Gingrich: Zuckerberg ‘Corruption’ Raises ‘Enormous Questions About the Legitimacy of the Biden Potential Presidency’

Sunday on New York WABC 770 AM radio’s “The Cats Roundtable,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called into question the “legitimacy” of the Joe Biden presidency.

According to Gingrich, the 2020 presidential election “was the most corrupt election in modern times.” He argued that efforts by Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg to “maximize Democratic turnout” in the election “raises enormous questions about the legitimacy of the Biden potential presidency” because it is “a direct violation” of the 2002 Help America Vote Act.

“I think the Democrats focused on the election where Republicans focused on the campaign. The Democrats didn’t care if Biden never campaigned. They were going to generate votes and turn out votes,” Gingrich told host John Catsimatidis. “And when you go around and look state by state, the results are fascinating, and I think they raise real questions about exactly what happened. I personally believe this was the most corrupt election in modern times.”

He continued, “Just take the one example of Zuckerberg and Facebook, they put in $400 million basically renting city governments and getting them to maximize turnouts and precincts that they couldn’t carry, which is a direct violation of the 2002 voting act by Congress, which says that you have to have a fair effort across the board. You can’t just select areas you’re going to try to maximize turn out in. So, I think just the $400 million that Zuckerberg put in to maximizing Democratic turnout, by itself, is a big enough corruption that it raises enormous questions about the legitimacy of the Biden potential presidency.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/01/03/gingrich-facebook-efforts-raise-enormous-questions-about-legitimacy-biden-potential-presidency/

And The First Country To Move To A 100% Digital Monetary System Is… Venezuela

In our annual look back (and forward) post, we mused that the advent of central bank-supported digital currencies was the top financial story of 2020, buried deep under the landslide of health and political developments from covid to the US presidential election; we also said that the most important narrative of 2021 would be how fast - and where - digital currencies would be rolled out first.

Yet while we recently speculated that China would be the first major economy to unleash a digital currency, little did we know that the first country to officially make the jump to a "fully digital" economy would be… Venezuela!?

That's right: according to Bloomberg, Venezuela’s government is preparing to move to a fully digital economy - whatever that means for the country which several years ago adopted some bizarro crypto currency as the de facto petrocurrency of the state to… perplexing consequences, as hyperinflation in this South American socialist paradise (coming soon to every socialist paradise nears you) has made worthless bolivar notes practically disappear. With the local monetary system having collapsed, the US dollar has operated as an "escape valve" for Venezuela amid U.S. sanctions and collapsing oil revenues, President Nicolas Maduro said in a televised interview with Telesur on Friday. He said 18.6% of all commercial transactions are in dollars, while 77.3% are carried out in bolivars with debit cards. Only 3.4% are paid with bolivar notes.

"They have a war against our physical currency. We are moving this year to a more profound digital economy, in expansion. I’ve set the goal of an economy that’s 100% digital," Maduro said, adding that physical money will eventually disappear. Call Venezuela a guniea pig for the same monetary experiment which all other central banks will soon pursue as well.

Venezuela’s currency has lost 99.999% of its value during three years of hyperinflation, forcing the country to issue higher-denomination notes which however not only become useless in record time, but the mere cost to print them - in some relatively stable currency - quickly surpasses their nominal value. The largest note now in circulation, 50,000 bolivars, is worth about $0.04. The government has prudently delayed plans to issue a 100,000 bolivar bill, which currently would be worth less than $0.10.

After formerly subsidized fuel prices were increased in June, cash is now only used to ride public transportation, and the Caracas subway routinely stops charging passengers due to cash shortages.

Meanwhile, since late 2019, local banks - which need some currency in which to transact - have started to offer accounts and financial products in U.S. dollars, but there's a problem there too as those remain limited since there’s no clearing system in place to allow for digital transactions in U.S. dollars.

As Bloomberg reports, some banks have had technical meetings with Venezuela’s central bank in an attempt to solve the problem amid high skepticism and caution due to U.S. sanctions. But Maduro vowed to create “payment formats” allowing transactions using savings and checking accounts in U.S. dollars, which is especially bizarre since Venezuela has been technically cut off from SWIFT and so Caracas may have no choice but to become the world's first fully digital monetary regime.

It's also why despite promising to expand the use of the U.S. dollar in the economy, Maduro admitted that a formal dollarization wouldn’t happen. "Venezuela has its currency and we are going to defend it," he said without a trace of humor.

And yet, comedy or not, central banks the world over will be closely watching to see just how Venezuela will screw up this experiment of becoming the world's first fully digital economy, because as we have been warning for a while: digital currencies - under the protective umbrella of the so-called ISO 20022 - are coming to every broke country near you in the next 12-24 months.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/and-first-country-move-100-digital-monetary-system-venezuela

Swalwell on Trump, Raffensperger Tape: ‘Criminal,’ ‘Repugnant’

Sunday on MSNBC’s “American Voices,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) reacted to audio of a phone call obtained by the Washington Post of President Donald Trump pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) to recalculate the state’s votes from the 2020 presidential election.

Swalwell said the call is “criminal” and “repugnant.” He also suggested it is not the only call Trump has made.

“That’s not America, Alicia. That’s my initial reaction,” Swalwell told host Alicia Menendez. “As a former prosecutor, I’d say legally, it was criminal. Morally, it was repugnant. And institutionally, as a member of a democratic body, it’s corrosive. But more importantly, he’s going to be gone in 13 days, but the damage that he has done, the wrecking ball he has taken to our institutions will not be gone. And I really think it is incumbent on us in Congress to take an MRI to all the corruption because you know this is not the only call.”

Swalwell went on to say he hopes prosecutors in Georgia take a look at the president’s “mafia-esque behavior.”

“Georgia has its own laws, and I hope prosecutors there look at what the president has done. This mafia-esque behavior should be looked at,” he stated.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/01/03/swalwell-on-trump-raffensperger-tape-criminal-repugnant/

New Video Shows Dominion’s Eric Coomer Admitting Their Voting Machine Systems Are Wireless and Support All Networks

Dr. Eric Coomer who is responsible for the strategy and Security at Dominion Voting Systems.

Coomer is a staunch Never-Trumper and Antifa supporter. His Facebook page was littered with Trump-hating propaganda before it was shut down.

In 2016 Coomer told the Illinois States Board of Elections that it was possible to bypass election systems software.

And in 2017 Eric Coomer explained how to alter votes in the Dominion Voting Systems in a demonstration to Chicago officials.

This was a separate demonstration in the Chicago area (notice he is wearing a dark jacket and is without the wrist protector.)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/new-video-shows-dominions-eric-coomer-admitting-voting-machines-wireless-support-networks/

Tom Cotton Stands up Against Electoral College Challengers: Would ‘Establish Unwise Precedents’

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) became the first Republican senator on Sunday night who is actually a supporter of President Donald Trump’s agenda to oppose a challenge of the electoral college, issuing a statement saying he is concerned it would create dangerous precedents that Democrats would all but certainly use in the future to undermine election integrity.

Cotton’s statement comes after a dozen Republican senators last week, beginning with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and continuing this weekend with a group led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), joined what is expected to be more than a hundred House Republicans in challenging the certification of the electoral college before a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

It is worth noting that Cotton, in his statement, said he agrees that there are concerns about the election irregularities and that he backs a commission to study this and propose reforms.

“I share the concerns of many Arkansans about irregularities in the presidential election, especially in states that rushed through election-law changes to relax standards for voting-by-mail,” Cotton said. “I also share their disappointment with the election results. I, therefore, support a commission to study the last election and propose reforms to protect the integrity of our elections. And after Republicans win in Georgia, the Senate should also hold more hearings on these matters. All Americans deserve to have confidence in the elections that undergird our free government.”

Vice President Mike Pence, who said through a spokesman he welcomes the challenges, will oversee the joint session of Congress at which this challenge will take place. The challenges will ultimately fail because after House members object to the certification of a state’s slated electors then senators uphold the challenge, the two chambers of Congress retreat and debate and then vote on the challenges. Democrats control the House majority, and even though their majority is slimmer than before November’s elections, it is impossible to see any Democrats breaking ranks — never mind enough to sustain a challenge. Meanwhile, in the Senate, there were already — before Cotton’s statement — more than enough Republicans opposed to the challenges to stop a majority in the GOP-controlled Senate from succeeding. Therefore, the vote is simply symbolic and will not result in the electoral college’s votes to make Democrat Joe Biden the president-elect being overturned or in doubt.

Cotton’s statement continues by explaining that he believes this challenge by Congress to the electoral college is a perversion of the Founders’ intent to have the states run elections, not Congress.

“Nevertheless, the Founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states — not Congress. They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College — not Congress,” Cotton said. “And they entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts — not Congress. Under the Constitution and federal law, Congress’s power is limited to counting electoral votes submitted by the states.”

