing on early outpatient treatment for COVID-19 on Dec. 8 to “discuss early treatment options that attack the disease in the first stage by limiting viral replication” in hopes of preventing disease progression, hospitalizations, and death.

Dr. Armand Balboni, CEO of Appili Therapeutics Inc., said there is a need for options to combat the virus at various stages, particularly “at the moment of exposure or confirmed infection.”

Antiviral drugs that target the CCP virus, particularly ones that are safe and can be “easily manufactured and distributed globally,” can fill the role in treating COVID-19, the disease cause by the virus, outside of a hospital setting.

“These drugs are not intended to replace COVID-19 vaccines and other therapeutics for severely ill patients, but to cover aspects of disease management beyond the scope of vaccines and therapeutics for severe cases,” Balboni said.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guideline for people who test positive for the CCP virus is to quarantine and self-monitor symptoms. Treatments are provided when an individual requires hospitalization.

Epoch Times Photo
(L-R) Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) accompanied by the committee’s ranking member Sen. Tom Carper, (D-Del.) at Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 27, 2016. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Data shows that certain repurposed drugs can treat the early phase of COVID-19, so the scientific community and federal health agencies should be encouraging, instead of “discouraging, and in some cases prohibiting, the research and use of drugs that have been safely used for decades,” Johnson said.

“In fact, there has been a concerted effort to block doctors who actually treat COVID patients from compassionately using their ‘off label’ prescription rights for early treatment protocols,” he added.

An off-label prescription allows doctors to prescribe a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a condition other than its intended use “when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.” It is a common and legal practice in the medical community.

Scientists are finding that ivermectin—an oral drug that treats scabies, parasitic infections, river blindness, and rosacea in humans—is also effective in treating COVID-19. The drug is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.

Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, a pulmonologist in Florida, was one of the first doctors to use ivermectin to treat patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms early on in the pandemic. This “laid the foundation” for him and his co-authors to conduct a retrospective observational study that found a much lower mortality rate in hospitalized patients given ivermectin than those in a standard care group.

Rajter says that ivermectin was soon adopted as part of the hospital’s treatment protocol for COVID-19, and more than seven months later, “The success rate of the Ivermectin based protocol is now far superior to what it was in its early days.”

He says more randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the “preliminary findings” and address any safety concerns on the use of ivermectin. Yet, while his team “has multiple study protocols in place, ready to be implemented in short order,” funding and support for such a study has been difficult.

Dr. Kory Pierre, a pulmonologist at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center, says he and members of his organization at Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance have spent “almost nine months tirelessly reviewing the scientific literature to gain insight into this virus and the disease process and to develop effective treatment protocols” while treating COVID-19 patients.

They have developed a protocol called I-MASK+ to prevent and treat early symptoms of COVID-19 after extensive research on ivermectin.

“In the last 3-4 months, emerging publications provide conclusive data on the profound efficacy of the anti-parasite, anti-viral drug, anti-inflammatory agent called ivermectin in all stages of the disease,” Pierre said.

“Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost,” he added. “We now have data from over 20 well-designed clinical studies, 10 of them randomized, controlled trials, with every study consistently reporting large magnitude and statistically significant benefits in decreasing transmission rates, shortening recovery times, decreasing hospitalizations, or large reductions in deaths.”

In his closing statement, Pierre pleaded for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to look at his organization’s review of the available data on ivermectin that has not been peer-reviewed.

“All I ask is for the NIH to review our data that we’ve compiled of all of the emerging data … We have immense amounts of data to show that it must be implemented and implemented now.”

The NIH does not recommend the use of ivermectin except in a clinical trial.

The FDA says ivermectin “should be avoided” as its benefits and safety haven’t been established and that “testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be appropriate” for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Information about ivermectin hasn’t been updated since Aug. 27 on the NIH’s website, or since May 1 on the FDA’s website, although more clinical data have been published about the drug in preventing and treating COVID-19.

A lab technicians holds the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment drug "Remdesivir"-1
A lab technician holds the COVID-19 treatment drug “Remdesivir” at Eva Pharma Facility in Cairo, Egypt, on June 25, 2020. (Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters)

Remdesivir is the only FDA-approved drug for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients who require oxygen supplementation. Yet studies show no effect on mortality and only a small benefit on time of recovery (hospital discharge by about one to three days.)

The most recent study involving 1,033 hospitalized patients, found that a combination of remdesivir and baricitinib, an anti-inflammatory drug, allowed patients to recover a median of one day quicker than those in the control group consisting of remdesivir and a placebo.

Other COVID-19 treatments such as monoclonal antibodies and dexamethasone have been granted emergency use authorization by the FDA.

The monoclonal antibodies are prescribed for mild to moderate outpatient COVID-19 although there is “insufficient data from clinical trials to recommend either for or against the use,” while dexamethasone, the only repurposed drug, has been effective in treating severe COVID-19 symptoms.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, PhD, says the lack of funding for randomized trials on existing drugs for early intervention of COVID-19 is leaving some scientists and physicians to not prescribe certain drugs or other therapies despite their effectiveness.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, says this is where the NIH can play a role.

“In principle, the NIH exists to solve this market failure,” Bhattacharya says. “It could and should use its resources to help fund randomized evaluations of these drugs for off-label purposes.”

The NIH did not respond to a request for comment.

Attacked by Media

Johnson said that prior to the hearing, he and the physicians were attacked by media calling it “dangerous, and instead of waiting until after the hearing to trash this information and our witnesses, The New York Times and other publications have already run pre-emptive attacks, implying this hearing is anti-vaccine.”

Balboni, a life-long Democrat and a subscriber to The NY Times, says he almost didn’t participate in the hearing. “I have to say, I was quite dismayed this morning and almost didn’t participate when I saw the news that I was participating as a fringe member of an anti-vaccine group,” Balboni says. “That couldn’t be further from the truth.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich) the only Democrat present at the hearing, in his opening statement before walking out, accused the committee of being “used as a platform to attack science and promote discredited treatments.”

“Sadly, it appears that today’s hearing will follow the same path, playing politics with public health, and will not give us the information we need to tackle this crisis,” Peters said. “The panelists have been selected for their political, not their medical, views.”

The other Democrat members refused to attend the hearing. Five Republicans also didn’t attend.

Johnson said he doesn’t understand the “concerted effort to silence the voices” of health professionals promoting early treatments for COVID-19.