All About Smartmatic American Thinker published my article about Smartmatic voting systems in Venezuela on Sept. 5, 2017, titled How the Venezuelan Elections Were Rigged. The other day Andrea Widburg published an article citing the “irregularities” that were experienced in the Nov. 3, 2020 elections with Dominion Voting Systems that use Smartmatic software. What happened in Venezuela is highly relevant to what is happening here and now, so this is how it happened there: On July 30, 2017, President Nicolas Maduro conjured up a vote to replace the National Assembly (where 67% of the seats were held by opposition representatives) with a new Constituent Assembly whose representatives would be handpicked by Maduro. The fix was in prior to the vote. The president and co-founder of Smartmatic, Antonio Mugica, told the press from his office in London three years ago that his company noticed irregularities in voting during Venezuelan national elections three years ago, amounting to about one million ballots cast over the number of actual voters. (The Wall Street Journal reported how that played out on the ground, here). Of course, this message was not released until the Smartmatic people left Venezuela. Why would Mugica stir this up? Well, most likely, it was because he had not been paid. He had vast contracts with the Venezuelan government, and Maduro wasn't paying his bills. The press noise died down shortly thereafter since he was finally paid by Maduro. Mugica’s associate co-founder of Smartmatic, Alfredo Anzola, is worthy of mention, too. Anzola was a passionate supporter of then-President Hugo Chavez. When Chavez faced his first recall referendum vote in 2003, Chavez needed to act quickly to ensure his Bolivarian revolution would continue. First, Chavez stalled through his reconfigured Supreme Court (think court-packing comments if Democrats gain control) stating that signatures collected for the recall vote were invalid. As Chavez continued his electoral kabuki dance, he engaged a company, SBC, to devise computerized voting systems to be used in national elections for the first time. SBC was comprised of Smartmatic, a Venezuelan-owned computer company based in Boca Raton, Florida and Sunnyvale, California; Bizta, a Venezuelan company of seven people, based in Caracas; and CANTV, the Chavez government's partially owned telecommunications company, with 28% stake. The August 2004 recall referendum, held a year late, resulted in a startling victory for Chavez, garnering 58% of the vote to have him stay, versus exit polling from Penn, Schoen & Berland which showed the exact opposite. Oddly enough, the computerized voting systems sold and managed by Smartmatic were “bidirectionally networked” to communicate with CANTV (the government-controlled telecommunications company and partner of Smartmatic). Basic Boolean algebra was that a “1” became a “0” and vice versa at the central server. Local printers showed people how they had actually voted. Yet there was no collusion, according to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who witnessed the voting on behalf of the U.S.-appointed observer, the Carter Center, and then stated that there were less than 0.1% irregularities. Carter "applauded" (his own words) Venezuela's use of electronic voting but in recent years has tried to walk them back. In early 2008, Alfredo Anzola was getting a new contract with the CNE (National Electoral Council) from his paramour’s brother, then-CNE President Jorge Rodriguez. In April 2008, he complained openly about irregularities in his contracted scope of work including software changes. Shortly after, Anzola was involved in a small plane crash in Catia La Mar. He was rushed to a hospital where the Rodriguez’s and Chavez buddy, Diosdado Cabello (considered the most powerful man in Venezuela, after Chavez), looked over him while he died. Cabello presided over the National Assembly with Chavez’s initial constitutional change. He has since been credibly accused by the U.S. Treasury of international drug trafficking as kingpin of the "Sun Cartel." As an aside, do you remember the health director who approved the release of President Obama’s birth certificate who died in a plane crash in December 2013? Loretta Fuddy died after the Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft she was travelling on went down shortly after leaving Kalaupapa Airport (Molokai) at around 3:15 p.m. local time (10:15 a.m. ET) on Dec. 11, 2013. The other eight people on board were rescued, according to Richard Schuman, president of Makani Kai Air, adding that that there was no indication as to why the plane had crashed. My interest in Venezuela is obvious once one knows that my wife was born in Venezuela. One of her many Venezuelan friends who lives in San Diego, California, is thankful that her family was rescued from that hellhole. Her friend's husband went to university with another Venezuelan who has been in the news lately, a former Smartmatic employee. Both studied computer science. Heider Garcia was hired in Texas as the Tarrant County Elections Administrator in 2018. In 2019, Tarrant County got new computerized voting machines. And with Garcia at the helm, Tarrant County, for the first time since 1964, voted “blue.” Garcia worked for Smartmatic for 12 years. See the Gateway Pundit article about Garcia here Texas County Goes Blue for the First Time Since 1964 After Hiring former Executive with Smartmatic as Elections Administrator. It sickens me to my soul to see the outright dishonesty, deceit, whatever you want to call it by the lamestream media, Big Tech and Democrats in general regarding fraud perpetrated in this election. I used to believe in the rule of law. About the only things I believe Joe Biden to have said that are true are these statements: “We’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our administration…President Obama’s administration before this. We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,” October 2020. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine if Special Prosecutor Viktor Shokin who was investigating Burisma’s shady dealings, was fired. Hunter Biden, with zero experience in Burisma’s main work, energy development, or in Ukraine for that matter, was on their Board receiving upwards of $83,000 per month. “…and son of a B, they did it…”
thumb_up5thumb_downchat_bubble

More from entryreqrd

Vaccines Have Arrived -- Along With More Answers, More Questions America’s Christmas present is not one but two vaccines for COVID. Operation Warp Speed lived up to its name despite assurances from the media and political smart set that a vaccine would never be available this year. President Trump promised a vaccine this year but last April, Dr Anthony Fauci, “Poured cold water on Trump's estimate, saying it would be more like a year to a year and a half.” For once the medical and government bureaucracies moved like a hare rather than a tortoise. After all, it took the Department of Justice 32 years to indict the Lockerbie bombmaker. Given that the median age in the U.S. is 38 years, barely half of Americans were alive at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. Fortunately, the vaccine makers and FDA took closer to 32 weeks rather than 32 years to get something done. Under the Christmas tree are two vaccines, one from Pfizer and one from Moderna. Both are novel vaccines in that they take an entirely new approach to generating immunity. From the CDC, mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies. It’s ironic that many who would not dare eat a genetically modified apple or tomato are happy to be injected with a vaccine that genetically modifies the person injected. Genetically modified crops significantly expand the food supply. Such vaccines may act similarly with these benefits, Future mRNA vaccine technology may allow for one vaccine to provide protection for multiple diseases, thus decreasing the number of shots needed for protection against common vaccine-preventable diseases. Beyond vaccines, cancer research has used mRNA to trigger the immune system to target specific cancer cells. Which vaccine is better? Or are they much the same, like two different brands of shampoo or toothpaste? YouTube screen grab The good news is that they are both similar in terms of safety and effectiveness. Both were studied in large prospective, randomized clinical trials, and both reduced the risk of developing COVID symptoms and potentially hospitalization or worse. Differences are based on the study population as it is impossible for each trial to have an identical group of 30 to 40 thousand participants. Each study population may vary in terms of age and demographics, but that is the nature of clinical trials. Each vaccine requires two doses, Pfizer 21 days apart compared to Moderna at 28 days. It’s not advised to mix vaccines, getting a first dose of one and a second dose of the other, although that hasn’t been actually studied. For those fretting over which vaccine, if any, to receive, take what is available. It is unlikely one will be given a choice. The Pfizer vaccine requires colder storage, meaning it will be distributed through large hospitals that have appropriate freezers, unlike the Moderna vaccine which can be stored in less frigid conditions. The Pfizer vaccine must be stored at minus 70 Celsius, colder than winter in Antarctica while the Moderna vaccine does just fine in a regular freezer. Both can trigger side effects, just like the flu shot. A sore arm is common after any vaccination. Systemic symptoms such as fatigue, chill, and aches and pains are also common, and not unexpected as the body is mounting an immune response, which is the desired result. Allergic reactions are rare, but one can be allergic to most anything, sometimes severely as in peanuts or bee stings. Neurologic effects such as Bell’s palsy are uncommon but can be caused by the virus as well. A risk-free vaccine doesn’t exist. Neither does a risk-free car ride or a walk across the street. What if someone already had COVID? Should they be vaccinated? The Operation Warp Speed chief says yes as an infection may or may not produce an adequate and long-lasting immune response. Again, this varies between someone mildly ill and one who needed ICU care, but there does not appear to be harm for post COVID patients receiving the vaccine. Do either of the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID or simply reduce symptoms in the person vaccinated? Early data suggest the Moderna vaccine might halt actual infection, but it’s unknown by how much. Pfizer has not released any data yet. This bit is crucial as it is the crux of masks, distancing, and lockdowns. If asymptomatic transmission does not occur, then we would treat COVID like any other viral infection. If you have symptoms, stay home until better and take precautions to avoid spreading the virus. It turns out that asymptomatic spread might be a myth. A huge study of 10 million people in Wuhan, the original COVID hot zone, found not rare, but no asymptomatic spread. Zero, zip, nada. Published last month, this article was ignored by the media. “Follow the science” didn’t apply to this science as it would have ended lockdowns, masks, distancing, and all the socio-economic chaos of the past year. Based on this study, the issue of whether vaccines stop asymptomatic spread becomes moot. This study should be celebrated, not buried just because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the past year. The bottom line is that both vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of the recipient becoming ill. It does not matter which vaccine, and it is not likely anyone will be given a choice. The final decision to receive or not receive the vaccine is a personal one, weighing the risks versus benefits. We do this every day, when we decide to ride a bicycle or drive to the grocery store. If vaccinated, how will you know the vaccine worked? How do you know you would not have gotten sick if you didn’t take the vaccine? You will and can not know that. Such is the nature of preventative measures. You can take aspirin for years to prevent heart attack or stroke, and if you don’t have one, was it the aspirin or just your good luck? Be ready for social justice warriors to get involved in determining vaccine allocation. Should communities of color be vaccinated first? Or are memories of Tuskegee strong enough that they don’t want to be first on line? Identity politics governs everything these days. Do your due diligence, weigh risk and benefits, consult with your doctor, and make your best decision on the vaccine. These vaccines are a remarkable achievement in a short period of time. It’s unlikely anyone but a businessman in the White House could have achieved this. Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and freelance writer for American Thinker, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Parler, and QuodVerum.
