USPS whistleblower tells Project Veritas he was ordered to backdate late mail-in ballots in Michigan
RT | November 4, 2020
An anonymous tipster with the Postal Service in Michigan has alleged his supervisor ordered mail carriers to backdate ballots mailed too late to be counted, Project Veritas revealed – and the service is reportedly investigating.
The self-professed mail carrier – whose voice and identity have been disguised by the conservative muckraking operation – claimed he and his colleagues were “issued a directive” to “collect any ballots we find in mailboxes,” collection boxes, and “outgoing mail in general” on Wednesday and “separate them at the end of the day so that they could hand stamp them with the previous day’s date” in an interview with Project Veritas posted on Wednesday night.
The ballots retrieved from general mail circulation were then put in “express bags” to be sent “wherever they needed to go” after being stamped, the tipster alleged. Under Michigan law, mail-in ballots must be postmarked by 8pm on Election Day – this past Tuesday – in order to be counted in the 2020 election.
The tipster claimed he worked for the Barlow branch of the Traverse City post office and that he had also spoken with a carrier at another branch who “watched the postmaster [stamping ballots with the previous day’s date].” Normally, “it would be clerks that would do it up at the distribution center,” he added.
Project Veritas founder James O’Keeffe allegedly called the tipster’s supervisor, Jonathon Clarke – the man who supposedly told employees to separate out the ballots – to inquire about the order, only to be hung up on. However, it’s not clear the other party was actually Clarke.
O’Keeffe later claimed a “Special Agent within the Office of Inspector General for the USPS” had contacted his organization after seeing his interview with the whistleblower and was “assessing whether an investigation is appropriate.” While the carrier told PV he had had whistleblower policies “backfire” on him in the past, he said the directive was “sketchy” and “scream[ed] corruption.”
“Knowing the post office’s leaning politically, it didn’t seem quite right,” he told O’Keeffe.
President Donald Trump’s campaign filed a lawsuit against Michigan over alleged electoral malfeasance on Wednesday, charging Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was allowing absentee ballots to be counted without a team of bipartisan observers. The campaign has filed several lawsuits as the vote count has piled up in apparent favor of Democrat Joe Biden. Georgia was ordered to separate late-arriving mail-in votes on Wednesday night after a Republican poll-watcher claimed to have seen 53 late-marked votes mixed in with legitimate ballots.
Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. was among the president’s supporters who quickly picked up the story, retweeting it while asking why the Department of Justice wasn’t looking into the issue. President Trump has been denouncing mail-in voting as fraudulent for months.
Twitter Doubles Down On Censorship With Renewed Warnings On Trump Tweets

By JonathanTurley | November 4, 2020
We have been discussing the rising private censorship on the Internet demanded by Democratic leaders and meted out by companies like Twitter and Facebook. The original purpose of the Internet as a free and robust space for political and social expression is under attack as politicians demand greater levels of control to combat “disinformation.”
Indeed, Biden adviser Pete Buttigieg on Election Day demanded more penalties for companies not stopping “inciting material,” a subjective term left intentionally undefined. This drumbeat for censorship was amplified on Election Day when Twitter again hit tweets from President Donald Trump with warnings of disinformation. The tweets were pure political speech and Twitter again showed that it is now fully committed to biased regulation of speech between users of its service.
I have criticized President Trump’s rhetoric in the election about “stealing” the election. However, that is hyperbolic political speech. Biden supporters, including leaders like House Whip James Clyburn, have been saying that Trump was stealing the election through voter suppression. They have not been hit with Twitter warnings. Yet, Trump was immediately hit when he sent a Twitter post that Democrats were trying to “steal” the election: “We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election. We will never let them do it. Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!”
I have previously objected to such regulation of speech. What is most disturbing is how liberals have embraced censorship and even declared that “China was right” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not regulated private companies so this is not an attack on free speech. Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively defined by the First Amendment. Censorship by Internet companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free speech advocates. Some may willingly embrace corporate speech controls but it is still a denial of free speech.
This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
The actions by Twitter and Facebook on Election Day were reprehensible and wrong. What is so disturbing is that so many Democrats have become enablers of such corporate speech controls by the giant tech companies.
Voters in New Jersey and Arizona Say ‘Yes’ to Legalising Recreational Marijuana
Sputnik – 04.11.2020
While Americans went to the polling stations to cast a vote and decide if the near future of the United States will be “red” or “blue”, New Jersians turned “green” on Election Day.
