Mark Latham is an Australian politician with the New South Wales One Nation Party. He is an atheist but makes more sense in political matters than our professing ‘Christian’ Prime Minister. Anyway, I follow Mark on Facebook and Twitter. This is what he had to say of this Presidential election. ‘Funniest thing is ‘progressives’ calling for calm and unity in USA, after 4 years of mad attacks on Trump, denying his legitimacy in winning Presidency 2016. Old demented, bumbling Joe, the beneficiary of electoral fraud, is illegitimate from his first moments 2020.’http://Real Mark Latham @RealMarkLatham
Elections
All posts tagged Elections
This video is funny but also sad. This man was not fit mentally to run for President. The Democrats have a lot to answer for. Running Joe Biden for President was cruel to him, his family and to the voter. Joe Biden in 2020 was not fit mentally for the WH but for the rest home.
It is hard to imagine a man like Sleepy Joe who cannot remember where he is or who he is running against just may win the 2020 Presidential election. However, ‘It’s not over till the senile guy talks gibberish. It might not be over for days. The election may shift to the courts, to be contested like history’s most important parking ticket. Regardless of who wins — and the true professionals of prediction, the bookmakers, now have Donald Trump odds-on — Donald Trump has already done the impossible. He has won the moral high ground.
Since 2016, the Democrats and most of the media have told us that Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton was an electoral and moral aberration. That Trump was not Hugh Hefner, but ‘Drumpf’ the white supremacist. That the voters, chastened by four years under the orange flag of fascism, would recognize their error as a sin and repent. That in 2020 the United States would return to the old normal, and the permanent class of professional politicians could get back to its statesmanlike duty of soliciting cash in brown envelopes, signing off on idiot policies like invading Iraq and dismantling the industrial base, and telling the trash not cling to guns, religion and other symbols of chronic whiteness.
Trump’s moral illegitimacy made his victory more of an insult to decency, and more of a threat to democracy, than the brawls over the hanging chads of Florida in 2000. The media went further: Trump reeked not just of vulgarity, but of micturant nights with Russian prostitutes and, worse, the foul vapors of white nationalism. He wasn’t just a whoremonger: he would monger wars too.
The pollsters, dismally, followed the Democratic line almost unanimously. They told us that Trump had no chance: Biden was heading for a landslide victory.
These were the stakes that the Democrats set, even as they gambled on Biden, the master of malapropism, a man so addled that he struggles even to place his foot in his mouth. And if those were the stakes, then the Democrats lost the moment it became clear that Trump had won in Florida, and then Ohio. There is no Democratic landslide.
By three in the morning, when Trump modestly declared that he had ‘frankly won the election’, only one state, Arizona, had changed its mind. Blue or red, the lines of 2016 have remained solid. Biden has failed to break through in any of them — despite the moral blackmailing, despite the media gaslighting, despite the fake news from the polling companies, despite the ludicrous claim that deaths from COVID-19 were somehow all Trump’s fault.
Whatever happens next, the solidity of Trump’s support has confirmed that there is no going back. The voters know who he is. They are not interested in his morals, but in his politics. These are not just the politics of repudiation: they also contain the promise of economic and social recovery.
Now, politics is not morality. If it were, we would not have had Trump as president in the first place. But the narrowness of this result vindicates Trump’s unlikely moralizing: his attacks on elite corruption, his exposure of the contempt in which the governors hold the governed.
The issues that we summarize as ‘populism’ are real and cannot be wished away. Trump has remade American politics, because American politics are being remade by the voters. Trump’s endurance, let alone his possible victory, confirm this. He, of all people, has told the truth to Americans.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/11/a-hidin-for-biden/
When cheating becomes the way to win an election then that nation is done!
‘A lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) is requesting restoration of ballots for voters who were told to fill out their ballots using Sharpie markers but subsequently had those ballots canceled.
Specifically, the lawsuit details the case of Maricopa County, Arizon, resident Laurie Aguilera, who was given a Sharpie market to fill out her ballot on election day. State officials have previously warned against felt tip writing utensils for filling out ballots.
The lawsuit states that Aguilera was alarmed when the ink of the Sharpie started to bleed onto the other side of her ballot but, despite that, was told to feed her ballot through the counting machine. The ballot, the lawsuit states, was not accepted and eventually canceled by the poll worker.
Aguilera asked for a replacement ballot but was denied one.
“These voters were denied the right to vote. Arizona election officials allegedly were part of the problem, and denial of the right to vote should not occur because of failures in the process of casting a ballot,” PILF President J. Christian Adams said in a statement.
“We are asking that all ballots that were uncured or denied be identified and allowed to be cured,” Adams said. The lawsuit also wants Arizona to allow voters who had their ballots canceled for this reason to be present when their ballots are handled and adjudicated.
The lawsuit was filed to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. The case number is CV2020-014083.’https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/04/arizona-voters-file-lawsuit-to-restore-their-ballots-cancelled-over-sharpies/
‘The introduction and legalization of “ballot harvesting,” where operatives can collect and submit boxes of ballots without proof of identity, has thrown a huge monkey wrench into last night’s presidential vote tally. States are wavering wildly as hundreds of thousands of votes are suddenly “discovered.” Hillary Clinton’s former lawyer is behind the mass legalization of this questionable process. Is this the worst run election in US history?’
It was a supposedly ‘conservative’ Australian Federal government of the Liberal/Nationals coalition that threw the Australian economy into a nose dive due to the China virus. Now, after the financial chaos the Prime Minister talks a lot about jobs while throwing billions into grid chaos renewables. He also says he is not into fighting the culture wars and yet his own Liberal party is obsessed with progressive ideas. Yes, ‘WHILE Australians are worried about actual problems like rising unemployment, the Liberal Party is worried about gender imbalance among its MPs.
It’s hard to believe that Australia’s conservative party would allow itself to be defined by progressive values, especially when progressives cannot even define the word “woman”.
But Liberals have allowed themselves to become convinced that anything less than 50 per cent of their MPs being women is inherently bad.
Nobody ever gives cogent reasons as to why there should be an equal number of men and women in parliament. That women comprise half the population is a statistical fact, but not an argument for the composition of parliament.
And the argument that “we need more representation of women” is a misuse of language since every member of parliament represents men and women equally.
The sexist idea that only a woman can truly represent the interests of women was well and truly dismantled this week when it was revealed Australia’s foreign minister Marise Payne was yet to speak to her Qatar counterpart about the alleged strip search of 13 Australian woman at Doha airport more than three weeks ago.
Imagine if a male foreign minister said he was waiting for an official report before raising the subject with Qatar’s foreign minister!
Meanwhile, the possibility that men dominate parliaments because most women are far too intelligent to pursue a career in branch stacking, faction dealing, fund raising and functions at all hours that interfere with family life is not allowed to be considered.
Anything less than male-female parity is now prima facie evidence of the Liberal Party’s “problem with women”. Only when parity is achieved can Liberals say they are inclusive and hold their heads high.
But if the Liberals were serious about a parliament that mirrored the general population, they would worry less about gender and instead focus on pre-selecting people with backgrounds other than in law.
Or they would insist that half of all MPs were professing Christians.
Or they would insist on pre-selecting candidates who were actually conservatives, regardless of gender, rather than people who were a pale shade of green.
A report released this week by Liberal think tank the Menzies Research Centre has warned that the Liberal Party was taking only “incremental steps” towards gender balance.
Currently 25 per cent of Liberal MPs across Australia are women. This is well short of the 50 per cent mark the party was hoping to achieve by 2025.
By contrast 46 per cent of Labor MPs are women. And how’s that working out for them?
The ALP lost the last federal election and received around 300,000 less votes from women than did the Liberal Party.
No wonder the MRC report says that a significant number of Liberals deny that gender imbalance matters.
But like I said, it is now an article of faith that anything less than equal numbers of men and women is evidence of a problem.
So the MRC report insisted that “the first step in addressing the representation of women in the Liberal Party is to acknowledge that the Party does in fact have a problem”. In other words, if you think that gender imbalance is not a problem, you are the problem.
The report rejected the idea of “quotas”, as used by the Labor Party, but demanded “targeted intervention” which was a fancy way of saying quotas without using the word.
Each Liberal Party division, it said, should set targets for female representation that were measured and reported every year.
So the Liberals may not be using quotas, but their fixation on social engineering shows that they are taking Australia down the same woke cul-de-sac as Labor, only more slowly.
The Liberals will betray their conservative base who believe in meritocracy and they will disappoint progressives for not doing woke as well or as quickly as the ALP and Greens.
Whatever diversity candidates they do get into parliament will bring with them their baggage of imagined grievance, which they will then project onto the party and onto society at large.
Nothing good can ever came from prioritising the right genitalia over the right resume.’https://goodsauce.news/the-liberal-party-gender-trap/
The Australian Federal Government along with every state is driving the cost of electricity beyond what the average person can afford. What is the Government’s answer to the high cost of electricity? Take note this is from an Australian Federal Government web site!
‘Cooling choices
- ceiling, pedestal and personal fans (low to medium cost)
- electric reverse-cycle air conditioners (medium to high cost)
- electric evaporative cooling (medium to high cost)
- intake of cool night air (free)
- purging of hot air (free)’https://www.energy.gov.au/households/heating-and-cooling
So, to save money on electricity the cheapest way is NOT to USE IT!! Now, I am old enough to remember what it was like living in Iowa in the middle of summer in the early 50’s without air-conditioning. That’s EXACTLY what these climate scam politicians want us to live like in 2020! I would say we can let them know what we think at the ballot box but I think the recent Presidential election in the USA gives an idea of where that would go.
Now, take time to read the following.
So-called smart meters are a very dumb response to intermittent wind and solar, even dumber energy sources. Wherever governments attempt to run on sunshine and breezes, the push to control and micromanage household power use, quickly follows.
Over the last few Australian summers, we’ve been treated to power rationing on a grand scale – which the Market Operator euphemistically tags “demand management”.
‘Demand management’ is not about supplying power consumers with what they need, it simply means shutting off power to industry, businesses and households – and even forcing hospitals to switch their lights and air conditioners off – among other indignities, whenever the sun sets and/or calm weather sets in. That’s what our ‘inevitable transition’ looks like at the macro level.
At the micro level, there’s the push to have smart meters installed in every home or business premise, in order that the grid manager can literally hold consumers to ransom, whenever renewable energy output collapses.
Now that the choice is between paying through the nose or freezing or boiling in the dark, a few are starting to wake-up to what’s really going on behind the meter.
The Critics Of ‘Smart Meters’ Were Right All Along
The Daily Telegraph
Ross Clarke
19 September 2020
Once electricity companies have established the principle that they can cut off consumers in order to cope with shortages of supply, they are bound to come back asking for more.
Imagine that you do as the Government wants you to do and buy an electric car. Then you replace your dirty old gas boiler with an electric heat pump and install a smart meter. You think you have done your bit to help the environment.
So what is your reward? To have your electricity company use your smart meter to turn off your power because there is not enough juice in the grid. Suddenly, you find yourself sitting in a cold home and your plans to drive to Birmingham tomorrow are scuppered because your car won’t be fully-charged.
Smart meters have been sold to us as part of a green future where we can manage our homes via mobile phone, switching appliances on and off remotely so as to cut our bills. But it is the cynics, so often denounced in the past few years as paranoid and backward-thinking, who have worked out the real reason why electricity companies are so keen to install them in our homes: they want to ration our electricity.
It isn’t just us who will enjoy the convenience of being able to access our appliances remotely. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks has proposed a system in which it will be able to turn off certain devices in our homes, such as electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps, when the supply of electricity is too small to meet demand.
For the moment, the company says it will only do so with consumers’ permission and that it will only be for two hours at a time. But I don’t expect that promise to last. Once electricity companies have established the principle that they can cut off consumers in order to cope with shortages of supply, they are bound to come back asking for more. And at the current rate, they will have to do this, because we simply don’t have enough storage in the electricity grid to cope with the switch to renewable energy.
Here’s the problem. Yesterday afternoon, Britain was using 34 GW worth of power. It was a sunny and windy day across much of England – ideal conditions for renewable energy. Wind was producing 5.3 GW and solar 7.6 GW, with most of the rest being produced by gas (12.1 GW) and nuclear (4.7 GW). We were also importing 1 GW from the Netherlands.
But what happens when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, as it all-too-frequently does in cold, anticyclonic conditions in midwinter, when demand for power is at its greatest? Moreover, what happens when electricity demand has been boosted by the switch to electric central heating and electric vehicles?
It ought to be obvious that if we are going to rely on intermittent sources of energy we are going to need massive investment in energy storage. Quietly over the past few years, large battery installations, housed in rows of shipping containers, have indeed popped up across Britain. At present, however, there are only enough of them to meet 1 GW worth of demand – and even then only for an hour or two. The Government is desperately trying to encourage more batteries by speeding them through the planning system. Even chuck in proposed capacity, however, and it would only supply another 4 GW of electricity for an hour or so.
But don’t expect even these batteries to get built. The Government is trying to solve the problem of a lack of energy storage through what is calls “capacity auctions”. The bids for batteries, however, are losing out to something called Demand Side Response. If you haven’t heard that jargon before, it means exactly what Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks is proposing to do: persuading people to turn off appliances when electricity demand is too high.
In other words, the electricity industry has worked out that it is going to be cheaper not to bother building batteries but instead to cut us off when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing. As far as the Government’s capacity market is concerned, a kilowatt-hour of energy saved is the equivalent of a kilowatt-hour stored.
For the consumer, however, there is every difference. Cutting off our electricity threatens seriously to interfere with our lives – especially if we are going to have to rely on electric cars and heating systems in future. It doesn’t matter too much if our heating goes off for a few minutes, but if electricity companies try to plug the enormous gap between supply and demand on a still winter’s night entirely by cutting off our electricity supply to demand, we are going to find ourselves sitting in the dark rather a lot.
Unless the Government acts quickly on this problem and invests in a proper energy storage infrastructure – either that or finds another way to back up supply from intermittent wind and solar – we are going to be back in 1973 and the three-day week, when homes had to take it in turns to go without electricity. Then, it was the miners’ unions who were to blame; now it is a failure to plan properly for a green future.’https://stopthesethings.com/2020/11/04/held-to-ransom-smart-meters-shut-off-power-whenever-renewable-energy-output-collapses/
I got this off Twitter and thought you would enjoy it. Especially if you vote RIGHT! Love it!
This green energy deal is simply the pagan Gaia religion. Guess who they want to win?
However, ‘In a refreshingly honest article in the Boston Review, David McDermott Hughes confirms something that we energy evangelists have been saying for some time: Environmentalists do not simply want people to transition to “green energy,” they want humanity put on energy rationing, for the good of the planet. Now, apparently, they’ve also decided that we need to add intermittent fasting to our energy diet because, gosh darnit, electricity in developed countries like the United States is just too darn reliable for our own good! It needs to go out once in a while, or, well, the planet is doomed.
According to Hughes, “For those seriously concerned about climate change, the inverse—the demand for electrical continuity—may be the real problem.” Yes, you read that right, the desire to have electricity available 24/7 is the cause of our global climate catastrophe, and we need to learn to live with intermittent energy like the happy campers of Zimbabwe and Puerto Rico which “provide models for what we might call pause-full electricity.”
And who is first on the new electricity diet? Why, you are, you single-family home-dwelling environmental heretic. Hughes explains that “…each household demanding continuous electricity marginally exacerbates the climate crisis. Perhaps, then, it is critical that we not store energy for these houses. At least, we should not do so in a way that hobbles the transition away from fossil fuels. We ought to consider waiting a few years for storage—enduring much more than six hours of downtime every year—for the sake of transitioning more rapidly away from fossil fuels.”
Surely you can handle a “few years” of intermittent blackouts and brownouts, right, suburbanites?
This energy-rationing agenda has been hidden, heretofore, by a huge raft of bogus promises that would make the switch to renewables easy. Batteries, we were told, will adapt so fast that we can go ahead and just build out wind and solar power, while letting conventional power plants wither and die, and everybody will have their cake and eat it too! Unfortunately, the reality of battery storage limitations is just too obvious to people who see, day in and day out, the reality of batteries: they aren’t getting that much stronger over time. As Mark Mills, of the Manhattan Institute points out (and do read the whole thing!):
About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.
Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).
Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.
And even Hughes now admits that, well, making batteries is environmentally destructive, and environmentalists don’t want you doing that, even if you can. After all, batteries are just not woke:
Lithium-ion batteries are moving into position to overcome that constraint, but they create problems of their own. Like most form of mining, lithium extraction produces toxins—imposed, on this case, on indigenous down-winders in Chile. Also like mining, the lithium trade concentrates power and wealth in the hands of few, corporations. Sometimes called “bottlenecking,” this process converts a resource too plentiful for profit—like sunlight—into a scarce and lucrative commodity. Not even environmental savior Elon Musk is safe from abuse, because, it seems, Tesla “seems on track to gain a controlling share of any smart grid connected to electric vehicles; its Powerwall battery is out-competing less toxic technologies, and it could eventually dovetail with software known as “demand response.”
Oh My God. You mean, Elon Musk is a – gasp – businessman? Perish forbid!
The moral of this story is, when the “green” energy, “green economy,” “green new deal” types tell you that all they really want is for you to have “greener” energy, what they mean is that they want you to have less. Less quantity, less reliability, less affordability, and less consumer flexibility. And you can take that to the ballot box.’https://papundits.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/reliable-electricity-bah-humbug/
How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: When he open his mouth. That’s why you should vote Trump; because he isn’t a politician. However, Biden ‘Apparently awakening to the absurdity of his initial plan to forego campaigning in the days remaining before the election, Joe Biden summoned up the energy to make his way to Warm Springs, Georgia today, the home of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Little White House. In keeping with his gloomy portrait of a country ravaged by pandemic and hopelessly afflicted with institutional racism, in the course of his speech Biden inspiringly noted: “It was here on April 12, 1945 that President Roosevelt died.” That made it a perfect setting for a speech by an elderly, low-energy candidate that many assume will not live long into his presidential term if elected.
Biden tried to mix his doomsaying about the virus that is going to get all of us whose lives haven’t already been destroyed by The White Man with some positive notes: “It is hard when you drive in here,” he observed, “not to think of the circumstances President Roosevelt faithed [sic] and how he overcame so much for so many.” Biden played up the hopeful aspects of Roosevelt’s history in Warm Springs, asserting that it was “a good place to talk about hope and healing,” since it was to that “Franklin Roosevelt came to use the therapeutic waters to rebuild himself” after he contracted polio.
Yes, that’s all true. In an uncomfortable parallel with the Biden campaign, not only did FDR die in Warm Springs; he did so after deceiving the American people for many months about the seriousness of his condition. Despite Joe’s numerous verbal slip-ups and increasingly obvious signs of dementia, the Biden campaign continues to insist that their man is just fine, and in fact more vigorous and in the pink of health than the president who is traversing the country holding three rallies a day.
Yet Nancy Pelosi’s recent introduction of legislation that would make it easier for Congressional Democrats to implement the 25th Amendment (which discusses the removal of a president who is incapacitated and unable to perform his duties) was not, she said, directed at President Trump, but rather at his successors. It was easy to see who she had in mind: Speculation is rife that if Biden wins, he will quickly step aside or be pushed aside to make way for Kamala Harris, who is more palatable than old Joe to the party’s increasingly strong far-Left wing.
In that scenario, Hale and Hearty Joe is being sold to the American people in a classic bait-and-switch operation, reminiscent of the snow job the Democrats pulled off on the electorate back when FDR was running for his fourth term in 1944. Photographs of Roosevelt made it obvious that he was gravely ill: he had lost a considerable amount of weight and looked sallow and haggard. Yet as Republicans began to charge that Roosevelt was too ill to serve yet another four years as President, FDR’s physician, Admiral Ross McIntire, stepped up with an outright lie: “The President’s health is perfectly OK.”’https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/10/biden-tries-to-project-energy-by-going-to-where-fdr-went-to-die?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_2020_10_30_jihad_watch_daily_digest&utm_term=2020-10-30
whatyareckon 