As such, Cotton said, he believes this could create dangerous precedents that Democrats would all but certainly abuse in the future when it benefitted them politically.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/03/tom-cotton-stands-against-electoral-college-challengers/

The Great Reset, Part II: Corporate Socialism

As I noted in the previous installment, the Great Reset, if its architects have their way, would involve transformations of nearly every aspect of life. Here, I will limit my discussion to the economics of the Great Reset as promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), as well as to recent developments that have advanced these plans.

As F.A. Hayek suggested in his introductory essay to Collectivist Economic Planning, socialism can be divided into two aspects: the ends and the means.1 The socialist means is collectivist planning, while the ends, at least under proletarian socialism, are the collective ownership of the means of production and the “equal” or “equitable” distribution of the end products. Distinguishing between these two aspects in order to set aside the question of the ends and to focus on the means, Hayek suggested that collectivist planning could be marshalled in the service of ends other than those associated with proletarian socialism: “An aristocratic dictatorship, for example, may use the same methods to further the interest of some racial or other elite or in the service of some other decidedly anti-equalitarian purpose.”2 Collectivist planning might or might not run into the calculation problem, depending upon whether or not a market in the factors of production is retained. If a market for the factors of production is maintained, then the calculation problem would not strictly apply.

The collectivist planners of the Great Reset do not aim at eliminating markets for the factors of production. Rather, they mean to drive ownership and control of the most important factors to those enrolled in “stakeholder capitalism.”3 The productive activities of said stakeholders, meanwhile, would be guided by the directives of a coalition of governments under a unified mission and set of policies, in particular those expounded by the WEF itself.

While these corporate stakeholders would not necessarily be monopolies per se, the goal of the WEF is to vest as much control over production and distribution in these corporate stakeholders as possible, with the goal of eliminating producers whose products or processes are deemed either unnecessary or inimical to the globalists’ desiderata for “a fairer, greener future.” Naturally, this would involve constraints on production and consumption and likewise an expanded role for governments in order to enforce such constraints—or, as Klaus Schwab has stated in the context of the covid crisis, “the return of big government”4—as if government hasn’t been big and growing bigger all the while.

Schwab and the WEF promote stakeholder capitalism against a supposedly rampant “neoliberalism.” Neoliberalism is a weasel word that stands for whatever leftists deem wrong with the socioeconomic order. It is the common enemy of the Left. Needless to say, neoliberalism—which Schwab loosely defines as “a corpus of ideas and policies that can loosely be defined as favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare”5—is a straw man. Schwab and company erect neoliberalism as the source of our economic woes. But to the extent that “antineoliberalism” has been in play, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries (or corporatocracy), and not competition, has been the source of what Schwab and his ilk decry. The Great Reset would magnify the effects of corporatocracy.

Nevertheless, the aims of the WEF are not to plan every aspect of production and thus to direct all individual activity. Rather, the goal is to limit the possibilities for individual activity, including the activity of consumers—by dint of squeezing out industries and producers within industries from the economy. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”6

https://mises.org/wire/great-reset-part-ii-corporate-socialism

Trump Call Actually Reveals a President Deep into Detail, with Establishment Republicans Dismissive, Unwilling, and Rejecting Transparency

“I don’t know about that… I don’t have it in front of me… we’re looking into that…”

These weren’t the vague, non-committal words of the President of the United States on the phone call leaked by theWashington Post newspaper – which has recently taken millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party – this Sunday. They were the statements of the establishment Republicans on the call: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Ryan Germany, and Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs on the January 2nd call.

Despite the partisan framing from the Washington Post – that the call somehow reflected Trump making demands for votes from his Republican colleagues – the President actually does no such thing. Throughout the call, the President makes clear that his calls are for election transparency, full and transparent audits, and public access. At no point does the President imply he wants votes invented or confected, as the establishment media is portraying. He even offers to recuse himself from parts of the conversation and ends by asking for “the truth… it’s just that simple.”

You can read the entire transcript and listen to the entire call below this article.

In fact the President begins the call by ripping through specifics that are never addressed by their opponents on the call: the establishment Republicans. Trump states:

“We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged.”

He continues: “We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll, which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.”

And the President went on: “You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.”

The level of granularity was actually remarkable, especially for a President that the media continues to allege is not concerned with details.

And the pushback from Raffensberger’s team wasn’t even particularly punchy, which is presumably why they leaked the call instead of pressing ahead with the details discussed and requested. There are several key points in the call that reflect the bad faith of Georgia’s Republican establishment leaders:

https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis/trump-call-actually-reveals-detail/