Voters in New Jersey have approved a ballot measure to legalise the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
According to preliminary data, more than 60 percent of New Jersians who voted said “yes” to the measure.
Democratic Governor Phil Murphy took to Twitter on Tuesday night to congratulate his fellow residents on the happy news, calling it a “huge step for racial and social justice” and for the state’s economy. Murphy had earlier failed to gain enough votes in the state legislature to legalise recreational marijuana use, and put the issue to a statewide referendum vote. The legalisation of recreational or medical use of marijuana, or both, were on the ballot on Tuesday in Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota.
More than 70 percent of Democrats in the state reportedly spoke in support of the measure.
New Jersey has become the twelfth US state to legalise recreational marijuana; at the federal level, however, it remains illegal. Prior to New Jersey, Illinois was the latest state to allow the recreational use of cannabis. Arizona also voted to legalise recreational marijuana on 3 November.
The use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 33 states and the District of Columbia. In comparison, US’ neighbour Canada legalised cannabis throughout the country in 2018.
US election update
OffGuardian | November 4, 2020
Trump held leads in five undeclared states – Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina – when all five stopped (or dramatically slowed) counting votes. Since then, a surge of postal votes wiped out Trump’s lead in Wisconsin, giving Biden the state by as few as 6,000 votes.
Pennsylvania’s governor has stated there are “over a million” postal votes yet to be counted.
Trump has declared that he should have won the election by now, and has hinted at a Supreme Court challenge. It certainly looks like we will see a “red mirage” – an appearance of a Trump win and then sudden Biden recovery, entirely due to postal ballots. Needless to say, rather suspicious.
In this context it’s a good time to revisit the “Transition Integrity Project”, a series of exercises carried out over the summer of 2020 backed by the Protect Democracy foundation. Their alleged aim was to “ensure a peaceful transfer of power”, but it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here.
Especially when you see the list of names involved – all current/former DNC employees and/or vociferous Trump opponents: Donna Brazille, John Podesta, Max Boot and Bill Kristol to name a few.
In this document, released August this year, they lay out their conclusions. Including (bold in the original):
The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period of contestation [sic] stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots.
Remarkably prescient of them.
Protests of more than two people will be ILLEGAL under updated rules for UK national lockdown
RT | November 3, 2020
Protests are no longer exempt under the UK-wide coronavirus lockdown that begins Thursday, and police plan to enforce that rule, unlike during the previous lockdown, according to UK media.
Demonstrations consisting of more than two people will be made expressly illegal under the second national lockdown, which is expected to take effect Thursday. Police allowed large protests, in particular for the Black Lives Matter movement, during the first lockdown even as individual British families were barred from getting together – a situation many found unfair.
A Home Office spokeswoman avoided ruling protests out completely, telling Yahoo News UK that “the right to peaceful protest is one of the cornerstones of our democracy,” but added that “any gathering risks spreading the disease, leading to more deaths, so it is vital we all play our part in controlling the virus.”
Police have reportedly received instruction from Home Secretary Priti Patel to break up any protest involving more than two people from Thursday on. However, a government source told The Times that protests would not explicitly be prohibited in the lockdown legislation which is scheduled to be voted on Wednesday and take effect the following day. Instead, the loophole that allowed protests while families were prevented from gathering will be closed.
Nevertheless, some officers fear that people will be more inclined to take to the streets because of the restrictions, as one police source told The Times, adding that “this is going to cause a lot of trouble.”
“People are going to be extremely angry and there are concerns they’ll protest the fact they can’t protest.”
News of a second lockdown has already triggered protests in the suburbs of London, where hundreds of people took to the streets over the weekend to denounce the proposed national shutdown. The demonstration was organized by the group StandUpX, which warns that the pandemic is being weaponized to permanently deprive UK residents of their freedoms. PM Boris Johnson has insisted this second national lockdown will end in December, though that is likely cold comfort to those who remember the original “two weeks to flatten the curve” that instead stretched on for months.
Don’t Forget LBJ’s Election Theft
By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | November 2, 2020
The mainstream pro-Biden media is poking fun at Donald Trump’s suggestion that there could be fraud involved in the post-election receipt of mail-in ballots. Apparently they’re not familiar with the election-theft case of Lyndon Johnson, who would go on to become president of the United States.
The entire matter is detailed in Robert Caro’s second book in his biographical series on Johnson. The book is entitled Means of Ascent.
Johnson election theft took place in 1948, when he was running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate against Texas Governor Coke Stevenson, one of the most admired and respected governors in the history of the state.
