An important lesson about guns

Counting down to Election Day chaos

A review of the many ways Democrats have undermined our election security.

October 29, 2020

ITEM #1:  Like clockwork, every week has brought yet more evidence of how Democrats have worked doggedly to sabotage this year’s election.

We’ve chronicled the long line of abuses here in Nevada. The “reforms” that state Democrats rushed through a midnight “emergency” special session this summer. The implementation of universal mail-in balloting and ballot harvesting. The news stories and videos of mailed ballots piling up around trash cans and at apartment complexes. The countless examples of ballots being mailed to people who don’t live at the recipients’ addresses. The refusal of Governor Steve Sisolak to allow any accountability measures or oversight in the ballot-harvesting process. 

The lack of resources and personnel in the Secretary of State’s office to adequately protect our elections. The unwillingness of the Secretary of State herself to speak up publicly and acknowledge our state’s inability to handle mail-in balloting securely.

The Clark County Registrar’s unilateral lowering of the signature-matching accuracy standard to 40 percent. The fact that an unbelievable 99 percent of county ballots are being counted as accurate as a result. A system that doesn’t allow any signatures to be challenged once they’re verified. The refusal of county officials to allow meaningful observation of signature verification and ballot handling, in defiance of the law.

And that’s just in Nevada.

Forbes reported this week that in Louisville, Kentucky, “A former U.S. Postal Service worker … was charged with mail obstruction Monday after allegedly throwing a ‘large quantity of mail’ including more than 100 absentee ballots in a construction dumpster.”

We’ve seen big problems elsewhere as well, including the swing state of Pennsylvania.

And throughout all of this, an obedient national press has largely continued to carry water for their Democrat allies. They’ve downplayed or dismissed as “voter suppression” tactics any attempts to raise concerns over election integrity, or to bring even minimal oversight and accountability to the process.

They’ve done this even as the evidence continues to build, to the point of being indisputable, that our ability to hold free and fair elections this year has been drastically diminished.

Election Day is just five days out, and all indications are that our state and our country are headed for a perfect storm of chaos, confusion and crisis over whether we will or even can get a fair result.

When it all hits the fan on November 3, we’ll know which party to blame. 

ITEM #2:  The national “news” media’s continued insistence on ignoring the explosive Hunter Biden email scandal is, of course, itself a national scandal.

One need only recall the media’s ceaseless salivating over every potential twist and turn in the entirely phony Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and compare it to their current indifference to the Biden affair to know all one must about the depths of their bias and shamelessness.

And as new revelations continue to produce evidence that implicates Joe Biden as well, including casting serious doubt on the Democratic presidential nominee’s repeated denials that he ever had any involvement in his son’s business dealings, the need for the panic-stricken press to bury this story only becomes greater.

In a column for the Washington Post, Thomas Rid issued a directive for how to cover this story: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t,” he said.

This prompted a biting tweet from U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan:

As John Daniel Davidson writes at The Federalist, the media’s efforts to brush this story aside are likely to backfire:

"[T]he dogged refusal of the mainstream press to cover the story, together with Twitter and Facebook’s decision to block access to the Post’s reporting, might prove to be a bigger scandal than whatever Hunter and his dad were up to in China. Information about the Biden scandal has been so politicized, writes [Matt] Taibbi, that American audiences can hardly look up anything about Hunter and China without running into 'thickets of propagandistic contextualizing' — fact-checks and explainers and op-eds that keep readers away from what substantive reporting does exist, lest they come to their own conclusions about the Biden family business.

"But suppression and distraction can only go so far, even when big media and big tech join forces. The longer the Hunter Biden story is out there, the more one can see a kind of psychosis developing in the American press. After weeks of insinuating, without evidence, that the Hunter Biden emails are just 'Russian disinformation' and therefore not worthy of serious coverage, the media circulated a Reuters report on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin said there’s 'nothing criminal' about Hunter Biden’s business deals. Apparently, if it comes straight from Putin’s mouth it can’t be disinformation.

"The American people are not helpless rubes, and they smell a rat. For as much as big media and big tech are trying to control what audiences see and hear, for as much as they try to keep unwanted or counter-narrative information out of the public square, they can’t quite do it."

As we noted last week, on an altogether different subject, the national “news” media’s monopoly on information is crumbling. And their power to keep politically inconvenient truths hidden grows weaker every day.

ITEM #3:  It’s official: Amy Coney Barrett is now Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett’s ascendance to our nation’s highest court was completed this week, making her the third new justice confirmed during President Donald Trump’s tenure. Of course, her confirmation was accompanied by the fully predictable round of bleating and caterwauling from the left, including not just elected Democrats but their friends in the media as well.

National Review’s David Harsanyi has penned an incisive analysis of why the left is driven to such hysterics over the appointment of judges like Barrett. As the headline of his piece summarizes: “The Left Doesn’t Fear Amy Coney Barrett, It Fears the Constitution.”

Here’s Harsanyi:

"Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution. It’s really that simple.

"That’s what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation is all about. The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a Court-packing revenge scheme — the same people, incidentally, so fond of smear-drenched confirmation hearings — are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous. …

“Liberals act as if they are imbued with a theological right to dictate not only the terms, but also the nominees, of confirmation hearings whether they win or lose elections.

“And when you’re under the impression that the system exists solely to facilitate your partisan agenda, something will seem ‘broken’ every time you lose.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s meltdown over Barrett’s confirmation serves as a perfect example of what the left fears most from losing these battles over the courts. 

As Harsanyi writes:

“Schumer warned: 'A warming planet. Workers falling behind. Dark money flooding politics. The curtailing of the right to choose. The limiting of voting rights. Those are the consequences of this nomination.'