56 views · Dec 25th, 2020
Why Democrats Should Read the Navarro Report Americans increasingly live in two parallel universes, and this is a shame. One side takes it as Gospel that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won an overwhelming victory on November 3 and will take the oath of office on January 20. Another half of the population – according to a recent Rasmussen poll – believes that Donald Trump won the highest number of votes in history for the re-election of a sitting president and was cheated out of victory by overwhelming and widespread election shenanigans. An earlier poll found that even 30% of Democrats said it was likely or somewhat likely that the election was “stolen from Trump.” As former U.S. Senate Patrick Moynihan used to say before the era of Big Tech, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. The report White House advisor Peter Navarro recently compiled as a private citizen should be required reading for Democrats who insist there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud. The Big Tech bosses who plaster disclaimers over the president’s tweets should read it, too. Peter Navarro (YouTube screengrab - cropped) So should Never-Trumpers and members of Congress, who undoubtedly will be called to adjudicate between dueling slates of electors on January 6. Navarro looks at the six swing states whose results the Trump campaign has been contesting, and lays out a grid of election irregularities that swung all of those states to the Biden-Harris ticket in the days following the November 3rd election. “These six dimensions include outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, contestable process fouls, Equal Protection Clause violations, voting machine irregularities, and significant statistical anomalies,” he writes. He doesn’t engage in conspiracy theories, or impute malign intent or foreign domination of voting machine companies. While those may be true, it will take a criminal investigation that could last years to prove them. In the real world, you don’t often get to see the man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz of election fraud and voting machine manipulation. It’s only in fiction that the mastermind has a name, a face, and a plot that rivets you to your chair. But what thrills in fiction becomes horror in the real world. Half of the country is still reeling in shock as they watch the Democrat National Committee and their communications directorate in the national media continue to gaslight us. We can’t believe this is actually happening. We can’t believe that in the real world – not some thriller – our democracy can be stolen right in front of our eyes. For the nature of the evidence Navarro sets out – the evidence the Democrats and the media screams doesn’t exist – is glaringly obvious. As my father used to say, if it had been a bear it would have bitten you. For example, hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters cast ballots that were counted in all six of the swing states – enough right there to tip the results in Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada to Donald Trump, putting him at 267 electoral votes. Navarro explains precisely what he means by “ineligible” voters. “Ineligible voters include felons deemed ineligible, underage citizens, nonregistered voters, illegal aliens, illegal out-of-state voters, and voters illegally using a post office box as an address. “In a court filing by the Trump campaign legal team, lead counsel Ray Smith provided a list of more than 70,000 allegedly ineligible voters casting ballots in Georgia in the 2020 election. Also in Georgia, over 20,000 people appear to have filed a Notice of Changed Address form to the Georgia state government or had other indications of moving out of state. Yet, these clearly ineligible out- of-state voters appeared to have remained on the voter rolls and voted in the 2020 election.” This is election fraud at the retail level. Voting illegally, or voting twice, or in multiple states, is a felony. These allegations are easy to verify – but so far, no court has allowed the Trump team to provide the lists of voters Navarro cites. And states controlled by Democrats have systematically refused any outside examination of their voter rolls and screamed “voter suppression” whenever groups such as Judicial Watch have forced them to hand over the evidence in the courts. Then you have the cemetery vote – at least 8,000 of them in Pennsylvania, and probably more in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit – and “ghost” voters who were added to the voter rolls on Election Day by poll workers. In Michigan, for example, thousands of people who showed up without ID were assigned birth dates in 1900 and allowed to vote. This is fraud organized and carried out by others. In addition, Navarro describes multiple cases of wholesale fraud, especially in Wisconsin and Michigan, where election workers were caught on camera or by multiple eyewitnesses who submitted sworn affidavits running batches of ballots repeatedly through tabulating machines. “Evidence of these particular kinds of “ballot stuffing” are present across all six battleground states,” Navarro notes. Ballot mishandling was a “multifaceted problem across the battleground states,” he adds. It included poll-workers instructed not to check voter ID in states requiring ID at the polls, a failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots to those in the poll books, ballots accepted without postmarks, ballots arriving at counting stations in already opened envelopes, and large numbers of ballots – in some cases, truckloads – circulating without apparent supervision. But again: no court has allowed the Trump legal team to present this evidence. I’m not sure which type of fraud is the more shocking: the brazen willingness of hundreds of thousands of individuals to break the law, the utter contempt of election officials who stuffed the ballot boxes and instructed co-workers how to steal votes with no fear of getting caught, or the Democrat party operatives who organized illegal ballot boxes, such as the “Democracy in the Park” events in Wisconsin. Finally, zoom out and place the documented examples of retail and wholesale election irregularities in the statistical context of 2020 versus earlier elections. The failure to check ballot signatures alone would have turned the tide of this election, Navarro argues. “For example, in Nevada, the overall [signature] rejection rate dropped from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0% dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%. The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8% in 2016 to a mere 0.34% in 2020.” In 2016, the overall voter turnout rate nationwide was 59.2% of the voting eligible population, according to Michael P. McDonald of the non-partisan United States Elections Project. But in 2020, the national turnout rate skyrocketed to 66.7%, while the U.S. population grew by less than 2.8%. Navarro points to sworn testimony from former NASA and MIT data analyst Russ Ramsland, showing that 46 of 47 precincts in Wayne County, Michigan “displayed greater than a 96% voter turnout [while] 25 of those precincts showed a 100% voter turnout.” Similar apparent overvoting occurred in Milwaukee and other key Democrat strongholds. “This was theft by a thousand cuts across six dimensions and six battleground states rather than any one single “silver bullet” election irregularity,” Navarro concludes. Or as the lead hacker in my fictional account, The Election Heist, explained, the Democrats had planned “a hail of silver bullets. A Gatling gun of silver bullets. A nuclear war of silver bullets.” But, of course, it never happened. It was just a bad dream and we’re about to wake up. Right? Nationally recognized investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman’s latest book, The Election Heist, is a fiction. It was published by Post Hill Press in August 2020.
