Ab Vigano – Another Letter to American Catholics
Archbishop Vigano Issues Another Letter to American Catholics Donate to Support God’s Five Stones Powered By EmbedPress
The Communist Who Convinced Jimmy Carter to Give Away the Panama Canal
The Communist Who Convinced Jimmy Carter to Give Away the Panama Canal Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. The late Jimmy Carter didn’t come up spontaneously with the idea of giving away the Panama Canal, which America spent blood and gold on and which is an essential part of its national security. Instead, he had Robert A. Pastor, a communist, whispering in his ear. A globalist who desired to merge incrementally the U.S., Mexico, and Canada into a “North American Union” (NAU) along the model of the European Union, Pastor’s intellectual development was rooted in Marxism. Pastor played an instrumental role in the Carter administration’s decision to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. In what appears to have been his first job after being a teaching assistant graduate student while getting his Ph.D. at Harvard University’s Department of Government, Robert A. Pastor signed on to be the Executive Director of the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission was formally named the “Rockefeller Foundation’s Commission on U.S.- Latin American Relations,” but took its unofficial name from its chairman, Sol Linowitz. Linowitz had previously served as director of the socialist National Planning Association and was a paid, registered foreign agent of the Communist regime of Salvadore Allende in Chile. One of the Linowitz Commission’s primary recommendations was that the United States should give the Panama Canal to Panama. In a 1995 interview he gave for a publication in a law journal,1/ Linowitz explained that it was wrong for the U.S. to have sovereignty over the Panama Canal. Discussing the 1903 treaty that gave the U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal, Linowitz commented, “That treaty was a source of shame to the Panamanians because it conveyed sovereignty over a large stretch of their territory to an occupying party.” After completing this assignment as Executive Director of the Linowitz Commission, Pastor signed on with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Interestingly, the curriculum vitae that Pastor prepared for American University, where he taught before his death in 2014, mentioned his involvement with the Linowitz Commission but neglected to mention his association with IPS. According to political scientist S. Steven Powell’s definitive study of the IPS,2/ the group was founded in 1963 with funding coming from the Rubin Foundation. Russian émigré Samuel Rubin was a registered member of the Communist Party who made his fortune in the cosmetic business of Faberge, Inc., which he founded in 1936 and sold for approximately $25 million in 1963. Cora Rubin Weiss, Samuel’s daughter, continued funding IPS through the Rubin Foundation, while her husband, Peter Weiss, served as IPS chairman of the board of trustees.3/ Author David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks.org identified the IPS as “America’s oldest leftwing think tank,” which “has long supported Communist and Anti-American causes around the world,” with a place for KGB agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington “to convene and strategize.” By its own admission, the Institute for Policy Studies is “an avowedly radical organization,4/ created to influence public policy in a leftist direction. At IPS, Pastor participated in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Latin America, which produced a 1977 report entitled “The Southern Connection: Recommendations for a New Approach to Inter-American Relations.”5/ This paper found that the official presumption of U.S. superiority in Latin America was “morally reprehensible.” The IPS paper argued that human rights problems in Latin America were a direct result of our “virulent anticommunism” and “national development based on free play of market forces.” The IPS solution argued for the U.S. to abandon our anti-communist allies in Latin America in favor of supporting “ideological pluralism,” a code word designed to normalize the revolutionary socialist forces then fighting for power in Latin America. The IPS political agenda promoted an anti-American “Third Worldism” and the “self-flagellation” characteristic of Carter’s foreign policy—an agenda with far-reaching consequences that were revealed when the Sandinistas fashioned their revolutionary society” in Nicaragua, “along the lines of Castro’s Cuba.”6/ Pastor left the Linowitz Commission to become the director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs in the National Security Council in the Carter White House. There, Pastor served as President Carter’s “point man”,7/ advocating for the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaty (with Omar Torrijos, the dictatorial Panamanian head of state) that transferred the Panama Canal to Panama. Pastor also played a role in convincing the Senate to vote for the Carter-Torrijos Treaty on April 18, 1978, despite staunch objections from conservative politicians, including Ronald Reagan, who objected on national security grounds.8/ At the request of President Jimmy Carter, Linowitz had helped negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, touring and speaking throughout the U.S. to conservative groups opposing the Panama Canal giveaway. In December 1993, when President Clinton nominated Pastor to be the U.S. ambassador to Panama, Pastor’s role in the Panama Canal giveaway came back to haunt him. Pastor’s nomination had been approved by a 16-3 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his confirmation looked virtually certain. The nomination failed, however, and the administration withdrew it in February 1995 after Senator Jesse Helms swore to prevent a Senate vote on Pastor’s nomination. Helms, who had vehemently opposed the turn-over of the Panama Canal, placed much of the blame squarely on Pastor, declaring when he opposed Pastor’s nomination that Pastor “presided over one of the most disastrous and humiliating periods in the history of US involvement in Latin America.”9/ Jeane Kirkpatrick, UN ambassador under Ronald Reagan, commented presciently on the connections between the Linowitz Commission, the IPS, revolutionary socialism, and utopian globalism: The ease with which the Linowitz recommendations were incorporated into the IPS analysis and report demonstrated how strong had become the affinity between the views of the foreign policy establishment and the New Left, how readily the categories of the new liberalism could be translated into those of revolutionary socialism, and how short a step it was from utopian globalism and the expectation of change to anti-American perspectives and revolutionary activism.10/ During Carter’s presidency, Pastor played a major intellectual role in shaping the administration’s dominant ideology that U.S. capitalism was the culprit, not the solution—leading to
Why Didn’t the Democrats Steal the 2024 Presidential Election?
Why Didn’t the Democrats Steal the 2024 Presidential Election? Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Many Trump supporters believe that Trump won the 2024 election because, this time, the vote for Trump was “too big to rig.” Others dismiss the concern about “stolen elections” because Trump won the popular vote in addition to the electoral vote, plus a GOP majority in the U.S. House and Senate. The reality is that elections are still corruptible. While Democrats didn’t rig the presidential race this time around, the narrow congressional majority probably means that down-ballot races were still manipulated…something Democrats can and will do again. But we would make a mistake to think that there are vote margins so large that cheating is impossible. Biden’s popular vote total was even larger in 2020 than Trump’s in 2024 (81,283,501 vs. Trump’s 74,223,975 in 2020 and 77,303,573 in 2024). Biden’s 2020 popular vote was “too big because it was rigged.” What we learned after 2020 was that cryptographic algorithms embedded in State Board of Elections voter registration databases existed in databases, as Andrew Paquette and I demonstrated on our 501(c)3 website, GodsFiveStones.com. The algorithms permit bad actors to create false voter records that are still given legitimate state voter ID numbers. The scheme appears designed to allow the criminals operating the cryptographic scheme, at will, to vote illegally the number of certifiable (though false) mail-in ballots needed to win. In 2020, the telltale pattern of election fraud was evident, as all the battleground states halted counting votes on election night. When vote counting resumed, enough mail-in ballots in each battleground state miraculously appeared, putting Biden on top for good. However, in 2024, after Andrew Paquette exposed cryptographic algorithms in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia, each of the battleground states completed vote counting on election night, with all of them reporting Trump as the winner. In part, Trump’s victory may have been because we did expose the cryptographic algorithms in four of the 2024 battleground states before the presidential election on November 5, 2024. However, the primary reason the Democrats allowed the swing states to conclude counting votes on election night was that the Democrats decided not to steal the 2024 presidential election to punish Biden and Kamala Harris for breaking ranks. At the “Deep Party” Central Committee level of the Democrat party—at the level of Barack Obama, Klaus Schwab, and George Soros—the order went out that Harris needed to lose. After Biden’s catastrophic debate performance, Sen. Ted Cruz believed that Obama wanted to substitute Michelle Obama as the Democrat’s candidate once Biden was induced (or forced) to resign from the bid. This theory gains support from the political melodrama in the Democrat party after the debate. Biden eventually dropped out of the race at 1:45 p.m. on July 21 via a social media post. Not quite 30 minutes later, he posted on “X” that, after deciding “not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term,” he offered his “full support and endorsement for Kamala (Harris) to be the nominee of our party this year.” Almost immediately after Biden’s announcements, Obama issued a letter that, while commending Biden for his decision to withdraw, did not endorse Harris. As early as July 10, 2024, mainstream media had printed stories that if Biden were to drop out of the race, delegates to the Democratic National Convention would be released to vote for an alternative. After Biden’s “X” post endorsing Kamala Harris, she became the presumed Democrat party presidential candidate. All consideration of an alternative presidential candidate, including Michelle Obama, stopped. Despite increasing evidence of Biden’s diminishing mental capacity, he’d outmaneuvered Obama. If we assume the Democrat party has increasingly been acting as a neo-Marxist party, the capital sin of a party member would be to countermand a Central Committee decision. Biden’s maneuver to position Kamala Harris ahead of Michelle Obama as the party’s presidential candidate in 2024 was an unpardonable offense. Should this reasoning be correct, Kamala Harris would be well advised to watch her back between now and 2028. Don’t be surprised if charges that Harris violated campaign finance laws end up indicting her with felony charges that could send her to prison. Looked at from the perspective of the “Deep Party” Central Committee that runs the Democrats, Harris needed to lose. Statements made during the campaign suggest that both Obama, now joined by Biden, who hated her for shivving him, sought to undermine Harris. On the campaign trail for Harris on October 10, 2024, Obama antagonized black male voters. “You (black males) are coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, and I’ve got a problem with that,” Obama said. “Because part of it makes me think—and I’m speaking to men directly—part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.” Then, on October 30, 2024, in response to Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York City, Biden suggested Trump supporters were “garbage,” a comment sure to goad Trump supporters into even more determined resolve to vote against Kamala. If Kamala Harris won the presidency in 2024, she would have had an excellent chance of being re-elected in 2028. Now, though, she has a limited future at best. In other words, Trump won not only because the American people voted for him but because the Democrat “Deep State” Party needed to bring its people in line. That is, they let Trump win by refusing to hand Kamala a victory. However, even as the Democrats stepped back from the top of the ticket, as the razor-thin margin in the House reminds us, the president isn’t the only person on a ballot. The ongoing investigation of many down-ballot elections suggests that the algorithms were also used in those down-ballot races. There’s growing evidence strongly suggesting that the Democrats stole many U.S. House and Senate elections and an
Obama Floats Pardon Trial Balloon Amid Deep State Frenzy to Get on the List
Obama Floats Pardon “Trial Balloon” Amid Deep State Frenzy to Get on the List Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. When does Barack Obama ask Susan Rice to petition Joe Biden for a presidential pardon for himself? With the pardon frenzy buzzing around the Biden camp, a trial balloon for an Obama pardon has already begun drifting toward the Oval Office. Biden will be well advised to limit his pardons to members of his own family. In his NBC News Meet the Press interview on Sunday, December 8, Trump explained that he had no intention of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Biden, despite Biden’s enthusiasm to raid Mar-a-Lago under the authority of Jack Smith, the special prosecutor the Biden administration appointed in an attempt to convict and incarcerate Trump in federal criminal prison. Given the resistance coup d’état that the Deep State has waged against Donald J. Trump since before the first inauguration on January 20, 2017, the fear and loathing among Biden administration top-level operatives to beg for pardons attests to their awareness that the second Trump administration will witness justice administered by a righteous Trump Vindictus [i.e., translated from Latin: Trump’s Revenge]. Those petitioning now for pardons are doing so because they know the crimes they have committed, and they are afraid that with the massive declassification of information that the incoming Trump administration is planning to make public, their guilt will no longer remain hidden. What Obama fears is that Biden might be persuaded to issue a sweeping set of Deep State pardons to a list that would include various top-level Obama administration officials like former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Attorney General James Comey who potentially could be forced to provide damaging criminal testimony against him. A presidential pardon does not waive a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for future crimes. But a person accepting a pardon (including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Hunter Biden, or anyone else so pardoned) can be forced to testify truthfully about the pardoned crimes since they are no longer at risk of prosecution under federal law. Once pardoned, the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to giving testimony against others for the pardoned crimes since the pardoned individual no longer needs Fifth Amendment protection from a self-incrimination risk that is no longer relevant. In other words, just to be clear, please understand that by accepting a pardon, a person has admitted guilt to the pardoned crime. This fact, without any other evidence, gives the DOJ and the FBI a probative cause to start a new investigation by interviewing and interrogating the pardoned person under oath. All a DOJ or FBI official would have to do is to put a piece of paper in front of the pardoned person and ask that person to enumerate all crimes committed, plus requiring the pardoned person to give the names and details of all criminal accomplices involved. President Gerald Ford set the precedent for a pre-emptive pardon (i.e., a pardon before any offense has been charged) with his Proclamation 4311, issued on September 8, 1974, granting a pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, ending the Watergate affair, on August 9, 1974. Ford justified the pre-emptive pardon because Nixon’s trial “could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed.” Ford reasoned that in that time, “the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.” But the idea of granting a long list of Deep State political actors a blanket pardon for all crimes they may have committed, plotted to commit, or contemplated to commit, stretching back to 2009, the year Obama first took office, would stretch the precedent of the Nixon pardon back 15 years, to politically unacceptable levels encompassing all the years of Democratic presidential rule since President George W. Bush. The tranquility Ford sought to preserve by the Nixon pardon is not compatible with the angry, vituperative response a blanket pardon of Obama/Biden operatives may have committed, especially if Hillary and Bill Clinton blanket pardons were to be thrown into the mix. Besides, under the Supreme Court ruling in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. A lawfare note drafted four years ago argued that “(p)roactively pardoning large swaths of current and former government officials, family members and other people connected to the Trump administration would be a double-edged sword. Wouldn’t the same logic apply to the Obama and Biden administrations and to the term Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state and Democratic Party presidential candidate? Are former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all willing to admit their terms in office were criminal affairs? Lawfare discussions argued vociferously in 2020 that President Trump did not have the power to issue a self-pardon. Nor is there any prohibition in the Constitution from impeaching President Biden even though his status is now a lame duck. A series of blanket pardons designed to protect a broad Deep State conspiracy to make sure Trump never returned to the White House could implicate Biden in what could be construed as a continuing, perhaps treasonous coup d’état that sought to vitiate the will of the people as expressed in the just past November 5 presidential election. One constitutional limitation of the presidential pardon authority is that it cannot be used in impeachment cases. So, in the final analysis, the House of Representatives could impeach Biden for “high crimes and misdemeanors” for abusing the pardon authority, forcing him to stand trial in the Senate (possibly even after the second Trump inauguration on January 20, 2025). The truth is that the Deep State went too far in the
Archbishop Vigano Letter: SOME CONSIDERATIONS after the election victory by Donald J. Trump
Archbishop Vigano Letter: SOME CONSIDERATIONS after the election victory by Donald J. Trump Article Published on Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. A few days ago, on the eve of the U.S. Presidential Election, the arrogance of political commentators in the United States and all vassal nations had reached unexplored heights. Singers, actors, philanthropists, public figures, and journalists who supported Kamala Harris went so far as to threaten to leave the United States if Donald J. Trump was elected, and in truth many today expect them to fulfill their promises. Even Jorge Mario Bergoglio made a gesture, with his trademark politeness, traveling in a wheelchair to the penthouse of radical Sorosian activist and abortionist Emma Bonino with white roses and chocolates, as if to issue a final, desperate plea to American Catholics not to be too skeevy and to vote for Harris, who shares with Bergoglio the woke religion. The mainstream media, owned by the usual big investment funds, shamelessly endorsed Kamala and ridiculed, indeed criminalized Donald Trump. And the more rude, the more transgressive, the more obscene, the more profane Harris supporters were, the more space they were given on television and social media. Trucks with millions of already-voted ballots were ready to reach Pennsylvania and those states where the votes of deceased, relocated Democrats and illegal immigrants were not enough to skew the election result. Insidious algorithms embedded in the State Election enough to skew the election result. Insidious algorithms embedded in the State Election Commission’s voter registration databases were uncovered by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. These algorithms allowed false voter registrations to be printed and concealed, which could be used in various election fraud schemes, including counting absentee ballots cast by nonexistent voters. By exposing the scheme, Dr. Corsi prevented the creation of millions of fraudulent votes for Kamala Harris. In multiple states in the Union, computer reports revealed that electronic voting registration machines allowed votes to be changed remotely, and in one case access passwords were even leaked online. On the morning of November 5, in short, it seemed that everything was settled. Everyone thought so: some with the arrogance of those who believe themselves to be superior merely because they are progressive, woke, green, resilient, inclusive, sustainable, gender ideologized; others with that fund of trepidation of those who find themselves like the young David fighting the giant Goliath. Yet in a matter of hours, that whole immense house of cards, that whole mighty electoral machine sagged like a circus tent. The Globalist Metaverse The most remarkable element of this presidential campaign, in my opinion, consists in the manifestation of the pride and conceit of the self-proclaimed “good guys”; a pride that has made them deaf and blind to the true, real demands of the people; a conceit that places them above the miserable daily affairs of the vulgar and places them in a virtual world, in a surreal metaverse in which normal people are not allowed. It is the metaverse of the globalist world, with its agenda, its religion, its high priests, its prophets, its rituals, its dogmas, its holy books, and its idols. The only thing Kamala had to do was make this dystopia irreversible by making it the official religion of the United States of America and its ideological colonies. Bergoglio, the Jesuits (with their U.S. leaders, Thomas Reese and James Martin), the U.S. Cardinals in the line of McCarrick, and the entire Bergoglian episcopate were waiting for nothing else, replicating in the ecclesial sphere that irremediable rupture between Hierarchy and faithful that in the civil sphere has been consummated between the ruling class and citizens. On the other hand, even the exponents of the “synodal church” are under blackmail no more or less than the clients of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs. It is not surprising that the outcome of the elections has outraged the exponents of the deep church, which for decades, with the support of the deep state, infiltrated the Catholic Church and worked for her demolition. The Jesuits together with “their pope,” accomplices of the globalist subversive plan, ought to soon suffer the same cancellation that in recent years they have inflicted – also making use of the political support they enjoy – on those who have denounced their betrayal. “Yes, we can,” Obama said years ago. And we’ve seen it: the deep state has indeed been able to do everything it promised, from protecting the pedo-satanist elite to covering up the most scandalous cases of corruption; from imposing the insane green policies and climate fraud to administering a poison designed to exterminate the population; from genetic engineering to the systematic destruction of agriculture and animal husbandry; from the energy crisis provoked to destroy the economic fabric of the nation to the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. All of this has been done by transferring billions from the pockets of citizens to the offshore accounts of multinational corporations, pharmaceutical companies, arms manufacturers, and “humanitarian” organizations that are always headed by the well-known families of the world’s usurious high finance. The Disconnection from the Real World Those who marvel at the resounding failure of the globalist metaverse show by their surprise that they are totally disconnected from the real world, where men and women literally fight to get to work, and not just to get a job, because our streets are dumps of derelicts and criminals; where parents have to protect their children from the perversions and obscenities of their teachers, or where a woke judge can take your child away from you because you don’t call him or her by the pronouns he or she has “chosen”. In the real world we worry about the cost of living, rising energy prices, the ever-lower quality of large-scale retail products, and the difficulty of finding healthy food. In the real world, the farmer has to think about how to survive after paying taxes and being crushed by unfair competition from multinational corporations, and the rancher feels helpless when
Eric Hovde’s Wisconsin Senate Race Opens the Door to a Criminal Investigation
Eric Hovde’s Wisconsin Senate Race Opens the Door to a Criminal Investigation Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 21, 2024 The Democrats may have made a significant mistake in their all-too-obvious attempt to steal a U.S. Senate seat from GOP candidate Eric Hovde. As Hovde explained in a November 12 video, in the early hours of November 6, 2024, he received congratulatory calls for his apparent win. Then, suddenly, by 4:00 am, “a staggering 108,000 absentee ballots were dumped from Milwaukee, with two-term incumbent Senator [and [Democrat candidate]Tammy Baldwin receiving nearly 90 percent of those votes.” Hovde objected: “Statistically, this outcome seemed improbable, as it didn’t match the patterns from same-day voting in Milwaukee, where I received 22 percent of the votes.” The problem for Democrats is that the late-night drop of an improbable 108,000 thousand absentee ballots that were nearly all for the Democratic candidate fitted an all-too-recognizable pattern of election fraud made possible by cryptographic algorithms embedded covertly in the official State Board of Elections (SBOE) voter registration database. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., had previously found an illegal clandestine algorithm in the SBOE voter rolls. As reported on GodsFiveStones.com, Paquette concludes: This study of Wisconsin’s voter rolls reveals strong evidence of multiple ID number assignment algorithms, with two appearing over-engineered, enabling data segregation and hidden assignment. The presence of over 60,000 records with encrypted ID numbers further suggests hidden attributes, potentially violating public disclosure laws. Paquette has also discovered similar illegal cryptographic algorithms in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, with algorithms yet to be reported also found in New Jersey, Texas, and Hawaii. In common sense parlance, the algorithms are an intelligence-grade complexity mathematical scheme that facilitates creating and hiding false voters who receive legitimate state voter IDs. After making the false voter records, the criminals responsible for embedding the algorithm in the database can hide the false records so that they can be recovered by an algorithm locator number known only to the criminals. The criminals’ favorite targets for creating duplicate clone voter records are inactive voters, deceased voters, and voters who have moved out of the state. By creating duplicate “clones” of these records, the criminals have exploited a voter record that should have been purged to produce a second “nonexistent” voter registration duplicate that can be double-voted in mail-in ballot schemes that are difficult to detect. State officials turning a blind eye to the late dropping of thousands of mail-in votes favorable to Democrats strive to block forensic examination of the mail-in ballots that almost certainly would have detected the fraud by identifying mail-in ballots that were never mailed, signatures on mail-in ballots that do not match signatures on registration cards, failure to date mail-in ballots properly, and in community canvassing to see if qualified registered voters live at the addresses to which the fraudulent mail-in ballots were supposed to have been mailed. Searching the Wisconsin SBOE voter registration database, Paquette discovered that a search of voter names and phone numbers yielded 2,471,519 matched clone voter records in a database of 7,744,986 voter records, nearly one-third of the SBOE voter records on file. Startled by these results, Paquette commented: Wisconsin’s clone records significantly outnumber those in other states, potentially matching New York’s total despite having only a third as many registered voters. This fare exceeds any normal error rate or acceptable administrative standard. Alarmingly, new clone records have increased dramatically year-over-year for over two decades, potentially surpassing legal registrations within years. Paquette continued: These findings indicate potentially unethical management of Wisconsin’s voter roll records. Regardless of intent, the algorithm’s use creates a hidden classification system for data segregation, posing a security risk. The large number of cloned records exacerbates this risk, as such records would be of particular interest to those seeking to misuse voter roles—a concern recently realized when Wisconsin mailed absentee ballots to inactive voters. In a statement issued on November 13, Hovde objected: Since last Wednesday, numerous parties have reached out to me about voting inconsistencies, such as certain voting precincts in Milwaukee having a turnout of over 150% of registered voters, and in some cases, over 200%. Additionally, in 2020, President Biden received 10 million more votes than Vice President Harris did last Tuesday. Yet in Milwaukee, even though the population has declined and registered voters decreased by 26,330, and early voting numbers were down, somehow, Harris received only 1,100 fewer votes than Biden did, which is not consistent with most major cities. This was accomplished by same-day registration that surged by almost 50% on a rainy day. Many people have reached out and urged me to contest the election.” On Monday, November 18, Hovde conceded without asking for a recount. Since the margin of defeat was less than 1 percent, he would have had to pay for the recount. In the 12 days between the election and the concession, Hovde was heavily criticized for not conceding immediately. Sam Liebert, the leftist Wisconsin state director for All Voting Is Local, charged at a news conference that Hovde’s statements constituted “a direct attempt to cast doubt on our fair and free elections” and said that Hovde’s refusal to concede “not only disappointing but also unnecessary.” Another problem for Hovde is that a recount would not allow a forensic examination of the mail-in ballots, while a computer search of falsified mail-in votes would be certified because the state ID numbers assigned “false clone voters” would show up within the SBOE computers with matching numbers requesting a mail-in ballot and casting a ballot with the same number that was tabulated. Moreover, Wisconsin has a 45-day window to complete certification, allowing very little time to organize a challenge to the federal district courts to challenge the election results on suspicion that a large enough number of algorithm-assisted “clone voting” records could be found in a forensic examination of the mail-in ballots to substantiate claims of election fraud. Final counts showed 108,000 absentee and provisional ballots from Milwaukee in the early hours of Wednesday, November 6, went 82 percent for Baldwin, according to the
How Congress Can Prevent WWIII
How Congress Can Prevent WWIII Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 21, 2024 President Joe Biden made a unilateral decision to approve Ukraine’s use of Army Tactical Missile Systems (“ATACMS”)—long-range USA-manufactured missiles—on targets inside Russia without introducing a resolution into Congress declaring war on Russia. On Tuesday, November 19, 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin formally signed a revision to Russia’s “state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence.” That revision specified the following: Aggression against the Russian Federation and (or) its allies on the part of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state is considered as their joint attack. The revised policy also specified that Russia would consider a nuclear strike if Russia or its ally, Belarus, faced aggression “with the use of conventional weapons that created a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) their territorial integrity.” On the same day, Ukraine fired six ATACMS missiles at a military depot in the Russian region of Bryansk. Under the terms of Russia’s newly redefined nuclear weapons policy, Russia is now at war with the United States, with no indication that President Biden has any intention of sending to Congress a resolution declaring that the United States is at war with Russia. Congress need not stand by idly, watching without recourse, as a lame-duck president (whose mental competence must be considered questionable) authorizes Ukraine to fire USA-manufactured missiles into Russia—a policy that has as its only rational purpose to induce Russia to use a tactical nuclear bomb in retaliation. Does anyone think arming Ukraine with ATACMS to lob into Russia will win the war for Ukraine while Russia occupies the essential Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine—Crimea—and controls parts of Donetsk and Luhansk Provinces in eastern Ukraine? Under the authority of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Congress can pass rescission legislation that, according to the Congressional Institute, “is considered under expedited procedures, making it easier for a simple majority of each Chamber of Congress to revisit spending decisions.” There is also an exception in U.S. law allowing Congress to pass a rescission bill without the president’s signature. A Ford administration White House memo dated September 13, 1976, entitled “Enactment of Legislation Without the Approval of the President,” specified the following: Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. The Constitution thus gives the President the primary options of approving a bill by signing it, or of returning it to Congress with his objections. In the latter case it becomes law only if approved by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress. What the Ford administration makes clear is that “Congress can override a presidential veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually, an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the president from blocking an act when significant support for it While the process of passing rescission legislation to block ATACMS from being used by Ukraine to attack Russia may take longer than the presidential transition period that ends with President Trump’s Inauguration on January 20, 2025, the very fact of originating the legislation in Congress will send clear messages to Presidents Biden, Putin, and Trump. That message will be that Congress does not approve the funding of a reckless executive decision made by a lame-duck president (with questionable mental acuity) that could lead to a World War III thermonuclear confrontation before it was over. Those generals worried that Trump, once in office, might move to court-martial them with treason charges have once again calculated poorly, betting that by getting Biden to escalate the war in Ukraine, they could save their hides. The introduction of rescission legislation in Congress will send a clear message to Biden that influential (most likely bipartisan) voices in Congress have no appetite for a war with Russia. Biden should be reminded that Congress “has the authority to extend the impeachment process to officials who are no longer in office.” With rescission legislation introduced into Congress, President Zelensky will quickly realize that continued use of ATACMS missiles would effectively terminate Ukraine’s ability to get continued congressional funding to support the war. President-Elect Trump could publicly applaud the introduction of the legislation, repeating with emphasis his desire to end the war in Ukraine once he is back in the White House. Putin could convince his military, and perhaps even more importantly, his fellow Russian citizens, that by restraining a Russian nuclear retaliation (that he is now authorized to launch), he is showing restraint worthy of praise. Members of Congress who do not support the introduction of recission legislation would realize that the likelihood the Congressional process to pass the legislation without the president’s signature would take more time than is available before the Inauguration. Thus, even those members of Congress who feel they would ultimately have to vote against the measure can be relieved that a final vote may never have time to come to the floor of both houses. In the final analysis, a president willing to risk starting WWIII to make sure Trump’s second term would fail will be “trumped” by a Congress willing to deescalate the war in Ukraine at the risk that as president once again, Trump might end a war that never would have been fought had the Democrats not stolen the 2020
Is The Deep State Pushing Nuclear War To Prevent A Trump Presidency
Is The Deep State Pushing Nuclear War To Prevent A Trump Presidency? Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 21, 2024 On November 18, 2024, Politico reported that London and Paris had given Ukraine their Storm Shadow/SCALP long-range missiles to Ukraine. As of this writing (Wednesday, November 20, 2024), Reuters reported that Ukraine fired a volley of up to twelve Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles into Russia’s Kursk region, a day after Ukraine fired six U.S.-manufactured ATACMS missiles into Russia’s Bryansk region. That Ukraine fired a UK missile today makes evident that Biden must have permitted Kyiv to launch NATO long-range missiles into Russia. The redefinition of Russia’s policy on nuclear deterrence that Russian President Vladimir Putin signed this week, makes clear that Russia now considers the United States, the UK, and NATO at war with Russia. Lobbing a few NATO-manufacture long-range missiles into Russia is unlikely to make any tactical or strategic difference in the war, not when Russia controls much of the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, including the Crimea as well as Donetsk and Luhansk provinces in eastern Ukraine. As I wrote in a previous essay, the Biden decision is best explained by what appears to be a preemptive military coup in which U.S. generals fearing prison terms and possible convictions for treason prefer the risk of triggering a global thermonuclear war rather than allowing Donald Trump to take office on January 20, 2024. For months, Putin has left no doubt that he will launch a retaliatory tactical nuclear response if Ukraine launches NATO-manufactured long-range missiles into Russia. On May 6. 2024, Moscow summoned the British ambassador to the Russian Foreign Ministry to issue “a warning that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory with British-supplied weapons could bring retaliatory strikes against British military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere.” Then, on September 12, 2024, former Russian President and current Deputy Chair of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev threatened the UK following a meeting between Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Ukrainian President Zelensky in Ukraine. During that meeting, Lammy promised Ukraine 100 years of British support. In a post on X, Medvedev claimed, “So-called Ukraine will not last a quarter of that time. The island called Britain is likely to sink in the next few years. Our hypersonic missiles will help if necessary.” On Wednesday, November 20, 2024, the U.S. and several Western embassies in Kyiv closed after receiving “specific information of a potential significant air attack.” Just a few days before that, on November 17, 2024, NATO member Poland scrambled fighter jets close to Poland’s border with Ukraine “after Russia launched ‘a massive’ aerial attack on Kyiv’s energy infrastructure overnight.” The Deep State initially had available only three strategies to keep Trump from returning to the White House. All three have failed, requiring a more extreme strategy—nuclear war. 1 . The Department of Justice, along with prosecutors in Georgia and New York, did everything possible to bring criminal legal indictments against Trump to diminish his financial resources with the goal of imprisoning him. The criminal prosecution strategy has failed so far, with Judge Merchan postponing sentencing indefinitely in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s cases winding down. 2. Trump survived two assassination attempts. On July 13, 2024, Trump turned his head to the right to look at a chart, causing the bullet to miss his skull, hitting only his ear. Trump’s survival appeared to many to be an act of God. 3. Embedded algorithms were discovered in the State Board of Election voter registration databases that permitted certifiable votes to be cast by “false voter records” created by a cryptographic scheme that assigned legitimate state voter IDs to “non-existent votes.” As reported on our website, GodsFiveStones.com, Andrew Paquette, Ph.D., discovered cryptographic algorithms in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona, with algorithms yet to be reported also found in New Jersey, Texas, and Hawaii. With these efforts having failed, what’s left is to escalate the weaponry that the U.S. and various NATO partners supply to Ukraine to provoke a nuclear response from Russia. Fearing that Trump would fulfill campaign promises to dismantle the “woke” Deep State, the New World Order military/industrial/intelligence complex prefers to risk nuclear war rather than allow Trump to return to the White House. Even a limited Russian nuclear response would hamper Trump’s ability to end the war in Ukraine quickly after his inauguration. Should a Russian nuclear response lead to a global thermonuclear war, the World Economic Forum’s depopulation goals would only be achieved much sooner than anticipated. It’s important to remember that Vladimir Putin does not have a history of bluffing. Putin appears to speak consistently and calculatedly, carefully choosing his words to have a particular desired effect. Since his interview with Tucker Carlson on February 6, 2024, Putin has been telegraphing that the two eastern provinces in Ukraine are closely allied with Russia, explaining that, from Russia’s perspective, the greatest threat to Russian national security was the possibility that Ukraine would be accepted into NATO. The disclosures that the CIA had secret spy bases established on Ukraine’s border with Russia, along with Russian claims that the U.S. has operated gain-of-function biological laboratories in Ukraine, are obvious threats to national security. Putin has pleaded to have them verified by credible international investigations. In an overabundance of caution, Trump’s senior advisors have prevented him from meeting with foreign heads of state, respecting concerns Trump would be accused of violating the 1799 Logan Act that criminalizes unauthorized American citizens attempting to negotiate a dispute between the United States and a foreign government. But with the world on the precipice of nuclear war, what is desperately needed is a reliable backchannel within which Trump can begin negotiations with Putin over terms and conditions to end the war in Ukraine. Given that Trump is officially President-Elect, his status is arguably elevated above that of an unauthorized citizen. Clearly, members of President-Elect Ronald Reagan’s senior advisory team had back channels with Iran to release on Reagan’s inauguration day the 444 American hostages Iran had held in captivity since November 4, 1979. Reagan managed to communicate to Ayatollah
Biden authorizing Ukraine to fire long-range missiles
Biden’s Authorizing Ukraine to Fire Long-range Missiles Smells Like a Preemptive Military Coup Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 19, 2024 Biden’s surprise decision on Sunday, November 17, 2024, to authorize Ukraine to utilize long-range U.S. missiles capable of reaching 186 miles into Russia requires explanation. (As of this writing, Ukraine has already fired a missile into Russia.) Does the U.S. military believe that allowing Ukraine to fire a few U.S.-manufactured Army Tactical Missile systems (“ATACMS”) into Russia will win the war for Ukraine? Or is Biden’s decision evidence that the United States is in a military coup d’etat aimed at escalating the war in Ukraine so Donald Trump will not be able to settle the war should he manage to be inaugurated in approximately two months, on January 20, 2025? Biden made this decision despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s explicit warning that he would consider Russia at war with the United States and NATO if the White House lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range Western weapons. Putin has also made clear that a decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missile systems such as ATACMS could trigger a nuclear response from Russia. In making the decision, Biden ignored President-Elect Donald Trump’s repeated statements that once inaugurated, he intends to negotiate a settlement with Putin to end the war in Ukraine. When Biden’s decision was announced, Putin immediately called a meeting with Sergei Shoigu (former Russian Defense Minister who heads the Russian Security Council), Andrey Belousov (Russia’s current Defense Minister), and Nikolai Patrushev (an intelligence officer who served as the secretary of the Security Council)—all three close and trusted Putin allies. The meeting rejected an option that Russia should launch a preemptive strike on Ukraine rather than wait for Ukraine to hit Russia with a barrage of missiles. Still, Putin made clear that weapons like ATACMS require intelligence data from U.S. or European satellites while stressing that Ukrainian troops lack the training needed to operate high-precision, long-range, Western-made weapons. “This is not a decision about allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with these weapons or not,” he said. “It is about deciding whether NATO countries are directly involved in a military conflict or not. If this decision is made, it will mean nothing other than the direct participation of NATO countries—the United States and the EU—in the war in Ukraine.” So, the question is why Biden, in his final days as president, took steps that could lead the United States into a thermo-nuclear WWIII? In 2020, the U.S. military command made its bias clear: groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa had legitimate First Amendment “protest rights” that justified military insubordination should President Trump choose to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell pre-election domestic violence. On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper went to the department’s press room to deliver a statement that revealed a memo he had sent to all DOD personnel the day before. The memo announced that Esper was unwilling to deploy the military at President Trump’s order because he felt he had a duty under oath to defend the Constitution and the American people’s First Amendment rights of speech and peaceful assembly. Next, General James Mattis echoed Esper’s words. Mattis is the retired United States Marine Corps general who served as U.S. Secretary of Defense from January 2017 to 2019, when he disagreed with President Trump over Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria. In a written statement published in the Atlantic on June 3, 2020, Mattis objected to Trump’s suggestion that he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. “Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society,” Mattis wrote. “Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.” The disagreement between Trump and U.S. Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, began with a heated discussion in the Oval Office on Monday, June 1, 2020, when Milley objected to Trump’s suggestion that he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. Milley argued that the few scattered fires and minor looting in U.S. cities over the previous days were dwarfed by the more common peaceful protests the states should handle. On Friday, June 5, 2020, John Kelly, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general who served as Trump’s chief of staff from July 31, 2017, to January 2, 2019, did a live-stream interview with embittered, Trump-fired former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, during which he mouthed off about Trump. “I think we need to look harder at who we elect,” Kelly told Scaramucci. “I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter: What is their character like? What are their ethics?” This statement went to the heart of the 25th Amendment, with Kelly suggesting that Trump was “unfit for command.” The military’s insubordination over the Insurrection Act is only the tip of the Deep State’s “woke” ideology that has turned rogue elements within our military away from their allegiance to the Constitution and their willingness to submit to civilian rule. The statement should emphasize that if Zelensky uses ATACMS against Russia, the USA will stop all aid to Ukraine and will not move a finger to halt Russian armed forces from attacking Kyiv in a move to annex Ukraine. Rubio’s statement should advise NATO (and, in particular, Great Britain and Germany) that the United States would prefer to pull out of NATO than to participate in a nuclear war that NATO and Biden started out of stupidity. In conclusion, the generals who know Trump is compiling a list of generals for court-martial will stop at nothing to avoid this threat. The military is the muscle of the Deep State the intelligence agency and justice system unelected officials who rightly fear Trump will investigate thoroughly their criminal and
The Deep State War Against Donald Trump Begins
The Deep State War Against Donald Trump Begins Article Published in American Thinker by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. November 13, 2024 In a video posted on X on November 7, 2024, two days after the election, Trump detailed a plan to dismantle the Deep State. In this three-minute video, Trump explained how he would take a series of measures to “shatter the Deep State.” In this video, Trump made the same mistake JFK made when JFK said he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By announcing his intention in advance, JFK signed his death warrant. Trump has now declared war on the Deep State as president-elect. Because he spoke before he was inaugurated, giving him the power to act, Trump alerted the Deep State that he represented an existential threat to its survival. The bottom line is that the Deep State cannot afford for Trump to become president on January 20, 2025. Trump put the Deep State on notice that his first order of business was to investigate and prosecute in three areas: 1. The two assassination attempts on his life, with its indisputable charge that some in the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security showed criminal negligence, forcing those individuals to cooperate with the special counsel; 2. The weaponization of the DOJ, the FBI, and certain intelligence agencies against President Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns and Trump personally, going back to 2015, with emphasis upon exposing the truth about the “Russia collusion hoax” and the Mueller investigation farce; and 3. The voter fraud that stole the 2020 presidential election, based on the discovery of secret cryptographic algorithms embedded in State Board of Education voter registration files to facilitate the creation, hiding, and voting of falsified “voters” to be available for use in various election fraud schemes, with particular focus on mail-in ballot irregularities. Furthermore, one of the biggest threats to the CIA and the intelligence agencies is Trump’s unyielding determination to declassify documents that will jeopardize many agencies’ existence, including the DOJ, FBI, DHS, CIA, and NSA. The documents released will reveal many hidden intelligence agency conspiracies, including the effort to hide the Hunter laptop story from damaging Biden’s chance of victory in 2020, in particular, the statement by more than 50 former intelligence agents that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation. Exploring intelligence agency misdeeds and failures back to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack would be a horror show for scores of top intelligence agency officials, as well as Obama and Biden administration senior officials. The Deep State alternatives are limited: either devise a scheme that denies Trump the presidency, hopefully eliminating the Electoral College in the process, or, if nothing else works, the only other alternative will be to utilize the entire law enforcement and military power of the Deep State to assassinate Trump. On November 10, Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump’s motion to stay the November 12 hearing at which he was to decide whether the Supreme Court’s July decision on presidential immunity requires him to vacate the guilty verdict in Trump’s criminal hush-money case. The judge’s order also put a stay on the November 26 sentencing date in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case. Trump’s lawyers argued that granting a stay for both dates was “necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.” Judge Merchan’s order did not specify new dates for either the decision on immunity or the sentencing. Given that a New York County court is outside the reach of the DOJ’s policy against prosecuting cases against sitting presidents, Department of Justice’s jurisdiction, Judge Merchan can dismiss the case, delay it until Trump leaves the White House, or order Trump to appear for his sentencing and, if he does not, put out a warrant for his immediate arrest and imprisonment. Trump’s attorney, Mike Davis, made the last possibility less likely by openly challenging New York Attorney General Letitia James during a November 7 interview. “I dare you to continue your lawfare against President Trump,” Davis said. “In his second term…because, listen here, sweetheart, we’re not messing around this time. And we will put your fat ass in prison for conspiracy against rights. I promise you that. So, think long and hard before you want to violate President Trump’s constitutional rights or any other American’s constitutional rights. It’s not going to happen again.” If Judge Merchan ignores Davis’s warning, his decision to proceed with the sentencing, could trigger Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots that would rival or exceed 2020’s street violence. The mainstream media, parroting CIA narratives, would exploit the Trump incarceration with a frenzy of news stories pressing the electors in the Electoral College not to cast their votes for imprisoned felon Donald Trump. With the CIA blackmailing some 40 electors to vote along with the anti-Trump electors, the Electoral College will be unable to cast enough votes to elect either Trump or Kamala Harris. The election would be thrown into the House of Representatives, with the proceedings rapidly devolving into a circus. With the Electoral College in limbo and the House of Representatives in turmoil, the mainstream media would begin pushing for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College. If you think getting two-thirds of the House and Senate to vote for the amendment is hard, think again. A panicked Congress faced with a country burned by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, street brawls, chaos in the cities, and, eventually, martial law may find enough GOP members of the House and Senate to reach the two-thirds vote required to send the amendment to the State legislatures for ratification. A CIA willing to blackmail Electoral College electors would undoubtedly be willing to blackmail members of Congress and senators. Trump can take steps to prevent this worst-case scenario from becoming a reality. First, Trump can fire his entire New York legal team—a team that did not defend Trump successfully at trial—the same team that has no legal strategy to block Judge Merchan from going ahead with