Can President Trump win? Read 9 ways he still can…
1) Only the electoral college or the various state legislatures can declare a candidate the winner. To base this decision on network vote totals and projections and to call Biden the “president-elect” is irresponsible.
2) The recounts in Arizona, Georgia, and the other states are likely to go heavily for Trump. Most of the likely errors or invalid votes took place on mailed-in ballots. (Machine votes are harder to tamper with) .Since Biden won upwards of two-thirds of mail-in votes and absentee ballots, it is likely that most of the discarded mail ballots will be subtracted from Biden’s total.
3) The networks currently give Trump 214 electorate votes (270 is the victory level).
4) Alaska, where Trump has led by 2:1 all week and is now more than half counted, which will likely throw its 3 votes to Trump, giving him 217.
5) Trump has likewise led in North Carolina (15 votes) all week, and his margin of 75,000 has not diminished. He will carry North Carolina. Like Alaska. The media will not call it for Trump to promote the illusion of a Biden victory. North Carolina would bring Trump’s vote to 232.
6) The vote count in Arizona shows Trump’s deficit shrinking from 30,000 on Friday to 18,500 on Saturday, with about 100K left to count after Arizona (11 votes) is fully counted. It will go through a recount subject to the pro-Trump bias identified in point 2. Were if he’s to win Arizona, he would have 243 votes.
7) In Georgia (16 votes), Biden leads by only 8,400 votes, a margin that has been dropping. Like Arizona, Trump may still win the count and, if not, would have a very good chance of prevailing in the recount. With Georgia, Trump would have 259 votes.
8) Wisconsin (10 votes) is tallied as having been won by Biden by 21,000 votes, but a recanvass is in the offing. Given the facts enumerated in point 2, there is an excellent chance Trump will carry Wisconsin. The recount process in Wisconsin is uniquely fair and transparent — a model for the nation — so Trump may well flip the state. If he does, he will have 269 votes — one shy of victory.
9) Then, it comes down Pennsylvania and its 20 votes. The Supreme Court provisionally allowed ballots to be counted if they arrived before Friday, Nov. 6, and were postmarked before Election Day, Nov. 3, and ordered late votes to be segregated when Justice Samuel Alito was informed that the state had not segregated the late votes, as Pennsylvania’s Secretary of the Commonwealth had advised, Justice Alito made it an order on Friday. Biden currently leads by 37,000 votes in Pennsylvania. The number of late-arriving ballots likely far exceeds this total (the state has not published this information). Justice Alito and a Court majority may throw out the late ballots, likely delivering the state to Trump.
In addition, for the reasons stated above, a recanvass is likely to give Trump a decisive advantage. If he wins Pennsylvania, he would have 289 votes and a victory. Will there be a recount in Pennsylvania? The current law requires one if the margin is under 0.5 percent, and in Pennsylvania, it likely will be slightly greater.
There are two ways to trigger a recount: First, the Supreme Court could order one after the vote counters so flagrantly violated Alito’s order to segregate the votes that he had to re-issue it and remember, four justices wanted to reconsider whether to allow late ballots entirely, but the court was deadlocked 4-4 in October.
Now with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the mix, it may take a different view, particularly if the presidency hangs in the balance. Second, Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
The Pennsylvania Legislature, solidly in Republican hands, may choose to do a recount before appointing electors. To build the case for doing so, it may hold hearings into the allegations of fraud to help the voters of the state understand how flagrantly their votes were counted. Already, the leader of the State Senate in Pennsylvania and the speaker of the State Assembly have held a news conference announcing their intention to “audit” the vote-counting process. As the saying goes: “It’s not over until the fat lady sings.” And she hasn’t.
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.