65 views · Dec 25th, 2020
Destination: Socialism In a recent article, I stated that the U.S. lacks an influential right-wing party, and our two major parties — Democrats and Republicans — are left and center-left, respectively. That is, the perceived rightness of the GOP makes sense only relative to the Democratic party. It is refuted if one considers the actual policy carried out by Republicans for the last one hundred years. First of all, it is necessary to clarify what we understand by the left-right political spectrum. A political spectrum is a system of qualitative comparisons of different political philosophies. There are plenty of approaches in compiling the political spectrum based on various factors, dimensions, axes, and cardinal points. Most often, political spectrograms differ significantly from each other, and it seems that each of them describes an entirely different reality. Recent developments in the analysis of political philosophies, based on a multi-disciplinary approach utilizing set theory and mathematical logic in a framework of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), started to remove the ambiguity in understanding a political spectrum. The study identifies three main factors that influence the political spectrum polarization: attitude to private property, degree of individual freedom, and the scale of wealth redistribution. The political doctrine is left-wing if it assaults private property rights OR subjugates the individual to the collective OR imposes compulsory and scaled-wealth redistribution. The "OR" operand means that these factors can be employed individually or in concert and can be considered unique paths to socialism. Thus, Bolsheviks utilized all three ways to build communism, and Italian Fascists and German Nazis used coercive collectivization of consciousness and generous wealth redistribution as the main paths to socialism. In contrast, evolutionary socialists funnel the effort to implement a massive wealth redistribution along with the gradual indoctrination of the population. Evolutionary socialism is the type of socialist movement that has become most prevalent in the United States. This means that its signs must be sought in policies regarding compulsory wealth redistribution. As a proxy for wealth redistribution, we can consider the indicator of welfare spending. What is the position of the GOP on the issue of wealth redistribution? The GOP platform does not explicitly address it. Instead, there are vague statements about simplifying the tax code and boosting economic growth, along with promises not to divide the American people into winners and losers. This silence is alarming because the Republicans either don't understand the implications of compulsory wealth redistribution or tacitly agree with the Democrats' agenda. Figure 1 shows that spending on welfare has gradually increased since 1900 and now continues to rise regardless of which party is in power. This graph represents the trajectory of the advance of socialist traits in American society. The most surprising thing is to see a sharp decline in welfare spending during Obama's second term after a sharp rise during the recession. Fig. 1. Total welfare spending. Data were taken from usgovermentspending.com. From year to year, the country became more affluent, so it would be correct to look at the change in welfare spending as a percentage of the GDP. The graph in Figure 2 shows that despite the fluctuations, the general trend is still increasing. But the fluctuations are also interesting in themselves. It is theoretically assumed that a right-wing president would prevent the growth of wealth redistribution, but practice shows that this is far from the case. The largest spikes in welfare spending occurred during Republican presidencies: Hoover (1929–1933), Nixon (1969–1974), Ford (1974–1977), Bush Sr. (1989–1993), and Bush Jr. (2001–2009). Under Reagan and Trump, spending declined. Among the Democrats, Roosevelt (1933–1945), Truman (1945–1953), and Kennedy (1961–1963) were the champions of welfare spending. During Clinton's term, welfare spending continually decreased. It is impossible not to consider in whose hands the Senate and Congress were, and other historical and economic circumstances, but nevertheless, all Republicans, except for Reagan and Trump, not only did not put a halt to welfare spending, but increased it significantly. Fig. 2. Welfare Spending through Presidency. Data were taken from usgovermentspending.com. Suppose Republicans agree with Democrats on wealth redistribution in principle, thinking it is the right thing to do out of compassion and high moral principles, which has nothing to do with socialism. In that case, they cannot be more wrong. Compulsory wealth redistribution is a gradual and latent assault on private property rights. It is contrasted with the outright expropriation of private property as Marx prescribed, but it nevertheless would achieve almost the same result in the long run. It is a mechanism that punishes success, chooses winners and losers, and creates conditions for chronic abuse of people's generosity. Wealth redistribution diminishes self-responsibility and self-reliance and keeps the underclass hooked up permanently to the state redistribution machine. It creates a false sense of economic equality between people and, on the contrary, creates a more stratified society comprising elites who possess the power to distribute wealth and recipients they control. Such a structure resembles a socialist society and is a cell of socialism in the U.S. As for the collectivization of consciousness, the right has outright lost the battle for the minds of youths since the American educational system, popular culture, social networks, and mass media have been under the rule of the