Aletho News


Ask yourself the crucial question: why?

The Saker | November 7, 2020

Why is it that US news channels censored a press conference by a President of the United States?

Why is it that tech giants feel the need to censor Trump’s tweets?

Why is it that in key Dem states the GOP observers were not allowed to actually observe anything?

Why did the Dems counter-sue just to try to prevent GOP observers from observing the ballot count?

Why do the media conglomerates all declare Biden the victor even though they all know for a fact that this is false (only the courts can declare a victor)?

Why is it that FoxNews was spearheading the anti-Trump cheering during this entire week?

Why is it that the US deep state needs EU leaders to suddenly all congratulate Biden on a victory?

Think of what is coming next: lawsuits in state and federal courts, right?

Then IF the Dems felt confident that the Trump campaign had no case, why not simply relax, wait and see the courts reject the Trump campaign’s petitions?

But no, instead, they are acting exactly as if they were all terrified that the courts might do something which would compromise the victory of the Biden campaign!

The very fact of the need for such extreme haste and such un-retractable statements can only be explained by the fear of the Dems that something in their coup plans might go wrong.  And, after all, it is said that Giuliani won over 4000 lawsuits in his career, and he would scare me too :-)

So, in a way, we could consider the Dems massive push to win in the court of public opinion a clear sign that they are much more afraid of a court of law.


Will they succeed?  Yeah, probably, Trump’s “aggregate power” is dwarfed the the power of the multi-billion dollars interests who are using all their “propaganda firepower” to settle the issue before the courts get to.

Yet another proof that the Dems are no democrats at all, but a completely immoral gang of USA-hating thugs who are willing to destroy their own country to defeat any outsider, good or bad, daring to challenge them.  They very much remind me of Kerensky and his own gang of masonic plutocrats.

Still, until we actually see that the USSC is also willing to betray the people of the USA, we can still keep a tiny little sense of hope in our hearts.

But we now all better prepare for the worst, because if the USSC also caves in, it will be the end of the United States as we know them.

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | 5 Comments

Gridlock – Biden May or May Not Win, but Trump Remains ‘President’ of Red America

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 7, 2020

One clear outcome of the U.S. election was the collapse of the promised ‘Blue Wave’ – an implosion that marks the ‘beginning of the end’ to a powerful spell enthralling the West. It was the delusion which Ron Chernow, the acclaimed U.S. presidential historian, gave credence, as he contemptuously dismissed America’s “topsy-turvy moment” as purely ephemeral, and a “surreal interlude in American life”: No longer can it be said that there is one ‘normal’. Win or lose the White House, Red Trumpism remains as ‘President’ for half America.

Biden, by contrast, served as the prospect for Restoration – a return to a hallowed consensus in American politics – to a reassuring ‘sanity’ of facts, science and truth. Biden, it was hoped, would be the agency over-lording a crushing electoral landslide that would terminate irrevocably Trump’s rude interruption of the ‘normal’. Biden supporters were rallied, Mike Lind, the American academic and author has observed, around the idea of America moving toward a ‘managed’ society – based on ‘science’ – that would be essentially finessed and controlled by a managerial, expert class.

Over time, Lind suggests, American society would begin to depart more, and more easily, from its republican roots, through a process already underway: via attempts to alter the Constitutional order, and other rules, to bring about a change in the way America is governed.

The notion however, of what America – as Idea – now constitutes, has fractured into two tectonic plates, moving apart in very different directions – and likely to move even further apart as each ‘plate’ remains convinced that ‘it won’ – and the sweetness of victory has been stolen.

The fracturing of the ‘One Normal’, by contrast, provides some kind of respite to much of the globe.

The fact remains that the election has produced a result in which it is abundantly clear that one half of the American electorate precisely voted to oust the other half. It is gridlock – with the Supreme Court and Senate in the hands of one party, and the House of Representatives and White House (possibly) in the hands of the other. As Glenn Greenwald warns:

No matter what the final result, there will be substantial doubts about its legitimacy by one side or the other, perhaps both. And no deranged conspiracy thinking is required for that. An electoral system suffused with this much chaos, error, protracted outcomes and seemingly inexplicable reversals will sow doubt and distrust even among the most rational citizens.

Though the maths and maps suggests Biden will likely reach 270 Electoral votes, the old saying ‘It ain’t over ’till it’s over’, holds true. The electoral vote scenarios in the key ‘swing states’ would only apply if there is no litigation, fraud or theft. However all three are in play – If you are stuffing the ballot box, you first wait to see what the regular vote is, so that you know how many votes you ‘need’ (mathematical anomalies aside) to push your candidate over the top.  Trump, somewhat rashly, gave out the GOP vote calculations at 02.30 on Wednesday, and hey-presto, loads of absentee ballots suddenly arrived at certain polling stations at around 04.00. That seems to have happened in Wisconsin, where over 100,000 Biden votes appeared seemingly out of nowhere on a flash drive delivered by hand from a Democratic district. That put Biden ahead in Wisconsin – but litigation is in process. Likewise, it appears that a huge “absentee ballot” dump appeared in Michigan that heavily favored Biden.

This is just the beginning of a new and more uncertain phase that could go on for weeks. It may be that ultimately Congress will have to certify and make the final determination in late January. Meanwhile, there are some things we know with much higher certainty: The Republican majority in the Senate may hold until the 2024 election. So, even if Biden wins, his agenda will not hold through 2024.

A President may emerge, but it will not be, as it were, a settled one: He or she cannot make claim to the ‘will of the majority’. Whomsoever is certified by Congress cannot truthfully say they represent ‘the nation’.  Consensus is fractured, and it is difficult to see any leadership that can bring Americans together as a ‘united people’.

“There is not a single important cultural, religious, political or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart,” David French notes in a new book Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.  French — an anti-Trump conservative — argues that America’s divisions are so great, and the political system so poorly designed to handle them, that secession may eventually be the result: “If we keep pushing people and pushing people and pushing people, you cannot assume that they won’t break”, he writes. (A 2018 poll found that nearly a quarter of each party – Democrat and Republican – characterized the opposing party as “evil”).

An ideological split, and the concomitantly contested America as Idea has huge geo-political implications, reaching well beyond America itself –  and principally for Europe’s élites. European leaders did not see it coming when Trump was elected in 2016. They misjudged Brexit. And this year, they misread U.S. politics once again. They yearned for a Biden win, and they (still) fail to see the connection between the popular rebellion of Red under Mr. Trump, and the angry protests occurring across Europe against lockdown.

Separating tectonic plates – more strategically – usually signal a kind of dualism that betokens civil conflict. In other words, their separation and moving apart turns into an ideological struggle for the nature of society and its institutional fabric.

Historian, and former War College Professor, Mike Vlahos warns (echoing Lind), that, “there is, here: more of a hidden – and thus in a sense, occult struggle – by which over time, societies begin to depart more, and more easily, from their roots. The western dominant élites presently are seeking to cement their hold over society [moving towards a ‘managed’ society]: To have full control over the direction of society, and, of course, a framework of rule that protects their wealth.”

“Quite to the surprise of everyone, and given that the Republicans are being represented by a billionaire who has a great many friends in Manhattan – the Wall Street donors to the two campaigns, outnumber Trump’s donors for Biden by 5-to-1”.

Why, Vlahos asks, would Wall Street invest in a man – Biden – and in a Party, ostensibly seeking to move America toward this ‘managed’ progressive society? Is it because they are convinced of a need radically to restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations? Is this then Vlahos’ occult struggle?

Many of the élite hold that we are at that monumental inflection point at this moment – In a nutshell, their narrative is simply this: the planet is already economically and demographically over-extended; the infinite economic expansion model is bust; and the global debt and government entitlement expenditure bubble too, is set to pop at the same moment.

A ‘fourth industrial revolution’ is the only way by which to ‘square this circle’, according to this mindset. The Reset is purposefully aimed to disrupt all areas of life, albeit on a planetary scale. Shock therapy, as it were, to change the way we humans think of ourselves, and our relationship with the world. The Great Reset looks to a supply-side ‘miracle’, achieved through full-spectrum automation and robotics. A world where the money is digital; the food is lab-grown; where everything is counted and controlled by giant monopolies; and everyday existence is micromanaged by ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI that registers thoughts and feelings before the people even get a chance to make those thoughts.

Mike Vlahos notes that in a curious way this American story mirrors that of ancient Rome in the last century of the Republic – with on the one hand, the élite Roman class, and on the other, the Populares, as Red Americans’ equivalent:

“This is in fact the dual story of Rome in the last century of the Republic, and it tracks very well — with the transformation going on today [in the U.S.] — and it is a transformation … The society which emerged at the end of the Roman Revolution, and civil war … had too, a totally dominant élite class.

