Putting the Pieces Together

This post is something of a puzzle, with some assembly required. The pieces relate, but you might have to put them together before you can see the whole picture. Each video piece is relatively short, mostly in the 15-20-minute range.

image found here

The good news is the current variants of the COVID-19 virus are causing fewer and fewer deaths or hospitalizations. The bad news is the current variants are much more contagious, easier to spread.

The worse news is that the variants are adapting in a way that you can get it again, even though normal natural immunity would prevent that. The worst news is that this situation is caused by mass vaccination.

That’s right. The doctors who said it was a bad idea to mass vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic were right. One such doctor is Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, a specialist in virology and vaccinology. He recently talked with Bret Weinstein, an evolutionary biologist, who has followed carefully all things COVID. Their conversation explains why the omicron variant, at its peak in January, didn’t result in herd immunity, as we thought it would.

The first puzzle piece, then, is Dr. Vanden Bossche’s conversation with Bret Weinstein:

·       “We have thrown a BOMBSHELL on this delicate balance (Geert Vanden Bossche & Bret Weinstein)” Dark Horse podcast, July 1, 2022.  

 

The second puzzle piece is Dr. Vanden Bossche again. On the Steve Deace show on The Blaze, Deace presents a 16-minute video in which the doctor essentially begs parents: DO NOT get your children vaccinated. He explains how the vaccine works in a way that undermines the natural immune system, which means, not only does it not work to prevent the variants of COVID-19, it can make cases worse. And—it can undermine the immune system’s ability to recognize other viruses. Vaccinating your child for this virus that has almost no chance of serious risk for your child can risk the child’s health—permanently.

Deace plays the whole thing, then talks it over with a couple of his teammates. You can’t talk openly about such things on YouTube, so it’s got to be on an alternative platform. This is worth it. Get a free trial, if you need to.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, during presentation shown by Steve Deace
screenshot from here

·       “Overtime: Virologist Provides Dire Warning about Covid Jabs,” Steve Deace, on The Blaze, July 6, 2022.    

·       If you can’t get that one, I think Dr. Vanden Bossche does a similar presentation here. 

 

Another piece has to do with the CDC’s failure to consider adverse events related to the vaccine. Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying, also a biologist, discuss this:

·       “SHOCKING revelation from CDC FOIA request (from Livestream #132)” Dark Horse podcast July 7, 2022. 

Dr. Mobeen Syed discusses, I think, the same CDC failure a couple of weeks earlier:

·       “Makes Me Angry” Drbeen Medical Lectures, June 22, 2022. 

 

Dr. Mobeen Syed shows the promise to report adverse events, followed by 
an admission that they have not been doing the testing as promised.
screenshots from here

The next piece has to do with excess deaths—excluding COVID-related deaths. Why are they so high? Some things are related to COVID response, such as lockdowns and the various turbulence that caused in so many lives. Some of it, however, may be due to unexpected long-term effects of the spike protein in the body—from the illness itself and/or from the vaccine and boosters. Dr. John Campbell (as with Dr. Mobeen) is not against vaccination in general, nor against the COVID-19 vaccines. But he is about looking at the data and seeing if we can draw conclusions. Here’s his discussion:

·       “Non covid excess deaths,” Dr. John Campbell, July 6, 2022. 

 

Another look at this issue, from several months back, is presented by Dr. Kelly Victory, an emergency medicine and disaster specialist, going over observations noted by insurance companies, talking on KUSI News. She’s not saying the causes are known, only that 2021 has a statistically significant difference, and we ought to look at possible causes.

·       “There was an unexpected 40% increase in 'all cause deaths' in 2021,” KUSI News, February 2, 2022. 

Another recent report on the insurance data comes from Roman Balmakov for The Epoch Times.

·        “Life Insurance CEO Reveals Deaths Are Up 40%Among Working People: ‘Just unheard of,’” Facts Matter, with Roman Balmakov, June 29, 2022.

 

We’re dealing with a “vaccine” that doesn’t prevent illness, as we’ve come to expect from vaccines—such that they had to change the definition of vaccine to even apply the term to this injected medical intervention. It has proven to be neither safe nor effective. Now we’re looking at serious damage to individuals and society as a whole. Yet the push to vaccinate—and even mandate vaccination of an emergency use authorized drug—continues.

Roman Balmakov, for The Epoch Times, discusses the effect of mandating these vaccines in the military, with Lt. John Bowes. They discuss a report that some 40,000 National Guard troops will be expelled from the military for refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccines. This is going to affect military readiness. The states with the highest percentage of unvaccinated troops include Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, and Mississippi, with 30-40% refusing the shots. By the way, 98% of all religious exemptions have been denied.

chart showing vaccination percentages in Army National Guard
screenshot from here

·      “Exclusive: Vaccine Mandate Will Force Over 700 Pilots, 40,000 National Guard Troops to Be Discharged,” Facts Matter, with Roman Balmakov, July 4, 2022. 

·       Full interview at EpochTV here. 

Lt. John Bowes, full interview
screenshot from here

 

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson reports on the COVID-19 pandemic as “the greatest crime in history.” He goes over the lab origin, the coverup, and more.

·       “This may have been the greatest crime in history,” Tucker Carlson on Fox News, July 8, 2022. 