left for decades already. In recent years, many issues that have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism have been discussed by Democrats and Republicans. These issues include the rights of gays and transgender people, women's rights, abortion, racism, nationalism, and whatever else but not the trajectory of society's development. As if on purpose, these peripheral matters were chosen for discussion in order to disguise the principal consensus between the two parties on the country's development and show their presumed difference. On the issue of public health care, which is directly related to the socialist transformation of society, the Republicans lost, and when they had the opportunity to correct the situation, they failed miserably to do so. Based on the above, we can conclude that despite the right-wing slogans, the Republican Party, in fact, is not an effective defender of capitalism. It allowed both a latent attack on private property and the collectivization of consciousness. That is why the GOP is not a genuine right-wing but, at most, a center-left party. Therefore, the slogan about the non-admission of socialism in the U.S. has long been late. There are plenty of socialist traits in our society that Republicans failed to recognize. We can't expect the party that allowed the socialist transformation of society to protect it from socialism. The Democrats are the engine of socialist changes, and the Republican elites are enablers. The Trump administration comes closest to the right-wing ideal (but is still too far), at least in terms of tax cuts and simplifying some business regulations. Trump is not afraid to identify Democrats as socialists, tearing off the mask of humanists and moral authorities and exposing who they indeed are. He stopped short of doing so with the GOP elites, but they pre-emptively struck. The united privileged class of Democratic-Republicans has come to the defense of their status in the society, holding elections worthy of the Third World. Therefore, I must conclude that the path to socialism will continue until people organize under the banner of a real right-wing party and begin to fight for economic and personal freedom. There is a public demand for such a party, which will undoubtedly be realized soon, as the Tea Party was once organized. This will inevitably happen because socialism is an evolutionary dead end. History shows that countries that experimented with collectivization hit the wall and returned to the trajectory of society's natural evolution. It's just a shame that, having defeated world communism led by the Soviets, we overlooked evolutionary socialism at home and helped to revive yet another communist giant: China.
149 views · Dec 24th, 2020

More from entryreqrd

Vaccines Have Arrived -- Along With More Answers, More Questions America’s Christmas present is not one but two vaccines for COVID. Operation Warp Speed lived up to its name despite assurances from the media and political smart set that a vaccine would never be available this year. President Trump promised a vaccine this year but last April, Dr Anthony Fauci, “Poured cold water on Trump's estimate, saying it would be more like a year to a year and a half.” For once the medical and government bureaucracies moved like a hare rather than a tortoise. After all, it took the Department of Justice 32 years to indict the Lockerbie bombmaker. Given that the median age in the U.S. is 38 years, barely half of Americans were alive at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. Fortunately, the vaccine makers and FDA took closer to 32 weeks rather than 32 years to get something done. Under the Christmas tree are two vaccines, one from Pfizer and one from Moderna. Both are novel vaccines in that they take an entirely new approach to generating immunity. From the CDC, mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein—or even just a piece of a protein—that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies. It’s ironic that many who would not dare eat a genetically modified apple or tomato are happy to be injected with a vaccine that genetically modifies the person injected. Genetically modified crops significantly expand the food supply. Such vaccines may act similarly with these benefits, Future mRNA vaccine technology may allow for one vaccine to provide protection for multiple diseases, thus decreasing the number of shots needed for protection against common vaccine-preventable diseases. Beyond vaccines, cancer research has used mRNA to trigger the immune system to target specific cancer cells. Which vaccine is better? Or are they much the same, like two different brands of shampoo or toothpaste? YouTube screen grab The good news is that they are both similar in terms of safety and effectiveness. Both were studied in large prospective, randomized clinical trials, and both reduced the risk of developing COVID symptoms and potentially hospitalization or worse. Differences are based on the study population as it is impossible for each trial to have an identical group of 30 to 40 thousand participants. Each study population may vary in terms of age and demographics, but that is the nature of clinical trials. Each vaccine requires two doses, Pfizer 21 days apart compared to Moderna at 28 days. It’s not advised to mix vaccines, getting a first dose of one and a second dose of the other, although that hasn’t been actually studied. For those fretting over which vaccine, if any, to receive, take what is available. It is unlikely one will be given a choice. The Pfizer vaccine requires colder storage, meaning it will be distributed through large hospitals that have appropriate freezers, unlike the Moderna vaccine which can be stored in less frigid conditions. The Pfizer vaccine must be stored