“This was a new world, in which the great landowners, with their latifundia [the slave-land source of wealth], who had been the ‘Big Men’ leading the various factions in the civil wars, became the senatorial archons that dominated Roman life for the next five centuries — while the People, the Populares, were ground into a passive — not helpless — but generally dependent and non-participating element of Roman governance: This sapped away at the creative life of Rome, and eventually led to its coming apart.

“… today American inequality is as great as in the period right before the French Revolution, and is mirrored in what was happening to Rome in that long century of transformation. The problem we have right now, and which is going to make this revolution more intense, is I think, the cynical conclusion and agenda of Blue to just leave behind the Americans they do not need [in the New Economy] – which is to say all of Red America, and to put them into a situation of hardship and marginalization, where they cannot coalesce, to form a rival — as it were — Popular Front.

“What I think what we are seeing here [in the U.S.] is profound: American society – emerging from this passage, is going to be completely different. And frankly, it already feels different. It already feels – as it has felt for the past four years – that we are in a rolling civil war norm now, in which deep societal strife is now the normal way in which we handle transfers of power. Issues will be [momentarily] resolved, with the path of society [painfully] staked out through violent conflict. That is likely to be our path for decades ahead.

“The problem with that in the shorter term, is that there is still enough of the nation aroused and ready to fight this process. The problem: Can the last energies of the Old Republic still be harnessed against this seemingly inevitable, transformation?”

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | | 2 Comments

Trump flips Michigan county after ‘error’ initially had Biden in the lead

RT | November 7, 2020

Donald Trump has won a recount in a Michigan county, after election officials questioned Joe Biden’s lead in the Republican stronghold. Another error elsewhere in the state also skewed down-ballot results in the Democrats’ favor.

Preliminary results in Antrim County showed a decisive victory for the Democratic challenger, who was up more than 3,000 votes with 98 percent of precincts reporting. Trump won the county by 4,000 votes in 2016, raising questions in this deep-red area of Michigan. Local election officials decided to carry out a partial hand recount, which showed Trump ahead in the county by nearly 2,500 votes.

The strange tabulation error was mentioned during a press conference held by Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Laura Cox in which she raised questions about an alleged “glitch” in the election software used in 47 Michigan counties.

Antrim County had to hand-count all of the ballots, and these counties that use this software need to closely examine their results for similar discrepancies.

The software, Election Source, is used by Antrim County, and the incorrect results were initially blamed on the program. However, the county’s election officials now say human error was behind the problem, explaining that it’s likely a small change made to the ballot resulted in the miscalculation, according to local 9&10News. The Detroit Free Press reported that the issues were the result of both human and software errors. Officials stressed that there was always a clear paper trail that allowed for any errors to be corrected.

Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers is now verifying a full audit of the county’s ballots, 9&10News said.

Antrim isn’t the only Michigan county to report counting issues. In Oakland County, a computer glitch erroneously handed victory to a Democratic candidate for commissioner. The Republican incumbent was declared the winner on Friday. Some state officials and voters have raised concerns that the faulty tabulations could have occurred elsewhere in Michigan.

The problems come amid accusations from the Trump campaign that voter fraud linked to late or improperly marked mail-in ballots tipped the scales in Biden’s favor. Trump was initially leading in Michigan before the state flipped blue. On Wednesday morning, the president was ahead by about 1.3 points with 83 percent of the votes tallied. Biden now has a 3-point lead.

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | 1 Comment

EU leaders follow the Ziomedia and declare Biden the winner!!

The Saker | November 7, 2020

When I saw this I could not believe my eyes: “European leaders congratulate Joe Biden, after media count declares him victorious in US presidential election“.

This is truly unheard of: foreign leaders declare a winner in a US election even BEFORE the vote count has been certified by US courts!!! Talk about “interference in US elections” – this really takes the prize!

Yeah, I know, these EU knuckleheads also declared Guaido and Tikhanovskaia had won. But let’s be realists here: it is one thing to declare some victor in small and extremely weak countries, and quite another to do that with the supposed Sole Hyperpower and Planetary Hegemon.

Wow! Just wow!

We have to wonder what the point of these declarations are and I think the answer is obvious: put the maximal pressure on USSC Justices to accept the fait accompli (which, of course, is neither a fait, nor is is accompli, but nevermind that!).

Just the fact that the US Deep State has the power to force the EU leaders into that kind of blatant intervention is the best proof that there are no real democracies in the West – all we are dealing with is a transnational plutocracy.

Bottom line: the struggle for the liberation of the West from this gang of corrupt megalomaniacs is now on. Yes, right now the resistance in the West looks very week, poorly organized and even very corrupt (just think of how corrupt the GOP is!). But those who are familiar with Hegelian dialectical analyses will immediately see that this is an unstable situation which cannot and will not last.

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | 4 Comments

Coronavirus Fact-Check #8: “New daily cases” and the second wave

OffGuardian | November 7, 2020

All the media have banners and counters and big red numbers of the front page. They proclaim the “new daily cases”.

For example, today, it was reported that Spain has 22,000 new cases, Italy has 37,000, the UK 24,000 and the US 116,000. They are ubiquitously called “new daily cases”.

It wasn’t until I was working on my rebuttal of Moon of Alabama that I realised so many people take this statement literally. They shouldn’t, it is incorrect in almost every respect. To be clear here – “new daily cases” are probably not new, they certainly didn’t all happen in one day and they definitely aren’t “cases”.

Let’s start with the word “new” – They are almost certainly not “new cases”. Today isn’t the day they got infected, today is the day their test results came back. The may have been infected a week ago, or a month, or 6 months.(Or, indeed, never).

Just because Person A got tested on Monday, and Person B on a Tuesday does not mean B is a newer case than A.

We don’t have any idea if more people are getting infected, we only know we are testing more. Charting them as “new” means you can make the scary red line go up, but that is mathematically incorrect, and intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, the vast majority of “cases” reported are not actually “cases”.

Classically speaking, a “case” of a disease is someone who displays symptoms. There is a huge difference between being infected, and being a “case”. That’s why infection fatality rate (IFR) and case fatality rate (CFR) are two different numbers.

However for COVID19 they have abandoned this distinction, referring to every single positive test as a “case”, despite the fact the vast majority never exhibit any symptoms.


The “new daily cases” are none of the above. The “second wave” is likely the result of increased testing. The more people you test, the more “infections” you will find, (especially when your test has a known risk of false positives).

If you increase the number of tests you run, you will increase the number of infections you find. That is not a disease spreading.

In the spring the UK was testing 10,000s of people per day. As of last week, they claim to be testing half a million. From estimated false positive rates alone, that’s between 4000 and 20,000 “new cases” per day.

An analogy:

If you move a piece of furniture in your living room and find a spider underneath it on Saturday, and then the next day you move twenty items of furniture, and find 10 spiders it would be absolutely crazy to say there was 900% daily increase in spiders or that spiders are “increasing exponentially”.

Those spiders were probably there yesterday. You just weren’t looking for them.

…and if you hadn’t gone out of your way to find them, would you ever have known they were even there?

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

COVID testing: We’ve been duped

By A. Castellitto | American Thinker | November 4, 2020

Lost in this whole pandemic hysteria are some key considerations that when carefully analyzed place the whole COVID-19 narrative in a highly questionable light. The gatekeepers of information dissemination are manufacturing consent at an alarming rate, but their fatigue is setting in, and their masks are falling off.  What better, albeit unlikely, source to go for some much needed illumination than the New York Times ?

During a considerably quieter time, back in 2007, the New York Times featured a very interesting exposé on molecular diagnostic testing — specifically, the inadequacy of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in achieving reliable results. The most significant concern highlighted in the Times report is how molecular tests, most notably the PCR, are highly sensitive and prone to false positives. At the center of the controversy was a potential outbreak in a hospital in New Hampshire that proved to be nothing more than “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.” Unfortunately, the results wrought by the PCR told a different story.

Thankfully, a faux epidemic was avoided but not before thousands of workers were furloughed and given antibiotics and ultimately a vaccine, and hospital beds (including some in intensive care) were taken out of commission. Eight months later, what was thought to be an epidemic was deemed a non-malicious hoax. The culprit? According to “epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists … too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test … led them astray.” At the time, such tests were “coming into increasing use” as maybe “the only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like … SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way.”

Nevertheless, today, the PCR test is considered the gold standard of molecular diagnostics, most notably in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, a closer analysis reveals that the PCR has actually been pretty spotty and that false positives abound. Thankfully, the New York Times is once again on the case.

“Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive; Maybe It Shouldn’t Be,” according to NYT reporter Apoorva Mandavilli. Essentially, positive results are getting tossed around way too frequently. Rather, they should probably be reserved for individuals with “greater viral load.” So how have they’ve been doing it all this time you ask?

“The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample … the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”

Unfortunately, the “cycle threshold” has been ramped up. What happens when it’s ramped up? Basically, “huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus” are deemed infected. However, the severity of the infection is never quantified, which essentially amounts to a false positive. Their level of contagion is essentially nil.

How are they determining the cycle threshold? If I didn’t suspect that it was based on maximizing the amount of “cases,” I would find the determination pretty arbitrary. More than a few of the professionals on record for Times report appear pretty perplexed on this vital detail which is essentially driving “clinical diagnostics, for public health and policy decision-making.” Considering all that’s at stake and everything that hinges on positive vs negative case tallies, it’s outrageous that these tests would be tweaked in a way that would inflate the positive rate totals and percentages. According to one virologist, “any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive.” She went on to to say, “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.”

Personally, I think the science is just about settled on COVID-19. The conclusion? We’ve been duped!

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

The media’s anti-Trump bias on both sides of the pond is so blatant is it any wonder the Donald is crying foul?

By Neil Clark | RT | November 7, 2020

Donald Trump always claimed the media was against him and this week’s events prove he was right, whatever one’s opinion of the US president.

It’s probably the understatement of the year to say that Donald Trump is a polarising figure. Rather like Marmite, people tend to love him or loathe him. But even those in the latter category, if they’re being honest, would have to admit that the mainstream media coverage of the 2020 presidential election results has been heavily – and quite outrageously – slanted against the US president.

Let’s put it another way.

Suppose someone who had spent the last four years at a space station on Planet Zog, and who had no background knowledge of US politics, zoomed down to Earth on Tuesday night and decided to tune into the US election coverage. They would work out pretty quickly that most of the media and most ‘commentators’ wanted the man they called ‘Trump’ to lose and the man they called ‘Biden’ to win. Orange Man = Bad, Other Man in Mask = Good.

You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to notice the bias. As the author Candace Owens tweeted “At no point would they call states with a clear Trump lead on election night if it put Trump above Biden. I have never seen anything like it. The media is in full cooperation and collusion with the Democrat Party.”

Quite a claim isn’t it? But it certainly does seem that way to any neutral observer.

Trump’s defeat was something the major channels and most ‘talking heads’ had looked forward to for years. The prospect of him actually winning – against the odds and against the polls – was not something they were willing to countenance. Even when the president had a clear lead in several states. Instead we kept hearing how Joe could still take this or that state. The Democratic candidate was merely ‘biden’ his time, don‘t you know.

We all know the media plays a key role in influencing how people vote, but in the US, because of the peculiarities of the system, they also play a very important role in shaping perceptions of who is actually winning.  Forget the fat lady singing, the US election shows it ain’t over until the media says it is, the New York Times even explicitly said this in a hastily deleted tweet. And the media wasn’t going to call it over with the man they utterly despised in the lead. You don’t have to be a member of the Donald Trump fan club to acknowledge this.

On Tuesday, at 11pm in the UK Biden was odds-on and Trump 2-1 against. But in the morning Trump was odds-on. Then came the time-out. It was the German football manager Franz Beckenbauer who said that if your team is losing, you have to do everything you can to disrupt your opponent’s momentum. The media – and Trump’s opponents – certainly did that.

Of course Trump is angry about what happened. Wouldn’t you be? But look at how his reaction to what happened has been portrayed. The BBC website, declared ‘US goes to wire as Trump falsely claims fraud’. Why the ‘falsely’? Does the BBC know for sure that Trump’s claims are false? They may be but they may not be. Who knows? In the good old days when the BBC reported the news rather than editorialised it, the headline would have been ‘US vote goes to wire as Trump claims fraud’, and viewers would be left to decide for themselves whether they thought the claims had any merit.

ITV News was just as subjective. ’Donald Trump repeats baseless election fraud claim as Joe Biden urges calm’, they tweeted. Got that? Bad Man makes baseless claims, Good Man says ‘Stay calm, folks’.

Isn’t it revealing that Trump’s claims are routinely and summarily dismissed as ‘false’ and ‘baseless’ whereas Democrat claims that he was a de facto Russian agent received no such dismissal. No, they and the associated claims of ’major Russian collusion’ in the 2016 election were reported as credible, even though no evidence was produced. Which begs the question: How can the US electoral system be so fraud-proof in 2020, yet so open to ’Russian fraud’ in 2016?  The double standards are off the scale.

Trump has been told to be a ‘good loser’ and ‘do a John McCain’ by those who did everything they could to delegitimise his victory four years ago. Is it any surprise that he isn’t prepared to concede and instead threatens litigation? To add insult to injury several news networks cut off from the president’s Thursday press conference regarding the election. Newsweek, helpfully, tells us Trump’s statement “was laced with  false claims regarding the election.”

The BBC, even more helpfully, ‘fact-checked’ Trump‘s speech for us. What a service! What a pity all this ‘fact-checking‘ wasn‘t around when George W. Bush (and Tony Blair) were making claims about Iraq having WMDs. They were baseless claims, for sure. But no one reported them as such. Shame that, because lots of people died. But only Donald Trump tells lies. Donald Trump was the man who invented ‘Fake News’. There was none of it before he was around.

Repeat After Me: “Orange Man Bad. Biden Man Good. Once Bad Orange Man goes US will be a great, internationally-respected country again like when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed Yugoslavia and destroyed Libya under the ‘honourable’ Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, who never made any ‘false’ claims at all. Got it, children?”

Now go to sleep. Uncle Joe will (hopefully) soon be in the White House and the world will be a MUCH BETTER PLACE.

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

Previewing a Biden Presidency: Dementia, Impotence, Collapse

By Ted Rall • Unz Review • November 7, 2020

At this writing, two days after the election, Joe Biden appears to be six electoral votes away from winning the presidency.

The Trump campaign has requested a recount in Wisconsin. Republicans are suing in Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Nevada to demand the right to observe vote counts and challenge absentee ballots and COVID-related mail-in ballots.

Recounts rarely change the outcome of an election and never do so when the margin is significant. So that’s a doomed Hail Mary pass. Trump’s fading hopes remain, as I have written previously, with the obscure 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution. If legal challenges prevent another state from certifying its results to the Electoral College by the Dec. 14 deadline, the incoming House of Representatives votes by state delegation for the new president. Most states are Republican, so Trump would win.

If Trump can reverse the trend of Biden being a single state away from legitimately declaring victory, possibly by disqualifying Democratic votes, he may remain in the White House. But Trump’s legal challenges in Nevada, though technically still alive, face long odds.

So, the wind is at Biden’s back, even if it feels more like a mild breeze. Which makes it a good time to consider what a Biden presidency could/will look like.

Few presidents in American history have entered the White House as politically impotent as Joe Biden. No Democrat since and including Andrew Jackson has ever been elected without Democratic control of both houses of Congress. Biden’s inverse coattails made history: Democrats lost four seats in the House. They expected to pick up 15.

The most recent Republican to face congressional opposition on day one was Ronald Reagan in 1981. The GOP controlled the House; Democrats had the Senate.

Biden’s advisers have to be obsessing over the words of former House Speaker John Boehner in 2010: “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” “It” was then-President Barack Obama’s agenda. Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell added at the time: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” McConnell is even more of an obstructionist today. And now he’s the majority leader.

Even if Joe Biden were predisposed to a bold agenda, which progressives have a good reason to doubt, McConnell will block it. Unlike Obama, who had a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, Biden will have a valid excuse to accomplish nothing.

And that’s assuming that he is able to function in the first place. All the Democratic denials in the world can’t hide the possible president-elect’s worsening dementia. At a recent campaign event, Biden introduced his granddaughter as if she were his dead son: “This is my son Beau Biden, who a lot of you helped elect to the Senate in Delaware.” Wrong gender, wrong generation, wrong sentience. He tried to correct himself. “This is my granddaughter, Natalie.”

Actually, Natalie is a different granddaughter. His son Beau died five years ago. Beau never even ran for the Senate. This is dementia, not “stuttering.” It’s sad. It’s also scary. As commander in chief, Biden could single-handedly launch a nuclear attack.

Biden’s defenders point to evidence that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer’s, but there was zero evidence of the disease when he took office in 1981. Woodrow Wilson suffered cognitive decline after a stroke, but that was toward the end of his second term. Biden will be the first president to begin his first term with clear signs of dementia.

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Aletho News | | 1 Comment