Friday, February 5, 2021

UPDATED: Why The Time Election Narrative Is Good News

Time has published a lengthy article that purports to tell how the heroic coalition of Big Labor and Big Business "saved" Election 2020--they're such patriots, looking out for the interests of We The People! If you believe that this story was put out to tell the truth of the election then I have a slightly used but still very serviceable bridge in Brooklyn to sell you:

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

Time wants you to believe this was a "bipartisan" effort, an "unlikely alliance" between Left and Right. Wrong. This was a "unipartisan" effort, as in Uniparty. What the appearance of this story tells us is this:

1) The Establishment realizes that they have so far been unable to control the public perception that Election 2020 was a Big Steal. That remarkably wide perception--in the face of a relentless full court disinformation press--bodes ill for the 2022 elections

2) As a result they're putting out a counter narrative to the Big Steal, the purpose of which is to make it look legit. In other words, it's yet another attempted exercise in perception management--and that's what tells us that they know they're failing. They wouldn't bother, otherwise. The appearance of candor in the story is simply part of the technique and is another indicator of desperation.

If you can bear it, read this bit of flim-flammery. You're supposed to believe that the Establishment is just oh-so-eager to tell us the Real Truth, the "Secret History". The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Trust us--we're not lying this time! Puh-leeze!

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

The true giveaway is the lie about "changing" rules and laws. The truth, as is well known, is that in state after state the rules and laws were flouted and broken--because they knew they could get away with it, at least long enough to get the Big Steal ratified by the Senate.

Who thinks there was no coordination with power brokers in the Senate? Like the Chamber of Commerce didn't coordinate with Mitch McConnell? The AFL-CIO didn't talk to Chuck Schumer? C'mon!

What's driving this? As I said, it's the perception that "behind the scenes [efforts] to influence perceptions" aren't working. Of course, that's a bit of nonsense, too. There's nothing "behind the scenes" about Big Tech and Big Media efforts to "influence perceptions." The fact that these efforts are failing is why this pretense of a Big Reveal about what "really" happened is being attempted.

A highly perceptive Canadian observer of the American scene, Conrad Black, sees this, too. Writing before the Time piece was available to him, Black first describes the policy shambles the Zhou Baiden regime is creating with its plethora of hard Left executive decrees, bypassing Congress. But he then moves on to the issue of the election itself:

Biden’s Rapidly Deflating Honeymoon Balloon

Biden and his media supporters will see the prohibition they have imposed on any questioning of the election result blow up in their faces.

Notice this right up front. Black rightly refers to "the prohibition they have imposed on any questioning of the election result." The "prohibition on questions" is a well known Marxist tactic, as described long ago by Eric Voegelin in Science, Politics, and Gnosticism. Black maintains that this prohibition will "blow up in their faces." My contention, above, is that the appearance of the Time article is evidence that they're already seeing this prohibition blowing up.

Now, before I quote Black, keep in mind what I highlighted in red above, and my description of that as a patent lie. Yesterday, commenter Mike Sylwester and I were discussing the inclusion of the "prohibition on questioning" in the faux impeachment as a mistake, in that it opens up the issue of election fraud for Trump's defense. One can only surmise that the Dems were hoping against hope that this ploy would somehow legitimize the "prohibition on questioning". I wouldn't count on it. It looks more and more like an own goal, an error forced by desperation.

As I noted, Trump has hired a pair of highly experienced liberal attorneys who are not at all impressed with the Dem House's handiwork and rhetoric. Now, here's Black, writing about this whole situation

... polls indicate that the former president has been the chief beneficiary of the comparative quiet and civility in Washington in the two weeks since his departure.

Those polls, showing Trump with higher approval ratings than Zhou Baiden, is the tell that the perception management operation is failing so far. Now, in what follows, pay attention to what I've bolded in red. Trump's attorneys are directly addressing the falsehood that the Time article attempts to propagate--that rules and laws were "changed". No they weren't changed, say Trump's lawyers--laws can only be changed by state legislatures. Acting in deliberate contravention of the election laws is, quite precisely, election fraud.

The reply of Trump’s counsel to the impeachment charge on Tuesday was a withering dismissal of trying to remove from office someone who does not hold that office, a textual reminder that he did not incite violence, that the disgraceful action at the Capitol was not encouraged by him and was not an “insurrection,” and that he was only exercising his First Amendment right:

to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of COVID-19 pandemic ‘safeguards,’ state election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures. Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies that they were false. Like all Americans, the 45th president is protected by the First Amendment . . . If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all.

In allowing the impeachment of Trump to proceed, Biden is placing front and center in the political arena the outright assertion that his election was illegitimate, which Biden’s supporters in Congress and the totalitarian media have tried to expunge and cancel.

Biden is arming his late opponent with an argument similar and in some respects stronger than the one General Andrew Jackson carried to victory through the four years separating the elections of 1824, when he led in the polls but lost in the House of Representatives, and 1828.


There seems to be some spontaneous movement among some senators of both parties to try to replace impeachment with a censure vote. It is very late for that, but if any senior people in this administration are thinking sensibly, they will get that bandwagon rolling at once. If they do not, Trump will have the last laugh at the end of this term and loom as a force of great electoral formidability as the clock ticks toward the next election. Joe Biden’s honeymoon is passing with the swiftness of air leaving a punctured balloon.

The Time story offers conservatives good news. The good news is that the Dems and all the authors of the Big Steal know they have a Big Problem. They realize that all their perception management efforts thus far have gone for naught.

UPDATE: Wow! Glenn Reynolds is all over this angle with a truly smokin' article:

Why are Democrats so scared of Donald Trump when they just defeated him?

Another way to frame that question is: Why aren't Dems secure in their victory? The obvious answer--given their "prohibition on questions" is: They know that we know that they didn't actually win. And that's why they're trying this new tactic of, Here, now we'll tell you the secret truth that makes everything OK--for us! We wuz protecting the country!

Reynolds quotes Rasmussen polling:

“Almost half of ALL VOTERS are concerned about US election integrity: – President Trump left office w/ a job approval of 51%. – 47% of ALL VOTERS believe there was election fraud in Nov 2020.45% of ALL VOTERS want a debate on election integrity.”

Then he really gets on a roll--and all this reinforces what we said above:

Donald Trump is washed up. A has-been. Everyone hates him, and he has no future. That’s what the press is constantly telling us.

So why are the Democrats still afraid of him?

According to the press narrative, Trump suffered a crushing electoral defeat. Democrats are firmly in charge of the White House and Congress. America is returning to normalcy, ...

That’s the story, but the Democrats’ actions give it the lie.

In a nation returning to “normalcy,” does Congress cower behind armed troops and 12-foot fences? Does a party securely in control try to enlist tech firms and media to snuff out voices of opposition?

In a normal America, does a defeated presidential incumbent pose such a threat to the party in power that he must be impeached after leaving office, to ensure he doesn’t win back the White House in four years?

And of course there are more signs of this fear every day.


  1. Glad someone else shared my opinion of this bird cage liner.

  2. Mark - good catch!

    I forgot about how journalist type group communication is used by the left to coordinate talking points.

  3. Fantastic thread. I think* what Time is saying is...wait...You mean a secret cabal of wealthy and politically connected elites conspired to manipulate the rules and laws of an election in order to win?

    Well, holy Shitake Mushrooms!

    It's not like this is a big news story or anything (insert sarcasm emotocon ----> here.

  4. So steal my car then tell me you were protecting me from car accidents and its all good. But you keep my car.

    Got it.

  5. Demsheviks need a bogeyman, while they pass all the evil policies and carry the window so far that turning back becomes impossible.

    They want to keep using Trump as the bogeyman. So far Trump, by keeping calm and not playing, rejected them the opportunity.

    However the narrative will replay relentlessly by the propaganda media, and the elections will be stolen again and again.

    1. Yeah, elections will be stolen again and again, until someone with *real* power tries to stop it.
      The slew of Exec. Orders from Biden makes me guess, that the Dem Left is testing the waters, and finding the waters to be quite hospitable.

    2. @Mouse
      "Yeah, elections will be stolen again and again, until someone with *real* power tries to stop it."

      Yes. But not exactly.

      I think what the election of 2020 proved is that nobody, not an election contestant, even if he is President of the United States, nor We the People ourselves, have the power to 'stop' a stolen election. As I've said, there is currently simply no effective process to uncover and undo local fraud (or illegal or unconstitutional practices) in a Presidential election within the time frames currently imposed by the Constitution and applicable law.

      We'll have stolen elections until the legislatures (Congress and the States) get around to insuring the legitimacy of elections with effective legislation, including effective process.

      Of course this means requiring timely signature verification and photo IDs and the like. It also means giving election contestants the right to verify results not only by recounts, but also by audits of election results to check for irregularities and illegalities.

      And it means giving standing in court to all parties in interest to complain of Constitutional violations in election practices which deprive Americans voters of equal rights.

      Somehow I don't see Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, AOC, et al making this a top legislative priority any time soon.

    3. Yeah, I don't see Pelosi, Schumer,... et al making this a top legislative priority, ever.
      Which is why Mark is right, to say that the Const. became RIP, 1787 - 3 Nov. 2020.

  6. Please clarify "this ploy would somehow legitimize the 'prohibition on questioning' ".
    Which ploy (the impeachment?) would so legitimize this prohibition, and to what ultimate end?

    1. Specifically the ploy of mentioning 'election denial' in the faux impeachment doc. If in the unlikely event that Trump should be 'convicted', that inclusion would legitimize the canceling of anyone who refuses to accept the Zhou regime. I know that this is ongoing, but it would lend greater weight to the 'prohibition on questioning' the election.

  7. I read the Time article. It allows the Dem's peace of mind that what they did was right for America. What a bunch of gunk. They've convinced themselves righteous and pure and their ideologue will reign. Voter / election laws need to be tightened and rigorously enforced. I know... good luck with that.

  8. And this is probably part of the reason the gop was not more proactive before the election in preventing fraud.

    > Like the Chamber of Commerce didn't coordinate with Mitch McConnell

  9. Laura opened her show talking about the Time story, and will have an impeachment trial lawyer on this hour.

  10. GP has received video of some “anomalous”
    middle of the night ballot deliveries, Matt Braynard is pushing toward a potential “proof” for the apparently rampant “ problems” and other information is bound to surface in the near future. My question is, when the wheels fall completely off of the
    “Big Lie Express” and it’s no longer possible to deny that the China puppet in the White House wasn’t elected to anything, what remedy is available?
    Does the Constitution provide any direction on how the country deals with a President who was “placed” in office by a cabal using
    a forged election? Do we just have to sit down and shut up, “ well, they cheated fair and square, we’ll gettem next time”?
    I know there are a bunch of knowledgeable folks on this blog, so what are your thoughts?
    Just how far is the DS willing to go and do they even care that we know this whole thing was a setup? Are they willing to start shooting people at the fence in the Imperial City.

    1. @Anonmymous

      I addressed this in a comment somewhere around Mark's blog a few days ago. I think the sole remedy is Impeachment.

      My hypothesis is that if incontrovertible proof that Biden did not win the election could be established, and it would be better if Democrat leadership and Biden Campaign conspiracy could be shown, the House could impeach Biden (and Harris).

      Obviously no impeachment is likely to occur for any reason in the current Dem-controlled House. But if the GOP can flip the House in November 2022 (only 20 months from now), perhaps in part by showing Congress and the American People incontrovertible evidence of election fraud, an impeachment would not be out of the cards.

      Some sticklers might argue that election fraud is not a 'high crime and misdemeanor'. I might argue that it is. But in any event, I think the first impeachment of Trump (and probably the second, too) established that the standard for impeachment is 'political' and not 'legal'.

      The tougher hurdle would be in the Senate where 67 votes for conviction are required. Presumably there are ~33 Senate seats up for election in 2022. The GOP would have to win nearly all of them to approach a 2/3ds majority in the Senate necessary to convict. (For a party which could not hold one seat in GA a month ago this might be a tall order). But if the evidence of criminal election fraud turns out to be as compelling as some believe, stranger things have happened.

      In the event of conviction of both Biden and Harris, they would be removed from office. I believe (but haven't checked) the Constitution provides that in the event of a vacancy in the two offices, the next in line is the Speaker of the House. In a GOP-controlled House, this would not be Nancy Pelosi. I believe I have read that the Speaker need not even be a member of the House.

      In a flight of fancy earlier I have suggested that the House could appoint a former President of the United States as Speaker who would then ascend to the Office of President.

    2. I agree, of course, that this is the only practical solution in this situation, but it's a helluva way to (not) run a country. The fact of DC being under military occupation and that opposition party members are being threatened tells you about all you need to know.

      BTW, the other day you mentioned occasionally hearing about "perfectly healthy 40 year old rock climbers" succumbing to Covid. I just want to express my skepticism that such people really are 'perfectly healthy' or that we're being told the whole story. For example, just yesterday stories came out about a new CDC study that says LGBTQwerty people are at higher risk. The ABC story says it's about poverty or something, but I think it's about compromised immune systems.

    3. Must the Speaker be a Member of the House of Representatives?

      Probably not. But not clear.

    4. I'm skeptical, too, Mark, that 'perfectly healthy' people die from the covid. I challenged my physician on this the other day and he assured me that some people who are 'healthy' may die. I suppose none of us is 'perfectly healthy', but I agree with you that we are not being told the whole story.

      As you know you and I are the same age. I've got an appointment for my first 'jab' in ten plan (at the moment) is to go through with it...

  11. 'when the wheels fall completely off of the
    “Big Lie Express”'

    I'm no knowledgeable folk but I can hazard a guess. No such thing will be allowed to happen.

    1. When a corrupt FBI gets caught - literally red handed -falsifying documents to keep alive illegal investigations of a legally elected POTUS...and receive ZERO punishments..

      Yeah. Not going to happen

  12. "And so, the China Class was born"

    Insightful article on the Chinese influences in American society - how to conquer a country from within, by Lee Smith

    Just as in ancient Greece, the so-called 30 Tyrants were disloyal to Athens, and sold out to Sparta.

    "The pro-Sparta oligarchy used their patrons’ victory to undo the rights of citizens, and settle scores with their domestic rivals, exiling and executing them and confiscating their wealth."


    1. I just published a post that's a follow on to this via Smeith's article.

  13. If America's Military salutes CIC Harris, the End Times have arrived. The Constitution allowed this, and truly is a suicide document.

  14. I read that it's been reported, that Lindsay is telling DJT, that GOP senators will impeach him, if he brings up fraud at the Senate impeachment trial.
    I don't see, why DJT shouldn't dare Lindsey to do that.

    1. Yeah, I read "just buzz", but if Rand (today on Wallace's show) says zip about fraud, I'll lean toward betting that this stuff about Lindsey is right.

  15. LG has proven himself to be loyal to everyone. How’s that possible?

  16. Are these "heroes" waiting for "thank you" cards? They ought to be waiting for them in prison cells.

  17. As I commented here previously, those that conspired to rig this election will eventually tell their tale as they will want the credit. I just didn't believe they would be so brazen to come out this early, which shows how confident they are in zero consequences - look at the FBI and DOJ.

    Clarice Feldman covers the Molly Ball Time story this morning at American Thinker. As Sundance has repeatedly stated, there was too much money (trillions is his quote) being lost by the big conglomerates with Red China as their benefactor. If Red China was losing, they were losing. These 'Americans' would rather the U.S. workers lose while they rake in the profits.