at minus 70 Celsius, colder than winter in Antarctica while the Moderna vaccine does just fine in a regular freezer. Both can trigger side effects, just like the flu shot. A sore arm is common after any vaccination. Systemic symptoms such as fatigue, chill, and aches and pains are also common, and not unexpected as the body is mounting an immune response, which is the desired result. Allergic reactions are rare, but one can be allergic to most anything, sometimes severely as in peanuts or bee stings. Neurologic effects such as Bell’s palsy are uncommon but can be caused by the virus as well. A risk-free vaccine doesn’t exist. Neither does a risk-free car ride or a walk across the street. What if someone already had COVID? Should they be vaccinated? The Operation Warp Speed chief says yes as an infection may or may not produce an adequate and long-lasting immune response. Again, this varies between someone mildly ill and one who needed ICU care, but there does not appear to be harm for post COVID patients receiving the vaccine. Do either of the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID or simply reduce symptoms in the person vaccinated? Early data suggest the Moderna vaccine might halt actual infection, but it’s unknown by how much. Pfizer has not released any data yet. This bit is crucial as it is the crux of masks, distancing, and lockdowns. If asymptomatic transmission does not occur, then we would treat COVID like any other viral infection. If you have symptoms, stay home until better and take precautions to avoid spreading the virus. It turns out that asymptomatic spread might be a myth. A huge study of 10 million people in Wuhan, the original COVID hot zone, found not rare, but no asymptomatic spread. Zero, zip, nada. Published last month, this article was ignored by the media. “Follow the science” didn’t apply to this science as it would have ended lockdowns, masks, distancing, and all the socio-economic chaos of the past year. Based on this study, the issue of whether vaccines stop asymptomatic spread becomes moot. This study should be celebrated, not buried just because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the past year. The bottom line is that both vaccines are effective at reducing the risk of the recipient becoming ill. It does not matter which vaccine, and it is not likely anyone will be given a choice. The final decision to receive or not receive the vaccine is a personal one, weighing the risks versus benefits. We do this every day, when we decide to ride a bicycle or drive to the grocery store. If vaccinated, how will you know the vaccine worked? How do you know you would not have gotten sick if you didn’t take the vaccine? You will and can not know that. Such is the nature of preventative measures. You can take aspirin for years to prevent heart attack or stroke, and if you don’t have one, was it the aspirin or just your good luck? Be ready for social justice warriors to get involved in determining vaccine allocation. Should communities of color be vaccinated first? Or are memories of Tuskegee strong enough that they don’t want to be first on line? Identity politics governs everything these days. Do your due diligence, weigh risk and benefits, consult with your doctor, and make your best decision on the vaccine. These vaccines are a remarkable achievement in a short period of time. It’s unlikely anyone but a businessman in the White House could have achieved this. Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and freelance writer for American Thinker, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Parler, and QuodVerum.
56 views · Dec 25th, 2020
Why Democrats Should Read the Navarro Report Americans increasingly live in two parallel universes, and this is a shame. One side takes it as Gospel that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won an overwhelming victory on November 3 and will take the oath of office on January 20. Another half of the population – according to a recent Rasmussen poll – believes that Donald Trump won the highest number of votes in history for the re-election of a sitting president and was cheated out of victory by overwhelming and widespread election shenanigans. An earlier poll found that even 30% of Democrats said it was likely or somewhat likely that the election was “stolen from Trump.” As former U.S. Senate Patrick Moynihan used to say before the era of Big Tech, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts. The report White House advisor Peter Navarro recently compiled as a private citizen should be required reading for Democrats who insist there is “no evidence” of widespread voter fraud. The Big Tech bosses who plaster disclaimers over the president’s tweets should read it, too. Peter Navarro (YouTube screengrab - cropped) So should Never-Trumpers and members of Congress, who undoubtedly will be called to adjudicate between dueling slates of electors on January 6. Navarro looks at the six swing states whose results the Trump campaign has been contesting, and lays out a grid of election irregularities that swung all of those states to the Biden-Harris ticket in the days following the November 3rd election. “These six dimensions include outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, contestable process fouls, Equal Protection Clause violations, voting machine irregularities, and significant statistical anomalies,” he writes. He doesn’t engage in conspiracy theories, or impute malign intent or foreign domination of voting machine companies. While those may be true, it will take a criminal investigation that could last years to prove them. In the real world, you don’t often get to see the man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz of election fraud and voting machine manipulation. It’s only in fiction that the mastermind has a name, a face, and a plot that rivets you to your chair. But what thrills in fiction becomes horror in the real world. Half of the country is still reeling in shock as they watch the Democrat National Committee and their communications directorate in the national media continue to gaslight us. We can’t believe this is actually happening. We can’t believe that in the real world – not some thriller – our democracy can be stolen right in front of our eyes. For the nature of the evidence Navarro sets out – the evidence the Democrats and the media screams doesn’t exist – is glaringly obvious. As my father used to say, if it had been a bear it would have bitten you. For example, hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters cast ballots that were counted in all six of the swing states – enough right there to tip the results in Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada to Donald Trump, putting him at 267 electoral votes. Navarro explains precisely what he means by “ineligible” voters. “Ineligible voters include felons deemed ineligible, underage citizens, nonregistered voters, illegal aliens, illegal out-of-state voters, and voters illegally using a post office box as an address. “In a court filing by the Trump campaign legal team, lead counsel Ray Smith provided a list of more than 70,000 allegedly ineligible voters casting ballots in Georgia in the 2020 election. Also in Georgia, over 20,000 people appear to have filed a Notice of Changed Address form to the Georgia state government or had other indications of moving out of state. Yet, these clearly ineligible out- of-state voters appeared to have remained on the voter rolls and voted in the 2020 election.” This is election fraud at the retail level. Voting illegally, or voting twice, or in multiple states, is a felony. These allegations are easy to verify – but so far, no court has allowed the Trump team to provide the lists of voters Navarro cites. And states controlled by Democrats have systematically refused any outside examination of their voter rolls and screamed “voter suppression” whenever groups such as Judicial Watch have forced them to hand over the evidence in the courts. Then you have the cemetery vote – at least 8,000 of them in Pennsylvania, and probably more in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit – and “ghost” voters who were added to the voter rolls on Election Day by poll workers. In Michigan, for example, thousands of people who showed up without ID were assigned birth dates in 1900 and allowed to vote. This is fraud organized and carried out by others. In addition, Navarro describes multiple cases of wholesale fraud, especially in Wisconsin and Michigan, where election workers were caught on camera or by multiple eyewitnesses who submitted sworn affidavits running batches of ballots repeatedly through tabulating machines. “Evidence of these particular kinds of “ballot stuffing” are present across all six battleground states,” Navarro notes. Ballot mishandling was a “multifaceted problem across the battleground states,” he adds. It included poll-workers instructed not to check voter ID in states requiring ID at the polls, a failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots to those in the poll books, ballots accepted without postmarks, ballots arriving at counting stations in already opened envelopes, and large numbers of ballots – in some cases, truckloads – circulating without apparent supervision. But again: no court has allowed the Trump legal team to present this evidence. I’m not sure which type of fraud is the more shocking: the brazen willingness of hundreds of thousands of individuals to break the law, the utter contempt of election officials who stuffed the ballot boxes and instructed co-workers how to steal votes with no fear of getting caught, or the Democrat party operatives who organized illegal ballot boxes, such as the “Democracy in the Park” events in Wisconsin. Finally, zoom out and place the documented examples of retail and wholesale election irregularities in the statistical context of 2020 versus earlier elections. The failure to check ballot signatures alone would have turned the tide of this election, Navarro argues. “For example, in Nevada, the overall [signature] rejection rate dropped from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0% dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%. The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8% in 2016 to a mere 0.34% in 2020.” In 2016, the overall voter turnout rate nationwide was 59.2% of the voting eligible population, according to Michael P. McDonald of the non-partisan United States Elections Project. But in 2020, the national turnout rate skyrocketed to 66.7%, while the U.S. population grew by less than 2.8%. Navarro points to sworn testimony from former NASA and MIT data analyst Russ Ramsland, showing that 46 of 47 precincts in Wayne County, Michigan “displayed greater than a 96% voter turnout [while] 25 of those precincts showed a 100% voter turnout.” Similar apparent overvoting occurred in Milwaukee and other key Democrat strongholds. “This was theft by a thousand cuts across six dimensions and six battleground states rather than any one single “silver bullet” election irregularity,” Navarro concludes. Or as the lead hacker in my fictional account, The Election Heist, explained, the Democrats had planned “a hail of silver bullets. A Gatling gun of silver bullets. A nuclear war of silver bullets.” But, of course, it never happened. It was just a bad dream and we’re about to wake up. Right? Nationally recognized investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman’s latest book, The Election Heist, is a fiction. It was published by Post Hill Press in August 2020.
65 views · Dec 25th, 2020
Destination: Socialism In a recent article, I stated that the U.S. lacks an influential right-wing party, and our two major parties — Democrats and Republicans — are left and center-left, respectively. That is, the perceived rightness of the GOP makes sense only relative to the Democratic party. It is refuted if one considers the actual policy carried out by Republicans for the last one hundred years. First of all, it is necessary to clarify what we understand by the left-right political spectrum. A political spectrum is a system of qualitative comparisons of different political philosophies. There are plenty of approaches in compiling the political spectrum based on various factors, dimensions, axes, and cardinal points. Most often, political spectrograms differ significantly from each other, and it seems that each of them describes an entirely different reality. Recent developments in the analysis of political philosophies, based on a multi-disciplinary approach utilizing set theory and mathematical logic in a framework of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), started to remove the ambiguity in understanding a political spectrum. The study identifies three main factors that influence the political spectrum polarization: attitude to private property, degree of individual freedom, and the scale of wealth redistribution. The political doctrine is left-wing if it assaults private property rights OR subjugates the individual to the collective OR imposes compulsory and scaled-wealth redistribution. The "OR" operand means that these factors can be employed individually or in concert and can be considered unique paths to socialism. Thus, Bolsheviks utilized all three ways to build communism, and Italian Fascists and German Nazis used coercive collectivization of consciousness and generous wealth redistribution as the main paths to socialism. In contrast, evolutionary socialists funnel the effort to implement a massive wealth redistribution along with the gradual indoctrination of the population. Evolutionary socialism is the type of socialist movement that has become most prevalent in the United States. This means that its signs must be sought in policies regarding compulsory wealth redistribution. As a proxy for wealth redistribution, we can consider the indicator of welfare spending. What is the position of the GOP on the issue of wealth redistribution? The GOP platform does not explicitly address it. Instead, there are vague statements about simplifying the tax code and boosting economic growth, along with promises not to divide the American people into winners and losers. This silence is alarming because the Republicans either don't understand the implications of compulsory wealth redistribution or tacitly agree with the Democrats' agenda. Figure 1 shows that spending on welfare has gradually increased since 1900 and now continues to rise regardless of which party is in power. This graph represents the trajectory of the advance of socialist traits in American society. The most surprising thing is to see a sharp decline in welfare spending during Obama's second term after a sharp rise during the recession. Fig. 1. Total welfare spending. Data were taken from usgovermentspending.com. From year to year, the country became more affluent, so it would be correct to look at the change in welfare spending as a percentage of the GDP. The graph in Figure 2 shows that despite the fluctuations, the general trend is still increasing. But the fluctuations are also interesting in themselves. It is theoretically assumed that a right-wing president would prevent the growth of wealth redistribution, but practice shows that this is far from the case. The largest spikes in welfare spending occurred during Republican presidencies: Hoover (1929–1933), Nixon (1969–1974), Ford (1974–1977), Bush Sr. (1989–1993), and Bush Jr. (2001–2009). Under Reagan and Trump, spending declined. Among the Democrats, Roosevelt (1933–1945), Truman (1945–1953), and Kennedy (1961–1963) were the champions of welfare spending. During Clinton's term, welfare spending continually decreased. It is impossible not to consider in whose hands the Senate and Congress were, and other historical and economic circumstances, but nevertheless, all Republicans, except for Reagan and Trump, not only did not put a halt to welfare spending, but increased it significantly. Fig. 2. Welfare Spending through Presidency. Data were taken from usgovermentspending.com. Suppose Republicans agree with Democrats on wealth redistribution in principle, thinking it is the right thing to do out of compassion and high moral principles, which has nothing to do with socialism. In that case, they cannot be more wrong. Compulsory wealth redistribution is a gradual and latent assault on private property rights. It is contrasted with the outright expropriation of private property as Marx prescribed, but it nevertheless would achieve almost the same result in the long run. It is a mechanism that punishes success, chooses winners and losers, and creates conditions for chronic abuse of people's generosity. Wealth redistribution diminishes self-responsibility and self-reliance and keeps the underclass hooked up permanently to the state redistribution machine. It creates a false sense of economic equality between people and, on the contrary, creates a more stratified society comprising elites who possess the power to distribute wealth and recipients they control. Such a structure resembles a socialist society and is a cell of socialism in the U.S. As for the collectivization of consciousness, the right has outright lost the battle for the minds of youths since the American educational system, popular culture, social networks, and mass media have been under the rule of the left for decades already. In recent years, many issues that have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism have been discussed by Democrats and Republicans. These issues include the rights of gays and transgender people, women's rights, abortion, racism, nationalism, and whatever else but not the trajectory of society's development. As if on purpose, these peripheral matters were chosen for discussion in order to disguise the principal consensus between the two parties on the country's development and show their presumed difference. On the issue of public health care, which is directly related to the socialist transformation of society, the Republicans lost, and when they had the opportunity to correct the situation, they failed miserably to do so. Based on the above, we can conclude that despite the right-wing slogans, the Republican Party, in fact, is not an effective defender of capitalism. It allowed both a latent attack on private property and the collectivization of consciousness. That is why the GOP is not a genuine right-wing but, at most, a center-left party. Therefore, the slogan about the non-admission of socialism in the U.S. has long been late. There are plenty of socialist traits in our society that Republicans failed to recognize. We can't expect the party that allowed the socialist transformation of society to protect it from socialism. The Democrats are the engine of socialist changes, and the Republican elites are enablers. The Trump administration comes closest to the right-wing ideal (but is still too far), at least in terms of tax cuts and simplifying some business regulations. Trump is not afraid to identify Democrats as socialists, tearing off the mask of humanists and moral authorities and exposing who they indeed are. He stopped short of doing so with the GOP elites, but they pre-emptively struck. The united privileged class of Democratic-Republicans has come to the defense of their status in the society, holding elections worthy of the Third World. Therefore, I must conclude that the path to socialism will continue until people organize under the banner of a real right-wing party and begin to fight for economic and personal freedom. There is a public demand for such a party, which will undoubtedly be realized soon, as the Tea Party was once organized. This will inevitably happen because socialism is an evolutionary dead end. History shows that countries that experimented with collectivization hit the wall and returned to the trajectory of society's natural evolution. It's just a shame that, having defeated world communism led by the Soviets, we overlooked evolutionary socialism at home and helped to revive yet another communist giant: China.
149 views · Dec 24th, 2020