 

The picture isn’t fully put together yet. But what we’re seeing is perhaps the greatest death toll and misery ever perpetrated on the people of the world, without a war or natural disaster. It’s not over. It might never be over, because of the ongoing push to force vaccination on the population, rather than allow herd immunity, and rather than allow early treatment, which we have known to be effective since the earliest weeks of the pandemic.

In short: prepare yourself with treatment on hand, because you’re likely to get it again. Getting the jab won’t prevent you from getting it or from getting a worse case. It is likely making things worse, for individuals and society as a whole. If you’ve gotten the injection before, don’t risk your body any further. And absolutely under NO circumstances should you allow your children to be injected with it.

 

Three Books and Some Other Research Assignments

There are things related to COVID-19 that I’ve been trying to piece together, as a regular citizen without expertise, since the whole thing started. And I’ve been surprised at the things that get labeled conspiracy theories that later get borne out as true. That is happening.

My reading list has grown considerably this week. In one video Dr. Ryan Cole quoted Mark Twain, saying, “The man who doesn’t read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” The information is out there to be had. And a thinking person can find it. Thinking leads to the right questions, which eventually lead to true answers.

cover image from Amazon

So mainly today I’m going to list the books to read and the videos to watch, with just a little about each one. And then you’re on your own.

·       The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Kennedy was interviewed on Tucker Carlson Today, on November 15, 2021, an episode called “Coup de Vax.” He talks about a partnership between Fauci and Bill Gates, who came together with a plan to vaccinate essentially all of mankind. There’s a five-minute segment, mostly about Gates, that describes the type of corruption going on. And it’s a good illustration. Then we’ll go on to some of the dots that can be connected for Fauci’s personal culpability:

He began using his philanthropy to create a series of other quasi-governmental agencies: CEPI, GAVI, and a number of others. And then to gain control of the WHO.

He calls what he does philanthrocapitalism. It’s not about philanthropy; it’s about enriching the capitalist. What he does is, he buys—and he does this in a number of areas I show in the book. He does it with food. He did it with core curriculum. He buys large stakes in companies that could benefit from a change in governmental policies, a worldwide change in governmental policies. 

So he owns stakes, very very large stakes, in almost all the big pharmaceutical companies. Then he gives essentially about a billion dollars to WHO every year. But through Rotary International, through GAVI, through CEPI, and through the Gates Foundation—where the accumulation is even larger than the US, which is the second biggest. That gives him control over WHO’s policies. The analysts of WHO say there is nothing that goes through WHO that is unvetted first by the Gates Foundation.

And WHO controls the HIV money, and it funds the health agencies of most African countries. So they’re completely reliant on those annual checks from WHO. And what Gates and WHO do—or WHO on Gates’ behalf, because a lot of people at WHO do not want to do this—he is taking them away from their traditional occupations, which was economic development, hygiene, food supply, food production, and local democracy and local controls. So, WHO does very little of those things now, and they really focus—over 50% of their budget focuses on one of Gates’ vaccines only, the polio vaccine, which is a flawed vaccine. The polio vaccine, according to WHO’s own number, causes 70% of the polio on earth every year. So it’s not a successful vaccine.

But, what he does then is, he, through WHO—WHO will go in and say to an African country, “If you want your annual check from us, here’s what you’ve got to do. You have to show an 80% uptake of the DTP vaccine.” The DTP vaccine we don’t use in white countries, the United States. That’s the vaccine that was killing one out of every 300 kids. We got rid of it. Europeans got rid of it. But Gates gives 161 million African children that vaccine every year. And what he’ll say is, he’ll say—the WHO will say to this country, “You don’t get your HIV money; you don’t your systems money to run your health agency, unless you can show us you’ve vaccinated 80% of your kids”—that’s a hypothetical number, but it will be something like that—“with the DTP vaccine.” So those countries, then, are forced to buy that vaccine. And that vaccine, they have to purchase it ultimately from one of the companies that Gates is heavily invested in.

And Gates— He has a $33 billion corpus that he has put in the Gates Foundation, but it’s still his money. He’s still controlling it. And it’s now tax-deductible. It’s shielded from taxes. And he is now deploying it to change government policies in a way that it enriches companies that he’s elsewhere invested in.

And he does the same thing with food. He has switched many millions of Africans from subsistence that they’ve been doing successfully for, you know, 10,000 generations, to GMO crops, to heavily, you know, lots of chemical agriculture, carbon-based fertilizers—all have to be imported by his companies. He has huge investments in Monsanto, Cargill, and in the processed food companies that are then buying up those commodities cheap: Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Kraft Cheese. Those kinds of things.

So, the more you look at it, the more corrupt it gets.

But his deal with Tony Fauci—you know, which I go into in detail, what the result, the outcome for that bargain on the lives and health of millions and millions of Africans and South Asians has been absolutely catastrophic.

On a related note, there was this story today about Gates, doing what Kennedy described above, in the area of media:

·       “Bill Gates has given $319 million to bankroll select media outlets and change the public narrative—and the internet has receipts” by Sarah Taylor for The Blaze, November 18, 2021. 

 

cover image from Amazon

The next book on the list came up on Glenn Beck’s show November 17:

·         Faucian Bargain: The Most Powerful and Dangerous Bureaucrat in American History, by Steve Deace and Todd Erzen

Glenn Beck did another major explanation of corruption, called "Crimes and Cover-Up: Exposing the World's Most Dangerous Lie." It took three chalkboards. I was a full two hours. So far it’s still available on YouTube, and will continue to be available on BlazeTV (with subscription).

Many of the details are things I have come across before. He traces the history of SARS back to 2002. Anthony Fauci, before that, was attempting to come up with a vaccine for HIV, but he was doing it with an early version of mRNA, which didn’t qualify as a vaccine, by definition (the definition recently changed to accommodate the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines) and wasn’t effective. But he has been determined to come up with this new vaccine technology and have it be required for everyone in the world to take.

If you go through the history, you’ll see the connections between Dr. Baric of, I think, North Carolina University, and Dr. Shi Zhengli—the one called “the bat lady”—from China. Add in Peter Daszak, of EcoHealth, who managed funding from NIH to the Wuhan lab during the time government funding was disallowed for gain-of-function research. Dr. Fauci is involved in all of that. And recent emails show that he recognized the problems with the probable lab-leak revealing their secret funding.

There’s a careful timeline, with backup materials Beck says to go through yourself. So I downloaded those. It includes a three-page PDF list of sources. At the bottom it thanks DRASTIC research “for their tireless pursuit of the truth,” and then links to their in-depth work. I followed the link to here.

Concerning Fauci they have this segment:

Fauci approved a grant of $600,000 to the WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] for bat coronavirus research.  Fauci has sworn to Congress that this was not for “gain-of-function” research.  Fauci was relying on a very narrow definition of the term, in which the purpose of the research was to produce more potent viruses.

There is no doubt that the type of genetic engineering conducted at the WIV and other research institutions could have produced potent viruses, even if its purpose was simply to examine the effects of such manipulation. Fauci and others involved in the grant, such as Peter Daszak, have a clear interest in the virus not to have been produced as a result of this research.

It will take some time to go through all of this material. But if Beck’s summary is accurate—and I believe it is, because so much coincides with what I’m seeing elsewhere and have been collecting from multiple sources for well over a year—then we can see in real time the kind of worldwide corruption that we thought we left behind in the last century: the needless deaths of millions of people because of the selfish designs of tyrants who claim they care about “the collective” while disposing of anyone they don’t care about. And they don’t care about anyone who questions them, disagrees with them, or simply can’t grant them more power.

Glenn Beck presenting a chalkboard discussion "Crimes and Cover-Up:
Exposing the World's Most Dangerous Lie."
screenshot from here

When he reviews the three chalkboards, he points out that, on that first one, titled “The Vaccine Arms Race,” the main players, Dr. Ralph Baric, Dr. Shi Zhengli—“the bat lady” of China—and Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance are there from the beginning and throughout. But at the point he’s not ascribing ill intent. As he says,

These people actually believe that they should check all animals for all viruses. And they should find a vaccine for all of them, so we’ll always be prepared. OK, I think that’s insane. Very dangerous. But then again, I’ve been to the movie theater before.

But then there’s the big lie. There’s the connection to Anthony Fauci. He managed to pay for gain-of-function research—rather, he used our taxpayer dollars to pay for it, by funneling grant money through EcoHealth, during the years using government funding for it was not allowed. And then there’s this connection with Moderna, from 2015 on, and some very suspicious timing issues, and missing information.

On the second chalkboard, titled “The Pandemic Begins,” is where things start to look sleazy, with public-private partnerships popping up in places that benefit whoever Fauci decides they should benefit.

The real disturbing part is on the third chalkboard, title “Censorship & Cover-Up,” where he goes through a number of those Fauci emails that were recently released. There’s this part:

Two of the three men directing this propaganda campaign—and, make no mistake, as you will see, that’s exactly what it is. They were supposed to be part of Trump’s administration. Look at all of these facts. Is there any other way to describe it other than Fauci and the President’s science advisor colluding behind the President’s back, withholding information from him. Fauci has already been brought in front of Congress, and Rand Paul caught him in a bold-faced lie. Fauci will testify again. But it’s probably time to bring in the former president’s science advisor as well. Just a few, a couple questions, like, “Did you withhold information from the President? Did you ever lie to him?” That’s what will get it started.

Once you’ve watched Glenn Beck’s special, follow it up with Steve Deace’s panel discussion with Dr. Ryan Cole and Daniel Horowitz, titled “Crimes or Cover-Up? Answering the Forbidden Questions of COVID-19,” on The Blaze. 

 

cover image from Amazon

A third book not on my list is Dr. Scott Atlas’s book about COVID-19:

·         A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America, Dr. Scott W. Atlas, MD

I learned about it from his conversation with Tucker Carlson from November 17. Dr. Atlas was brought in to advise President Trump in late summer 2020. What he faced there was a “troika” of doctors: Birx, Fauci, and Redfield. All had worked together from back in the days of trying to develop an HIV vaccine. All are bureaucrats rather than doctors who see patients.

What surprised Dr. Atlas was how they never referred to any data during their meetings. He would bring in multiple studies for every meeting. They didn’t refute any of them. They simply ignored all data.

I’ve sensed that Dr. Redfield would like to have been more open to discussion, because he has been, somewhat, since his retirement. But that doesn’t excuse the utter lack of working with data during those task force meetings. The other two are probably beyond excuse. Dr. Atlas also couldn’t understand their lack of critical thinking.

So, after this sort of bombardment of info this week—all from independent sources, rather than what we now tend to call “legacy media”—maybe we’ll just list a few of the questions that come up when you look at what’s happening and do some critical thinking:

·       Why did we quarantine healthy people, instead of the most vulnerable, unlike all past disease outbreaks?

·       Why did “15 days to flatten the curve,” to avoid overwhelming the hospitals turn into 18 months (and counting) of “eradicate the disease” without any explanation for moving the goalposts?

·       Why is natural immunity ignored or dismissed, as if it doesn’t exist—when what doesn’t exist is any study showing it doesn’t exist?

·       Why is a vaccine being pushed for everyone, regardless of their risk factors, age, or natural immunity?

·       Why are vaccine injuries ignored?

·       Why was the definition of vaccine changed to remove the term “immunity”?

·       Why is the vaccine still being pushed (and attempted to be mandated) when it does no more than lessen virulence, and weakens in even that effectiveness within months?

·       Why have cheap, effective, safe drugs been banned?

·       Why have doctors been threatened for treating patients with treatments that work?

·       Why is damage to the economy and to other parts of public health ignored, with focus all on one single illness?

·       What has the censorship been intended to accomplish?

·       Why has the virus origin still not been found? Or that the probable origin location not acknowledged?

·       Who is to blame for the unnecessary deaths?

·       Why have so many people been willing to submit to edicts from elite doctors who do not provide their reasoning backed by data?

·       When will we stop the harmful lockdowns, shutdowns, and masks and get back to some sort of normal life?

·       When will the story of collusion and cover-up become common knowledge?

 

One last rather important question: When we are among those who have learned the truth, what do we do with it?

Polling and Other Indicators

Last week I was listening to Steve Deace talk about polling. It’s what he specializes in generally, so he’s worth a listen. He starts this 9-minute segment with the overall picture about polling right now:

Steve Deace on his show October 9, 2020
screenshot from here

So, the big picture—if you take the entire narrative of the public polling, the big picture is that Joe Biden is a stronger candidate at this stage of the election than Barack Obama in 2008, when he would go on and get the biggest Democrat presidential win since LBJ in 1964. Right now they’re saying Joe Biden is in a stronger position than that. They’re saying that Donald Trump is an even weaker incumbent at this stage than George Herbert Walker Bush was in 1992. That’s the big picture narrative you have to buy, to accept the conclusions of the public polling.

Polling Anomalies

Then Deace offers some specifics.

·       Rasmussen polling (highly respected and used to be reliable) says, “Biden is going to outperform FDR’s final reelect in 1944, when he was in the midst of winning World War II. After D-Day, the Nazis are in retreat….”

·       Quinipiac (which was disastrously wrong on Florida’s governor race in 2018) says that in Florida, where the margin has averaged 2.5% in the past 7 presidential races, this year Biden is going to win by 10%—that’s 400% of the usual margin.

·       Monmouth (given an A+ rating by polling aggregate FiveThirtyEight) says that, in Pennsylvania, where Trump won in 2016, currently Biden is “leading the state by 12 points. However, if that were to happen, it would mean that Joe Biden would outperform Barack Obama and his turnout in that historic win that he had in 2008.” It would also mean “Trump would suffer a massive 13-point negative swing in Pennsylvania.” Meanwhile, “Since 2016 Democrats have lost 41,294 voters in the state of Pennsylvania, while Republicans have gained 158,445.” That means people are registering as Republicans—in order to vote Democrat—in a state where fracking and other issues led them to vote for Trump, and where Trump kept his promises to them.

·       Rasmussen polling, which claims Biden is +12, “has Trump getting only 76% of the Republican vote. Trump got 88% of Republicans in the 2016 election. His average approval rating his entire presidency with Republicans, the average, has been 87%. And yet, with the Democratic Party the furthest left it’s ever been, Rasmussen is claiming that Trump is going to lose 12 points of Republican support from the last election, which is pretty much his entire margin of defeat in their poll.” This low Trump Republican support is an assumption Rasmussen has put into their modeling—the adjustment after obtaining the raw polling numbers.

We have to be careful not to make assumptions based on the people around us. There are people in New York, for example, who have never met a Republican, so they have no idea the whole world doesn’t think they way they do. So I don’t want to get stuck in that trap. 

But, do you know anyone switching sides from last time? I know quite a lot who refused to vote for Trump in 2016—before he had a track record—who are voting for him this time. Steve Deace himself is one of those. Glenn Beck is another. I am another. (None of us voted for Hillary, by the way.) But I haven’t encountered a single voter who went with Trump in 2016 who is now saying, “That was a bad decision, and I’d much rather go with Joe Biden, who has so many qualities I want as a Republican.” Not one. It’s a large country; maybe there’s a single voter out there who meets that description. But enough to cause a historical shift—without anyone being able to find such a person, let alone a movement?

Deace added this info for perspective:

To put that in historical context, the worst a Republican has done in the last 7 presidential elections with Republican voters, George Herbert Walker Bush got 73% in 1992, and that was with a Perot on the ballot siphoning off his own support, something Trump doesn’t have.

So, what are the odds that this wildly pro-Biden polling is accurate? I don’t know. But there are a great many things I have more faith in than these polls.

Other Indicators

Deace ended the segment with this thought, which I’m repeating from my last post:

If you were to consider every other metric that matters when looking at an election environment—for example, look at the voter registration numbers, and it’s not just in Pennsylvania; this is going on across the country. If you looked at things like the NBA ratings, television ratings, tanking over wokeness. And that’s the most liberal fan base in American team sports, probably other than soccer. And even they don’t want to watch this stuff. Look at the falling unemployment rate. Look at all of those metrics. If you never looked at a single poll, and you just looked at every other metric that told you what was going on in an election campaign, you would think Trump is cruising to reelection. The only thing that says differently are the polls. Draw your own conclusion from there.

So, there’s voter registration numbers; there’s public turning away from Democrat policies; there’s positive economic news—which was soaring eight months ago and has been pushing back up despite pandemic-caused economic shutdowns, continued mainly in Democrat-led areas. Anything else?

There’s this one:

 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System
for gun purchases through June 2020
FBI graphic, found here

Gun sales have skyrocketed. They’re up 145% this year, according to FBI data; that’s an estimated 2.4 million through June 2020. 

A Washington Examiner story on July 1^st explained that the surge started early in this presidential election year, against the fear that a Biden presidency would make guns harder to obtain. The pandemic, followed by rioting that started in May and has continued, have both contributed to the rise in demand. Sales have increased this much even with many gun stores closed.

Does that sound like the behavior of a populous that wants to elect an anti-Second Amendment president by record-breaking margins? I don’t think so either.

Chatter

In the intelligence world, they refer to something called “chatter.” It means they hear snippets and conversations that give them an idea of what is being planned or acted on. We may not be able to get “news” that tells us what’s actually happening, but we can listen to chatter, which may not give us a fully clear picture, but it can fill in some otherwise dark spots.

So I’m going to call this next bit chatter. It’s something I encountered on Facebook that sounds somewhat plausible to me. Do with it what you will. I don’t know the poster or the commenters (one of which seems to have listened to Steve Deace); they are participants in a group I read: 

Troy Rosenow: Have an acquaintance who does polling as a business (not the fake MSM, Rasmussen, Cook, etc. stuff—refer to 2016 as evidence). This guy and his team are on the phones all day doing statistically valid polling. His team projects every race, every district in every state to help campaigns know where to spend their dollars (all parties). With 24 days to go (changing daily):

Electoral: Trump 348 / Biden 170 with Virginia dead even (worth 13). In several [of the Biden] states the candidates are within 1-3 pts: CO, ME, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OR

Popular: Trump 51 / Biden 44.

Senate: R’s gain 1 (solid), gain 4 total (projected).

House: R’s gain 18 (solid), gain 42 (projected); need 20 to retake.

Again, these change daily based on actions from the various campaigns and their candidates. Will be interesting to see how accurate he is, although he’ll tell you polling is not meant to determine winners, just where to spend the money. Guarantee you he’s closer than the propaganda on tv though.

Shay McDaniel: The pollsters know which "Republican" never-Trumpers to poll—and they ignore the areas where there are a lot of pro-Trump Democrats. At Trump rallies 60% of the attendees are not Republican, 22% are Democrat, 17% didn't vote in the last election, and of the 17% that did not vote in 2016, 8.9% did not vote in the last 4 elections. There are record numbers of Republican registrations in states like PA. The NBA has lost 60% of its viewers, people aren't listening to the Marxist BLM. It is ludicrous that we have stupid polls with Biden leading by 14 points—that is almost the winning margin of Reagan over Mondale—that is not occurring in 2020. Trump is ahead, he is also going to get a higher percentage of the Hispanic and African American vote. There is NO excitement for the old ridiculous criminal Biden.

Frances Campbell Marshall: Does he publish his results or have a website? I have no doubt most people in this group would love to check the daily results.

Troy Rosenow: Unfortunately no. From what I can gather, his team (over 400 employees) typically spends a full day analyzing 5-8 states. So it takes a good 7-10 days to cycle through the country. They just finished their first pass through all 50 states yesterday, so these are fresh. I’m definitely going to try to see if he’ll share another update in a week.

Someone asked the name of the polling company, but the author hasn’t said.

Enthusiasm Gap

And then there’s is energy and excitement—call it enthusiasm.

One of the comments on that post put up this image.

image found here

The only time crowds are mentioned on MSM is to scold everyone for spreading COVID—which apparently doesn’t happen at protests or riots? 

There’s this thing called the “enthusiasm gap.” A PJ Media piece gives this measure: 

It may trigger a replay of 2016 when Trump enthusiasm outpolled Hillary Clinton’s by 13 points. Now it’s 20. Do we see a pattern?

The story reports that, in a recent Pew poll, only 46% of Biden voters are strong supporters, while 66% of Trump voters are strong supporters.

That shows up in people’s behavior. And remember, this is happening at a time when mentioning that you support Trump can get you cancelled on social media, at work, and in families. This is from a New York Post piece: 

As Ryan’s boat joined at least 2,000 other watercraft for the Trump Law and Order Boat Parade, the same scene was playing out in dozens of harbors, rivers and lakes from the Jersey Shore to San Diego that Labor Day weekend.

One week later, on Sept. 12, more than 16,000 cars, pickups, motorcycles and semis festooned with banners and bunting jammed Cincinnati’s I-275 beltway in a convoy that looped through three states, one of several Trump car caravans being organized on Facebook. Meanwhile, an unknown fan in Norwell, Mass., stenciled “Trump 2020” in bright yellow letters across the travel lanes of busy Route 3 (Highway crews quickly painted over the message.)

There's a funny story here, with news people in Arizona trying their best to explain why a huge Biden rally has no people.

What Does This Mean?

I am not good at predicting the future. One of the biggest unknowns is how much voter fraud is being done. But, if a party’s candidate were actually ahead by record numbers, would they have to resort to massive voter fraud and mail-in vote chicanery?

If they were truly ahead, wouldn’t they be able to tell the truth in their debates and stump speeches, rather than distort and lie? (See here, here, and here on debate lies.) Wouldn’t they be able to declare from the rooftops what their plans are once they take office, like raising your taxes and taking your gun rights and planning to pack the court to maintain power, since such massive majorities are backing them?

And would the Speaker of the House be proposing new and creative ways to remove a president from office—like finding a process to more easily use the 25^th Amendment to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”?

Would a party that was actually up by double digits be acting this desperate?

Worst case scenario? The polling is actually accurate; Biden wins, and the wheels turn to permanently deprive us of the rights our Constitution was designed to protect. And suddenly we’re Venezuela. Or China.

Next-worse scenario? Biden wins, but it’s obvious it’s by voter fraud and conservatives are put in the position of finding a way, preferably non-violent, to retake their country from dastardly usurper tyrants who do not believe in the rule of law.

More likely scenario? Trump wins, but not by a large enough margin that the opposition will accept defeat, and we will suffer more rioting and “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Best case scenario? Trump wins, handily, so there is no question about the winner. But the losers nevertheless refuse to accept the outcome. The better case here is if they simply continue what they’ve done the last four years, attempting but failing to overthrow the duly elected president; the worse case here would be that they throw tantrums in the form of more rioting and “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.” But at least we will know that they are a minority—that a majority of Americans still value our US Constitution, which at least allows us to ask for God’s intervention to protect us.

I don’t know the actual outcome. I tend to believe it might be that best case scenario—if we look at any evidence but news polling, which looks designed to sway rather than inform. Nevertheless, I’m trying to prepare for any outcome, the way we on the Gulf Coast know to prepare for a hurricane that we know is headed our way.

Sampling the Substitutes, Part II

Last post we were going over some of the things that showed up in radio broadcasts with substitutes during the holidays. There’s one more I wanted to cover. This is a second one by Steve Deace (pronounced Dace). He has his own program on The Blaze, but for two days he filled in on Glenn Beck's radio program. His Monday, December 30, was philosophical. But he has a background in campaign strategy. Because strategy is not my strong point, I’m interested when someone offers tactics that I can clearly understand. Chances are, in 2020 these are going to come in handy.

Tuesday, December 31, Steve Deace 

This is the day for tactics, called “Ten Commandments for Political Warfare.” Deace has written these in a book called Rules for Patriots, as an antidote to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Deace doesn’t believe we should be using the opposition’s tactics, which require a fair amount of deception and just plain evil. He’s not worried about sharing his strategies openly. He’s certain that these positive ideas won’t work for them opposition, because they preclude relativism.

As he says, we conservatives need to know what we believe. And then we need to know how to conserve those things. Tactics help us do that.

He spent the entire first hour on rule 1.

1.       Never trust Republicrats.

He’s referring to those who are actually uncomfortable with conservative principles—saying what they have to to get elected, and then getting away with being like the rest of Washington once they get there. The way to tell is by which hills a person is willing to die on. He gives the “liberty score,” taken from the last 50 votes taken, of various legislators. These include people who sometimes get praised as conservative heroes: Devon Nunes 33%.  Lindsay Graham 30%.  Elise Stefanik 24% (not even for tax cuts).  Doug Collins 48% (in deep red Georgia). Some Republicans elected in deep blue districts vote as they would if they were Democrat—more than 90% of the time. These are enemies within the gates. I think we're allowed to praise them when we conservatives approve of what they do, but don't be fooled into trusting them to regularly do what we would approve of.

2.       Never attack what you’re not willing to kill.  

Example was Donald Trump,Jr. on The View recently. It’s hard to do. But if you’re going to take the hit anyway, then don’t be gentle. They’re going to treat you like the Covington kids anyway, so why be nice in hopes of avoiding getting hit? Go ahead and lay waste. With truth and reason of course.

3.       Never accept the premise of your opponent’s argument.

Never means never. Fear of getting banned on social media is real, but don’t give in. There’s an example headline from RedState recently—"A Lesbian Couple Identifying as Neither a Straight Nor Gay Couple Has a 'Miracle Baby'—With the Sperm of a Man Identifying as a Woman, Thanks to a Transgender Doctor." Not biologically possible, so why pretend? To translate, a woman pretending to be a man got a sperm donation from a man pretending to be a woman, and then gave birth not exactly miraculously. If you verbalize your opponent’s talking points, you help promote them. Whoever’s premise is accepted in an argument always wins. Just go, “I’m not using your talking points. You wouldn’t use mine. Why would I use yours?” Don’t use the word “abortion”; say “baby killing.” Don’t use their terms.  Why sanitize for them? (I still frequently use the clinical term abortion, and sometimes say baby killing. But I do not use the term pro-choice, which is so inaccurate that it is simply a lie.)

4.       Never surrender the moral high ground.

Again, never means never.  Example: Obamacare debate, the most anti-constitutional policy in American history. Not just unconstitutional, but anti-constitutional—intentionally attempting to undermine. Republican politicians didn’t argue the wrongness; they argued, “We can’t afford that.” So, it would have been OK if we’d had a budget surplus?  We’ve suffered from decade(s) of being conditioned to think everything’s doable by government if it’s just expedient enough. Republicans missed an opportunity by playing “nice” when courts ruled against late-term abortion, or baby killing, based on cruelty to the baby. If it’s a baby, why didn’t we go ahead and at least ban all abortions after 20 weeks like all but seven other nations have done? Clue: If France is to your right on something, you’re wrong.

5.       Reverse the premise of your opponent’s argument and use it against him.

Ronald Reagan offered many examples. Asked if he was to blame for nation’s economic misery, before his reforms made the difference, he said, “Well, you’re right. I used to be a Democrat, so I do share some of the blame.” When confronted on the campaign about his age, he said he wouldn’t use his opponent’s youth and inexperience against him. Hoist them from their own petard. This is especially when done with humor or winsomeness. How to use it: When they say the only reason you dislike Obama’s policies is that you’re racist? Hold them to their own premise: The only reason Detroit doesn’t allow school choice, or that we had more on food stamps under Obama than the total population of Spain, then, it's because you’re a racist. Make the other side live by standards they force you onto you.

6.       Never abandon your base unless they’re morally wrong. 

Even the Republicrats believe this. In 2016 the base cared about judges. Those who cared about getting conservative judges voted for Trump by 16+ points. If we had let Obama seat Antonin Scalia’s successor, all the base would have been lost. So the Senate  had to fight Merrick Garland. Trump doesn’t abandon his base. He won’t throw you under the bus on an issue you care about. This demonstrates how powerful you are, even with a Republican hierarchy that hates you; they have to do what is important to their base.

7.       Define your opponent before they define themselves, and define yourself before your opponent defines you. 

Example: the word “liberal” was annihilated—by Reagan, then Bush in 1988. That’s why the opposition uses the term “progressive” now. Liberal is still used in conservative media, though. Glenn Beck transitioned early to talking about Wilsonian progressives and Fabian socialists. Deace uses the term leftist (which, if you’ve read anything about the Spherical Model, you’ll understand why I don’t go with that). There may be a lot of “liberals” among our friends and family, but none in Washington. The opponents change the language. And they use the full coercive power of government to compel you. That’s who they are, so let that be known.

Steve Deace
image from Amazon.com

8.       Always make your opponent defend their record and belief system.

Example: During his presidential campaign, Rand Paul insisted that personhood begins at conception, and used phrases from the Constitution to support the rights of persons: “No person shall be denied…” “Equal protection for all persons under the law.” He was attacked by Debbie Wasserman Schultz with a question about when a zygote becomes a person. He answered, essentially, “I’ll answer your question about zygotes if you answer when you considered the children you carried to term to be children.” A couple of reporters actually asked her that question. She couldn’t get out of that fast enough. Christians—we should always have a reason (apologia) for what we believe. That doesn’t mean to always be on the defensive. Having a defense is not the same as letting yourself get cornered.  When they say, “That’s offensive,” say, “The truth is often offensive.” Do not feel like you have to constantly be the one on the witness stand. Make them defend what they believe, at least for a change.

9.       Stay on message.

When you have a winning message, play the hits. This is not the time to play your new stuff. When you go to see Elton John in concert, you want to hear some “Tiny Dancer,” some “Candle in the Wind.”

10.   Play offense.

Nothing inspires your base more than that.

As Deace says in closing on New Year’s Eve, “2020 is going to be nuts. You need to be equipped for it.”

Sampling the Substitutes, Part I

Over the holidays many of my favorite radio shows and podcasters take a break. It’s good to take a break from the daily news. A podcast can simply not provide content until they decide to. But radio shows can’t leave dead air. So they get substitutes to fill in. Often these are less well-known broadcasters, people who are thrilled to have a chance to have a larger audience. So they might be putting forth their best work—which they have a chance to do, because the news onslaught tends to be less intense during holidays.

I was listening to the substitutes on the Glenn Beck radio program, which had some valuable information. So I’m sharing some of what they said. I'm covering three programs, and I pictured it as just some quick lists, but when I included some commentary on each one, it went long. So I’ll cover two of the days today and save the third for a part II.

Mike Broomhead
image from his Facebook page

Monday, December 23, Mike Broomhead

On the Monday before Christmas the substitute was Mike Broomhead, who has a radio show in Phoenix, Arizona. He spent the beginning ten minutes of the second hour (from 39:58 on the recording) listing the data on the economy. I’ll do it in list form.

·         Stock Market: The Dow Jones has added of 10,000 points since Trump was inaugurated. The Dow, the NASDAQ, the S&P, the three big indicators, have all touched and/or set records this month.

·         Employment: The lowest unemployment rate in 54 or 55 years.

o   Highest number of Americans employed.

o   Lowest black unemployment since statistics have been kept.

o   Lowest Hispanic unemployment since statistics have been kept.

o   60% of jobs created during this administration have gone to women.

·         Income Growth: People’s incomes growing faster now than in decades.

o   Low inflation means raises don’t just keep up with standard of living, but people are actually living better.

o   Lowest earners have seen the greatest growth.

o   All demographics of Americans are better off.

·         Consumer Confidence: These two indicators are both positive, which they haven’t been in decades:

o   “Are you better off this year than you were last year?” Yes.

o   “Do you believe you will be better off next year than you are this year?” Yes.

o   Travel over Thanksgiving was the highest in decades, or forever. True also for Christmas holiday travel.

o   Gift giving and spending up. People are willing to risk using a credit card, because they believe their job is secure.

o   Working-class Americans notice a huge difference when inflation stays low and they have more discretionary income.

·         Tax Cuts Working: The US Treasury is collecting more income tax dollars from individuals and businesses now than ever in the history of America—even when adjusted for inflation.

o   That means deficits are definitely due to a spending problem, not a “not enough taxes” problem.

The odd thing is that many Americans don’t seem to be cheering about all this good news.  As Broomhead says,

I live in a desert. I live in Phoenix, Arizona. There’s a time of year we call monsoon season when the rains come. People dance in the streets when it rains here, because of the long spans without rain. When it rains, it’s a joyous experience.

We should be overjoyed with the rain right now. We had so much of an economic drought, and climbing out of a recession, businesses scraping by and not thriving. And now businesses big and small are thriving, and individuals are thriving as well. As a nation we should be overjoyed.

The only explanation for the lack of celebration is disdain for President Trump. If the opposition allows people to notice that they’re better off, he’ll get reelected. But it’s hard to deny this vindication of what we conservatives have been saying all along:

We have now shown that, when the government gets out of the way, the lives of people improve. They do it themselves. All this president did was unleash the job creators, and look what it’s done.

Monday, December 30, Steve Deace

image from Amazon.com

Steve Deace (pronounce Dace) has a program on The Blaze. He filled in for Glenn Beck for two days, and I’m going to cover both of them (one in the next post). Both include lists. This first one is philosophical. The second one is tactical. Both refer to books he’s written.

Philosophy day covered "The Seven Deadly Worldviews," and refers to his book The Nefarious Plot. These seven worldviews, he says, go in order to devolve a civilization. They are summarized in an article in The Christian Post, so, for simplicity I’m using the definitions from that article for each of the seven. Then for each one there’s Deace’s commentary, plus a bit of mine.

1.       Gnosticism: The rejection of God's Word as not sufficient for us to know our true purpose or for life to have its ultimate meaning. The seeking of extra or special knowledge elsewhere other than God himself.

·   There’s a preference for experts, to make people believe that knowledge they need is hidden to them, and only the special few have it. Then there’s a search, not for actual truth, but for something to make the searcher feel elite.

2.       Legalism: A religious system that puts more emphasis on works based righteous than the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

·   This is feeling superior because of behavioral rules you adhere to and impose on others. There’s no acceptance of contrarians, or heresies from what the rule setters impose.

3.       Dualism: The belief that good and evil are equal in power and essentially two sides of the same coin.

·   An example of this came up in a review I read about the latest Star Wars movie, but covering the whole three-trilogy series. Particularly in episodes 1-3 there’s this pseudo-scientific way of looking at good and evil, with measurements of Midi-Chlorians. There’s talk about there needing to be a balance in the force. But that is never the goal. Neither the dark side nor the light side seeks balance, but dominance. There is no satisfaction in getting to the point in the battle where you say, “We’ve done enough winning; lets let the dark side win for a bit to create balance.” Light always needs to vanquish the dark. The odd thing about this worldview is that it’s so close. No. Anywhere you turn on a light, darkness is vanquished. Good is much more powerful than evil, so it’s always better to choose good over evil.

4.       Darwinism: The belief the universe is the result of random chance occurring completely in the natural world and not the purposeful plan of a creative and sovereign God.

·   Darwinism is not equivalent to evolution. Darwinism reduces humans to animal status. It is nihilistic. There’s no meaning, no purpose in life. This worldview paves the way for eugenics and racism. The Twentieth Century was Darwin’s century. His “scientism” was used by Margaret Sanger (of Planned Parenthood) and the Nazis to murder massive numbers of human beings.

·   There’s a piece I wrote in 2011 that compares treating people as “meat machine” or a human being. 

5.       Pragmatism: A utilitarian ideology that says something can only be true if the practical consequences of accepting it satisfies our needs, desires and wants.

·   The most common summary is “The ends justify the means.” The wrong questions are asked, so the answer comes out wrong. For example, “Why should Mother Teresa be helping people who were put into their miserable circumstances for some karmic reason?” And, as Margaret Sanger would say, “It’s cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world,” so you should kill them before they’re born.

6.       Syncretism: The blending of two or more distinct belief systems for the purpose of creating a new system.

·   A more understandable term might be relativism. People choose their truth. They incorporate any useful belief into their own belief system. They offer fake tolerance; they get to judge you all they want, but don’t allow you to judge them. But in reality, two opposing, contrary views cannot both be simultaneously true. Our founders cracked the code on living peaceably with those that have differing beliefs—holding strong to your own Judeo-Christian beliefs while respecting the differing beliefs of others, but not accepting and taking on the differing beliefs.

7.       Secular Humanism: A belief system that rejects virtually every single principle of God's Word.

·   The seeds for this final deadly worldview have already been sown. It’s the endgame of a culture. We need to worship; there’s never been a longstanding secular culture. The Soviets ended up making government their god—and that is the typical move of secular humanists all over. Note that enlightenment thinkers were supporters of the slave trade, and then of eugenics. Clues: if your culture is doing baby killing, they’re worshiping a pagan god, as anthropology shows us every culture has done. You either worship the true and living God, or you make a god such as government to worship, or you make yourself as god.

The final words on the show were:

We live in a nation where we are first and foremost accountable to God. We know what secular humanism will bring. It’s revival or bust.