In the primary election, Stevenson led Johnson by 70,000 votes, but because he didn’t have a majority of the votes, he was forced into a run-off. The run-off was held on a Saturday. On the Sunday morning after the run-off, Stevenson was leading by 854 votes.
As a New York Times review of Caro’s account stated, the day after the run-off election it was “discovered” that the returns of a particular county had not yet been counted. The newly discovered votes were overwhelmingly in favor of Johnson. Then, on Monday more returns came in from the Rio Grande Valley.
Nonetheless, on Tuesday, the State Election Bureau announced that Stevenson had won by 349 votes. Nothing changed on Wednesday and Thursday after the election. On Friday, precincts in the Rio Grande Valley made “corrections” to their tallies, which narrowed Stevenson’s lead to 157.
But also on Friday, Jim Wells County, which was governed as a personal fiefdom by a powerful South Texas rancher named George Parr, filed “amended” returns for what has become famous as “Box 13” that gave Johnson another 200 votes. When all was said and done, Johnson had “won” the election by 87 votes.
It was later discovered that one of Parr’s men had changed the total tally for Johnson from 765 to 965 by simply curling the 7 into a 9.
Where did the extra 200 votes come from? The last 202 names on on the election roll in Box 13 were in a different color ink from the rest of the names, the names were in alphabetical order, and they were all in the same handwriting. When Caro was researching his book, he secured a statement from Luis Salas, an election judge in Jim Wells County, who acknowledged the fraud and confessing his role in it.
As the Washington Post reported, to investigate what obviously appeared quite suspicious Stevenson employed the assistance of Frank Hamer, the Texas Ranger who had trapped and killed Bonnie and Clyde. It was to no avail. Johnson got a friendly state judge to issue an injunction preserving the status quo, after which the Democratic executive committee, by one vote, declared Johnson to be the winner.
Stevenson took the matter to federal court but the Supreme Court punted, declaring that it had no right to interfere with a state election.
So, Lyndon Johnson stole the election and ended up going to Washington as Texas’ U.S. Senator. Ironically, if Stevenson had become the state’s senator instead, Johnson would never have been selected to be John Kennedy’s vice-presidential running mate and, consequently, would never have been president.
No wonder Donald Trump is worried about those Democrats!
No Vaccine for Tyranny
By Ron Paul | November 2, 2020
The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO ‘s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.
Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.
The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!
Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.
Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.
Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.
The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.
Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stops moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.
Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute.
New Lockdowns Announced in UK

By Samuel May | OffGuardian | November 1, 2020
So, during ‘Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus, 31 October 2020’, the usual trio of Johnson, Whitty and Vallance ‘did their thing’ once again, and sold us a lie.
We were shown some graph projections, made by the same people who were wrong in all their previous graph projections and which lacked any context whatsoever (like, for instance, what did last autumn’s hospital admissions look like by comparison?).
Yet these graphs were nevertheless unanimously and alarmingly clear, apparently: We’re all terribly, terribly at risk from the RONA, don’t you know, and we need a further 4 weeks of lockdown.
Johnson said:
From Thursday until the start of December, you must stay at home.
Although initially sold as ‘time-limited’, Michael Gove has already announced this will be extended if their computer models happen to show the mythical ‘R’ rating hasn’t gone down far enough.
So, consider yourselves primed.
Johnson described this latest lockdown as “less prohibitive and less restrictive” than April/March, although even the most lay of laymen will be acutely aware by now of what the true repercussions of this lockdown will be.
This lockdown will further widen the rich/poor divide, further depress the UK economy by shutting down ‘non-essential’ businesses etc., further isolate the young, needy and vulnerable and further cheapen the lives of the very elderly people whose wellbeing has endlessly and hypocritically been used to justify this evil charade.
Johnson said:
And even if I could now double [hospital] capacity overnight – and obviously I am proud that we have massively increased capacity, we do have the Nightingales, we’ve got 13,000 more nurses now than last year, we have many more doctors – but it still would not be enough, because the virus is doubling faster than we could conceivably add capacity.
So you see, anything that could possibly have been done would never have been enough. They know this. That’s probably the only reason they didn’t massively boost the NHS during the quiet summer months, despite the fact they’ve been warning of a possible resurgence for ages. You aren’t being conned here. We need to be very clear on that point. Move along now.
Oh…. and the army will be on our streets this time, testing lots and lots of people. Won’t that be nice. Johnson stated (our emphasis):
“… over the next few days and weeks, we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests.
Applying them in an ever-growing number of situations
From helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they’re giving birth to testing whole towns and even whole cities
The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days.