"What he means, of course, is that an originalist-majority Court may slow progressive environmentalist policies that undermine personal freedom and local sovereignty. He means that the Court may make it more difficult for Democrats to adopt policies that compel workers to join and fund unions and chip away at the Janus decision. He means lawmakers may not be able to continue gnawing at Citizens United and weakening First Amendment protections. He means that unlimited third-trimester abortions on demand and funded by the state might be in trouble, that attacks on religious freedom might be blunted, and that states may be obligated to follow their own laws on Election Day rather than concoct rules as they go along."

For decades now, the left — having failed to convince a sufficient number of citizens to embrace its radical agenda at the ballot box — has sought, often successfully, to force its political vision on society through a lawless, activist judiciary. This requires effectively destroying our Constitution and the limits it places on governmental power. 

But without the courts, they are left with no recourse … and so every setback on that front is treated as a full-blown crisis.

Congratulations, Justice Barrett. Your confirmation to the Supreme Court is a tremendous personal achievement, and a major victory in the fight to defend our constitutional order from the tyrannical left.

ITEM #4:  The threat that Nevada may take a giant leap in the direction of California-style insanity this year is so serious that it has caught the attention of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

The editors recently weighed in on a ballot question before Nevada voters that would, if approved, implement the kind of disastrous approach to energy policy that has so infamously wreaked havoc on our neighbor to the West.

They explain what’s at stake, and how we got here:

“California’s blackouts this summer presented a cautionary lesson about purging fossil fuels from the power supply. Nevadans can heed the warning and reject a referendum to enshrine a 50% renewable electricity mandate in the state constitution.

“Nevada voters in 2018 approved, 60%-40%, a constitutional amendment known as Question 6 requiring state utilities to generate 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030. Voters must approve a referendum during two consecutive general elections to codify it in the state constitution. Question 6 is up for a second vote on Nov. 3.

“The referendum might seem moot since the Legislature last year unanimously passed a similar law establishing a 50% renewable mandate. Yet progressive groups and the solar lobby are pushing the constitutional amendment because they worry state lawmakers will walk back the mandate if electricity rates surge, job growth slows, or power becomes less reliable.”

If the measure passes again this year, it will become part of the Nevada Constitution — at which point, there will be no going back.

And what might Nevada’s energy future look like should we take such a turn? The experience in California offers an ominous warning:

“Since 2010 electric rates in California have jumped 30% for homes and 37% for manufacturers. ... Higher electric costs in California have reduced job growth in power-hungry industries, especially manufacturing. ...

“Californians learned this summer they can no longer take reliable electricity for granted after a heat wave resulted in a power shortage and outages. The state’s utilities lacked enough back-up fossil-fuel generation to keep the lights on when solar power waned. They usually import power from other states in a pinch, but regional supply was strained.”

The Journal’s editors conclude by hitting the nail right on the head:

“Nevadans embrace California’s high-cost, low-reliability energy future at their peril.”

ITEM #5:  Colin Kaepernick, the failed NFL quarterback turned anti-American hero of the political left, has been selected to the University of Nevada’s Athletics Hall of Fame, Breitbart reports

This is the same Colin Kaepernick, let us recall, who has been seen wearing socks with pictures of pigs dressed like police officers, donned a T-shirt with a picture of Fidel Castro on it, and, perhaps most notoriously, kicked off the sickening fad of professional athletes disrespectfully kneeling during the playing of our national anthem.

Earlier this month, Kaepernick authored an expletive-laced op-ed in which he called for the abolishment of police and prisons. 

Among his insights is that, “The central intent of policing is to surveil, terrorize, capture, and kill marginalized populations, specifically Black folks,” and that, “In order to eradicate anti-Blackness, we must also abolish the police.”

Simply “reforming” the police — which is itself radical and reckless, in the way it has been pushed by leftist politicians — doesn’t go far enough for Kaepernick, who explains:

“Ultimately, I realized that seeking reform would make me an active participant in reforming, reshaping, and rebranding institutional white supremacy, oppression, and death.”

Whatever his on-field accomplishments in college, Keapernick has since become a national disgrace — someone who not only is filled with deep and irrational hatred for this country (though he still opts to enjoy the many liberties and other blessings it affords him, mind you), but who also possesses a stunning level of ignorance about the realities of law-enforcement matters as well as American history.

His alma mater should be embarrassed, not proud, of any association with him. And it’s an outrage, an insult, and an affront to decency that any Nevada public institution would choose to honor him in any way.

ITEM #6:  There’s a new documentary out titled “The Plot Against the President,” described on Amazon as, “The true story of how Congressman Devin Nunes uncovered the operation to bring down the President of the United States.”

Nunes indeed did heroic work in exposing the Democrats’ and media’s shameless campaign to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump, and this documentary, directed by Amanda Milius and based on a book by investigative journalist Lee Smith, is a welcome addition to the effort to set the record straight.

It’s presented in the style of a spy-thriller, and is a must-see for all Americans who want to truly understand what happened throughout the phony Russia-collusion hoax — and the damage done to our country as a result. 

As Milius told Fox News: “There are things in this movie that I don’t even feel comfortable knowing, but everyone needs to know.”

The documentary is available on Amazon here.


“The confirmation process has made ever clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate. And perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a Senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.” ― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett 

“Every norm broken, every escalation, one party — the Democrats — has been the aggressor. At every step along the way, our side has used our constitutional authority, and the other side has abused theirs. There is no ‘tit’ for ‘tat.’ There’s just ‘tat.’" ― U.S. Senator Mike Lee

“Originalism is the stick in the spoke of progressivism.” ― David Harsanyi