TR 233 - The Big Lie (Part 1)
Reading between the lies and exposing rampant political corruption.
Preposterous. Ludicrous. Absurd.
How could anyone believe such things?
Do you ever find yourself feeling that way?
I know I have and often do, as I did this morning when I read a headline suggesting that David DePape—the now infamous underwear assailant—is a mentally unstable illegal immigrant who might just get deported after his trial. Trivial tripe.
Why anyone cares is beyond me. The holes in the narrative are glaringly obvious and the whole story smacks of a politically convenient distraction—just something to point at as the democrats shriek about political violence ahead of the midterms. No effort has been spared in linking this dramatic, almost theatrical storyline to the MAGA extremists who are threatening democracy by their very existence.
Last night, right on cue, “President” Biden issued a stark warning about the “dark forces with a thirst for power” that will threaten democracy this midterm election. He was only talking to 150 or so young Democrats, mere useful idiots, but Biden made it abundantly clear that the attack on Paul Pelosi was caused by MAGA Republicans who refuse to accept the outcome of the 2020 election.
In his own mumbled words:
“American democracy is under attack because the defeated former president of the United States refused to accept the results of the 2020 election. And he's made the big lie, an article of faith in the MAGA Republican Party,” Biden said.
“The great irony about the 2020 election is that it's the most attacked election in our history. And, yet, there's no election in our history that we can be more certain of its results. Every legal challenge that could have been brought was brought. Every recount that could have been undertaken was undertaken. Every recount confirmed the results.”
Speaking of big lies, geesh. This guy is as shameless as he is senile, but as long as he can still stumble over the teleprompter with semi-coherence, he’ll continue to be the most popular president ever elected—especially when he runs for re-election!
It’s ridiculous. Preposterous! Ludicrous! Absurd! How could anyone think that Biden is the best candidate that Democrats can come up with in 2024?! He would be 82 years old on the swearing in of his second term—and yet, according to the tea leaves, millions of American minions, including 26% of Washingtonians, are still convinced that he’s the best guy for the job:
How is that possible? It’s because these idiots have been told that Biden has “done better than most voters think” and they lack the requisite intelligence to realize they are being lied to. These are the very same useful idiots who believe that the 2020 election was the most secure election in history, and that anyone who challenges this fantasy is an angry MAGA extremist who is threatening democracy.
They believe this because the Biden’s handlers are master propagandists:
“This institution, this intimidation, this violence… are the consequence of lies told for power and profit, lies of conspiracy and malice, lies repeated over and over to generate a cycle of anger, hate, vitriol, and even violence.”
As with all good propaganda, there is truth in that statement. As the adage goes, if you tell a lie often enough, many people will eventually believe it. That is a staple strategy in the progressive’s playbook. They play to the useful idiots precisely because there are enough of them out there who are willing to believe anything they’re told—as long as they’re taken care of and kept safe, because that’s the government’s job.
At any rate, after pointing out that at least 300 candidates on the ballot are refusing to say if they will accept the results of the 2020 election, Biden goes on to say:
“We the people must decide whether we will have fair and free elections, and every vote counts. We the people must decide whether we're going to sustain a republic, where reality's accepted, the law is obeyed, and your vote is truly sacred.”
Just think about it. Think about the subjective nature of these words. Does every vote count? Is your vote truly sacred? Must the law be obeyed? Who’s version of reality are we talking about here? And most importantly: What happens when we disagree?
These questions are too deep for the average Democrat voter. In all fairness, they’re probably too deep for the average Republican voter too—BUT I know, by very virtue of your presence in this audience, that you are far from average—You are exceptional.
So let’s press forth.
For centuries people have interpreted the tea leaves as divine indications of the future. Those who subscribe to this philosophy of divination call it tasseomancy, and those who practice it are called tasseomancers. Fascinating, right?
Here’s a bit of history:
“Europeans built the practice on a foundation of traditions so old even they may not even have known who was ultimately responsible for them. But from seeing patterns in running wax, mapping truth in the stars, or reading the future in animal guts, tasseomancy sought to answer humanity’s most burning question — what does the future have in store?”
That is the burning question, is it not? What does the future have in store?
According to “multiple sources” the future looks violent:
“The bulletin, released by the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, US Capitol Police and National Counterterrorism Center, says that perceptions of election fraud will likely result in heightened threats of violence.”
HERE’S THE THING:
I cannot find this official bulletin anywhere. One article just links to another article:
“A warning about the threat of political violence heading into the 2022 midterm elections was issued to state and local law enforcement officials by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Oct. 28, 2022.”
One of these links goes to NPR, the other to VOX, neither actually links to the source bulletin. Both articles are referenced below.
“The bulletin was released the same day that Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s husband was hospitalized after a home invasion by a lone right-wing extremist…” that’s how they paint it.
“The weeks ahead have particular potential for violence: Violence tends to increase around elections because they represent an intense competition over status and leadership. I think we should be expecting it to get a lot worse, both leading up to and after the midterm elections.”
“Rhetoric on the right is legitimizing political violence.”
“U.S. security agencies have issued a heightened threat advisory, warning of potential attacks on political candidates, election officials and others. The alert came Friday, the same day that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in their San Francisco home.”
“NPR has obtained the bulletin issued by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center and the U.S. Capitol Police.”
The warning came from “…a joint intelligence assessment sent to state and local officials and obtained by CNN.”
“The bulletin, released by the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, US Capitol Police and National Counterterrorism Center, says that perceptions of election fraud will likely result in heightened threats of violence. The bulletin did not list any specific credible threats.”
“…following the midterms, "perceptions" of election fraud could cause violence.”
“...according to a joint intelligence bulletin obtained by ABC News.”
CNN obtained the bulletin. NPR obtained the bulletin. ABC obtained the bulletin.
I wanted to obtain the bulletin too, because I wanted to read the words for myself.
No such luck.
I probably spent waaaay too much time searching for this mysterious bulletin, but no matter how I typed it in—even searching for a .gov version—the only results were circular references. One liberal outlet points to the bulletin as “obtained” by another liberal outlet, and they all use the same language—language that the good professor used—and they all tell the same version of the story:
Besides not being able to find the actual bulletin, I want to point out that the “scholar” who so daftly declared that David DePape was “a lone right-wing extremist”—an assertion that is utterly absurd—this scholar, Professor Richard Forno, has a very impressive and curios resume.
It turns out his specialty is in cyber security (not public policy), which coincidentally would equip him with the perfect skill set to pull off the sort of back-door cyber shenanigans that generated the “numerous anomalies” on David DePape’s websites—including the fact that the progressive nudist hippie who lived in a bus, could not possibly have worked alone…
So many questions, so few answers, and so little time!
We’ll wrap this up tomorrow in part two of The Big Lie.
[Check it out now! TR 234 - The Big Lie (Part 2): Continuing on our journey to expose…]