Working with local communities, local government, public health directors and organisations of all kinds to help people discover whether or not they are infectious, and then immediately to get them to self-isolate and to stop the spread”
You may remember we warned this was looming back in early October, when MP and 77th Brigade reserve officer Tobias Ellwood stood up in Parliament to request greater military involvement. It seems he was listened to. Or, at least, he popped up to ask a convenient question and plug a narrative hole at an opportune time.
Throughout this Number Ten briefing, Johnson/Vallance/Whitty seemed a bit nonchalant this time around, as they condescended to inform the unwashed masses of their fate. Or perhaps they were overcompensating, for there was a certain tenseness about their eyes, as of someone placing a powerful mousetrap behind a wardrobe…
Entire social media is dominated by Zionists
By Kevin Barrett | Press TV | October 30, 2020
Instagram apparently has now unblocked the Supreme Leader of Iran’s account on Instagram after having blocked it due to the Supreme Leader speaking out about the censorship controversy in France.
It’s ironic, of course, that social media would be censoring people who speak out about a censorship controversy. But that’s where we are now in the Zionist-occupied West. You’re not even allowed to raise the topic of being censored. If you are censored and then you complain about being censored on a sensitive topic, they will censor your complaint, and nobody will ever even hear that you’ve been censored or what your argument is about it.
And this, in particular, seems to be the case with anybody who asks why it is that in a country like France, the leadership, namely Macron, seems to believe that it’s freedom of expression when you obscenely or pornographically incite violence by blaspheming and slandering and libeling a revered religious figure, in this case, the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him. But it’s okay to imprison people and ruin their lives if they very calmly and compassionately and in a scholarly and academic manner question some of the victors’ history of World War Two.
Even raising this issue gets people censored. And it just happened to the Supreme Leader. And of course this is one reason that Press TV and other Iranian outlets, among many other world outlets, have been censored throughout social media. The entire social media is either owned or dominated by Zionists, as is the mainstream corporate media.
They don’t want anybody raising this gross contradiction in public. And the fact is that the reason that they won’t let you talk about this, just like the reason they won’t let you talk about World War Two victors’ history, is that the victors always write the history of every war and they always lie and they always exaggerate the crimes of their enemies and downplay their own crimes.
So the revisionists will probably win the argument. Those of us who’ve actually done some reading on the pros and cons of the World War II revisionist case—almost everybody who actually sits down and reads the books—ends up realizing that the revisionists are probably right about at least some of their claims. And that’s the reason we’re not allowed to talk about it. Because if this were debated freely and openly in a scholarly manner the revisionists would win, and the fundamentalist religion of Holocaust worship would disappear.
So, in France, we’ve got a censorship campaign censoring people who argue in a scholarly manner, but they protect “freedom of speech”—la liberté—of the people who blaspheme and use obscenity, pornography, libel, and incitement.
Now, this is exactly the opposite of the American First Amendment position. Here in the United States, we have a very well-developed jurisprudence of free speech under our First Amendment. And that jurisprudence has largely concluded that all serious arguments with social value are protected, but there are exceptions, including blasphemy, pornography, libel, and incitement.
The Zionists have managed to roll back some of that, and now some say that Zionist Supreme Court decisions have made pornography a protected category of speech. This is disgusting and insane. Blasphemy, obscenity, pornography, libel, and incitement are not protected speech and never will be. But apparently, in the Zionist world, those kinds of speech are the ones that you protect, while thoughtful academic scholarly speech investigating victors’ history and finding that it’s wrong deserves censorship. And the people, the scholars, and the historians who engage in that speech are routinely physically attacked, hospitalized, thrown in prison, their lives are ruined, all their books are suppressed. That’s freedom in the West today.
Dr. Kevin Barrett is an American author, journalist and radio host with a Ph.D. in Islamic and Arabic Studies. He has been studying the events of 9/11 since late 2003.
After the Virus: The World of 2025 – #PropagandaWatch
Corbett • 10/30/2020
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
What will the world look like in 2025? Don’t worry, you don’t have to think about the world you want and then work to bring it about. That’s silly! Just listen to the good Bilderbergers at Cognizant, who are more than happy to tell you about the new police state on steroids that is about to be erected to fight the invisible enemy of coronavirus . . . and how you can cash in on the opportunity!!!
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
SHOW NOTES
Episode 387 – Your Guide to The Great Reset
After the Virus: A Discussion Looking Back on the Next 5 Years (video)
Episode 383 – COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity
