In addition to opening the door to widespread fraud, the Democrats’ “election reforms,” rushed through the recent special legislative session, create many structural problems that will dramatically undermine the integrity of our elections. These include a dangerous weakening of signature-verification requirements, and the allowance for multiple ballots to be submitted in a single envelope, with just a single signature required on the envelope — and no signature requirement for the enclosed individual ballots.
And Secretary Cegavske herself recently testified that Nevada has only one full-time investigator to look into election irregularities. It’s a recipe for disaster this November, and it’s time for Secretary Cegavske to step up on this issue.
That’s why we’re leading the charge in calling her to do exactly that.
We’re also asking you to continue to call on the Governor to back off on taking this reckless and dramatic step, and allow Secretary Cegavske to hold a traditional absentee and in-person election.
Click here to contribute today and help us take our campaign all across Nevada. We’ve demonstrated in the past that with your generous support, we can make a big difference in the fight to protect our shared principles.
I hope you’ll stand with us again today.
ITEM #2: Ever since Joe Biden announced Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate for the presidential race, the national “news” media have praised the decision and heaped adulation on the pair who will head the Democrats’ ticket this fall.
Particularly, the press has emphasized the supposed strengths that Harris — as a “pragmatic moderate,” in the New York Times’ words — brings to the Biden campaign, as well as the historic nature of her selection as the first African-American woman to be on a presidential ticket.
Well, Next Gingrich, writing for Fox News, threw some cold water on the media’s excitement this week. Indeed, Gingrich predicts this week’s Democratic National Convention will be the “high-water mark” for Biden-Harris, and that it’ll be all downhill for the two from here on out.
Gingrich cites three chief reasons for this: Biden’s painfully obvious mental decline, Harris’ fundamental weaknesses as a campaigner, and the radical left-wing ideology the two embody.
That third point deserves particular attention, as it’s something the press will go to great lengths to try to hide in the coming weeks. As we noted last week, many other news outlets have already echoed the Times’ description of Harris as an ideological moderate, and they’ve been describing Biden the same way throughout the campaign.
Gingrich, however, doesn’t expect voters to be fooled. He predicts that “as the depth of radicalism of the Biden-Harris platform and the Chuck Schumer-Nancy Pelosi legislative agenda become clear to the American people, they will be increasingly alienated from the new radical Democratic Party and its candidates.”
He cites the ticket’s embrace of radical left-wing ideas such as mass gun confiscation and unlimited state funding of abortion, and the party’s increasing hostility to law enforcement and support for “defunding the police” as positions that will be repellent to the American people.
Add support for sanctuary cities, the Green New Deal, the decriminalization of illegal border crossings, and a massive tax hike on hardworking Americans to the list, and Biden-Harris amounts to the most radically left-wing major-party ticket in American history.
It’s hardly surprising that the national press core would distort the truth in order to make the Democrats’ ticket seem as appealing as possible to the American electorate. They’ve been doing it for decades.
The only question is whether their attempted makeover will succeed, or whether, as Gingrich predicts, “The Democrats’ Biden-Harris dream will quickly become a nightmare.”
ITEM #3: The damning developments continue to roll in for Democrats over the bogus Russia-collusion narrative — and, like clockwork, their media allies continue to ignore or downplay the news at every turn.
The latest episode involves the guilty plea of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who acknowledged he altered an official document as part of the probe.
Charles Lipson, writing for RealClearPolitics, explains Clinesmith’s role in the investigation:
“Clinesmith acknowledges he altered an email from the CIA to the FBI, answering a question about Carter Page. Page is an American citizen and a Naval Academy graduate who spent considerable time in Russia. His time abroad raised a question for the FBI’s counter-intelligence division. Was Page a Russian agent? Or was he on our side, helping the U.S. gather intelligence about the Kremlin? The CIA would know.
“The answer mattered because the FBI and Department of Justice were preparing warrants to spy on Page as a hostile foreign agent. The CIA gave them a clear answer in August 2016, before the first warrant was issued: Page was working for us. That answer was given to a still-unnamed FBI case agent, and we don’t know what he did with it. Did he show it to those preparing the warrant applications? Why else would he even ask the CIA for the information?
“In 2017, after Clinesmith was tasked to the Mueller investigation, their team asked him to clarify Page’s relationship with U.S. intelligence. That’s when he took the CIA document and added a single word, 'not.' The altered document said Carter Page was not a CIA asset. It was a deliberate lie.
“Clinesmith is pleading guilty to inserting that word and changing the document. That’s a felony. What made his crime more significant is that the altered document was then presented to the secret court overseeing actions taken under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The special counsel included it in the fourth FISA application to spy on Page.
“All four were chock-full of deception and dishonesty, but misrepresented to the court as 'verified.' All of them said there 'was probable cause that [Carter Page] was a knowing agent' of Russia. He wasn’t, and the applications’ authors had plenty of reasons to know it.”
Especially damning — a “smoking bazooka,” as Lipson puts it — is that “Clinesmith has said he gave other FBI members the true document, not just the altered one. The 23rd paragraph of the charging information says Clinesmith ‘provided the unchanged C.I.A. email to Crossfire Hurricane agents and the Justice Department lawyer drafting the original wiretap application.’”
But alas, there’s nothing to see here, the “news” media wrongly but predictably insist.
More from Lipson:
“[M]ainstream news outlets have minimized [the guilty plea’s] importance. It’s only one count, they say, and it deals with a relatively minor crime by a mid-level figure.
“That’s spin, and it’s wrong. This plea is like finding water seeping from the base of a dam. The problem is not one muddy puddle. The problem is that it foreshadows the dam’s failure, releasing a torrent. That’s what the Clinesmith plea portends. …
“Clinesmith actually worked on Robert Mueller’s team. He was tasked from the bureau to work with that team, which then submitted his falsified document to the FISA court. That’s crucially important. If attorneys on the special counsel team knew about his crime and did nothing to inform the court, if they continued to use a document they knew was fraudulent, they will face charges. That would implicate Mueller’s team for the first time in illegal activity to undermine the Trump presidency. That’s a much bigger matter than writing a biased report.”
Lipson adds the ominous warning that: “Real trouble looms for anybody on the Mueller team or elsewhere at the DoJ and FBI who knew that Clinesmith had altered the CIA email to change its meaning. There’s even worse trouble ahead for those who ordered him to commit a crime.”
We have a feeling this story is far from over, folks. And we’ll continue to share with you the latest on it as it develops — even as the mainstream “news” press keeps its collective head in the sand.
ITEM #4: Democrats are in hysterics over what they call President Trump’s “assault’ on the U.S. Postal Service ahead of November’s elections, which will feature mail-in voting on an unprecedented scale.
As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reports:
“The president, Democrats and some in the media say, is deliberately slowing mail delivery and crippling the Postal Service so that it cannot handle an anticipated flood of voting by mail in the presidential election. Former President Barack Obama said Trump is trying to ‘actively kneecap’ the Postal Service to suppress the vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the House back into session this week and has set an ‘urgent hearing’ for Aug. 24, demanding Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the head of the Postal Service Board of Governors testify ‘to address the sabotage of the Postal Service.’”
The cause of all this was the President’s comment that he opposed $25 billion in emergency funding for the Postal Service, which Democrats are equating to an attempt to undermine the post office’s ability to deliver ballots.
Democrats are also going after Postmaster General DeJoy, accusing him of trying to suppress the vote.
Karl Rove has spoken up to defend DeJoy, noting that service has improved on his watch and slamming the Democrats for their slanderous attacks. Here's Rove, via Fox News:
"And besides that ... the previous [Obama] administration took away 14,000 mailboxes. "Poof, they disappeared, and we didn’t hear the Democrats saying that Barack Obama was trying to break the mail system or suppress voters. No, no, no, no. This is entirely politics. It is slander, it's fearmongering and it is unjustified by the facts. And shame on those Democrats."
York gets at the real reason we should be concerned about universal mail-in voting:
“There are, of course, compelling examples of election dysfunction, most notably the mess New York made of some of its congressional primaries this summer. But rather than representing a Postal Service problem, that was because some states are unprepared for a dramatic increase of voting by mail. The states have to prepare the ballots, address them, and process and count them when the Postal Service delivers them. That is the focus of the entirely legitimate fears of a possible vote-counting disaster this year. But it's not the Postal Service.”
Nevada is one of those states that are woefully unprepared for what’s to come with universal mail-in voting. And yet, Democrats insist on leading us down that dangerous road. Keep an eye on your inbox, as we’ll have more to say about that in the very near future.
ITEM #5: Shamelessness at a Democratic National Convention is hardly newsworthy, but New York Governor Andrew Cuomo turned it into an artform during the Dems’ virtual gathering this week.
Writing for National Review, David Harsanyi reports on how Cuomo took the occasion to brag about his state’s response to the coronavirus crisis, even going so far as to say: “Our way worked. And it was beautiful.”
Harsanyi calls the Governor out on his nonsense:
“It’s important to keep reminding Americans that there is no leader in the United States — or anywhere in the free world, for that matter — who did a worse job preserving life than the governor of New York. ...
"It was Cuomo’s personal mistake, an executive order forcing nursing homes in his state to accept patients who tested positive for the coronavirus in March, that sent thousands to their deaths. The Associated Press puts the real number of nursing home deaths close to 11,000 — more than the total fatality count in any state other than New Jersey."
Of course, like all Democrat governors who have bungled their COVID responses — including Nevada’s own Steve Sisolak — Cuomo continues to be lionized by a fawning media. Meanwhile, it’s ordinary citizens who are left to suffer the consequences of their failed leadership.
ITEM #6: Left-wing bias in academia is no secret, and Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College, has published a new study on just how bad it is.
Even to those already well familiar with this phenomenon, the numbers are quite astonishing:
“The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free — having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.”
Alarmingly, Langbert reports that the trend toward leftward bias among professors is actual getting stronger, even with the numbers having already long been skewed in that direction.
He provides a graph showing the number of Democrat faculty members for every Republican across a number of fields at America’s liberal arts colleges: