MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Transition Integrity Project’

“A New America Waits in the Wings” After Pre-Planned Chaos

Posted by M. C. on October 16, 2020

Editor’s Note: You may initially read this article and find that it is partisan and unfairly targets the Democratic Party. We urge you to look beyond that initial reaction at the facts, not the emotions. Chaos is inevitable after this election, regardless of who is declared the winner. This gives you a glimpse at a powerful group that has been “war-gaming” the situation and their predicted outcomes. As a person who wishes to be prepared, it’s important to know these things so that you can be ready for something that seems to be a planned event. ~ Daisy

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/election-war-games-pre-planned-chaos/

by Robert Wheeler

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was launched to identify potential risks to the integrity of the November 3, 2020 election process. TIP conducted a series of war games in the summer of 2020, exploring what could possibly go wrong regarding the election. Once risks were identified, the group conducting these war games hoped to find solutions to mitigate those risks.

These simulated “war games” were conducted by a group of Democratic Party insiders, former Obama and Clinton officials, and a number of “Never Trumpers”. TIP justified these exercises as preparation for a Trump loss, and a subsequent refusal by Trump to concede the election.

However, TIP’s report published on August 3, 2020, shows a different story.

In light of this and other studies, no matter where you live, we suggest getting your home ready for the potential of civil unrest and riots and stocking up on emergency food and supplies.

Are these simulations actually manipulating the outcome of the elections?

On the TIP site, it states the goal of the project was to ensure that the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election was legitimate. However, the ties with the Obama administration and pro-Biden groups raises concern that the group is actually planning to ensure the crisis they claim to be attempting to prevent with the simulations.

Whitney Webb writes in an article published on Unlimited Hangout:

…according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.

Whitney’s article goes on to explain that the organizers of TIP have ties to the Obama administration, several pro-Biden groups, and the Biden campaign and that this is particularly troubling. Whitney writes:

…the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.

Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime,“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

What are some examples of these simulated war games?

Game 3 “Clear Trump Win”, simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.

Joe Biden – played by John Podesta, retracted his election night concession and convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine that win.

Then, the Biden campaign encouraged Western states to secede from the Union unless the Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. With advice from former President Obama, the Biden campaign listed the reforms as follows:

  • Give statehood to Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico
  • Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
  • Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
  • Eliminate the Electoral College

These structural reforms will lead to the U.S. having 6 additional states. These six new states will ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats because only Democrat-majority areas are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.

The TIP claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unprecedented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail.

The Biden campaign “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden. The Republican party did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through the electoral college victory.

This simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20. 

Who are the people involved in TIP and who are they associated with?

TIP was co-founded by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman and its current director is Zoe Hudson.

The article written by Webb reveals that Brooks was an advisor to the Pentagon and the Hillary Clinton-led State Department during the Obama administration. She was also previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, which is affiliated with the Open Society Foundations (OSF). Zoe Hudson also has ties to OSF, serving as senior policy analyst and liaison between the foundations and the U.S. government for 11 years.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

And Then What? – We Daren’t Not Look Into the Abyss — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 27, 2020

The point here is that the TIP blueprint, is perversely portrayed as no coup. On the contrary, it is fore-staged as a heroic effort to save the country – to save Democracy from Despotism. Cynical it may be, but that does not make it any less effective.

Will it work? It just might. Only a clear win in the popular vote might be a spanner in the works, but that seems a stretch. Will the senior military balk? Debateable.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/23/and-then-what-we-darent-not-look-into-abyss/

 Alastair Crooke

Secular Millenarianism – the belief that some transformative catharsis in history has the power to expunge the crimes and follies of the past – has a long and bloody history. The notion originally owes to religion. Theories of human ‘Progress’ as an upward-trending, linear continuum, inevitably leading to ‘a better human end’, though clothed today as technological ‘miracles’, were never empirical hypotheses. They were always concocted myths, answering to a human need for meaning, yet manipulated ruthlessly in the interests of power.

But what are such myths doing in a modern U.S. Presidential election? Quite odd. Suddenly, American politics now (by and large), eschews detailed policies, and defines itself, rather, as a Manichean struggle between the forces of light and of darkness; of freedom versus despotism; of justice versus oppression and cruelty.

The election is no longer ‘politics’, but is configured more as a ‘crusade’ against cosmic evil – a devil, or demiurge. Stranger still, the two sides seem to mirror each other in these intense passions.

“In article after article, liberal intellectuals and activists have been talking for months about how Trump could steal the election or refuse to leave the White House even if he loses. But if the Right dares to point out that Democrats are actually changing the rules of the electoral process and actually speaking publicly about refusing to concede even if they lose, well, this only proves that the Right is going to steal the election and refuse to concede if they lose!” (from an article, Stop the Coup!)

What is going on?

What seems almost certain is that the election will be irretrievably contested either by one, or both major parties. A major constitutional crisis lies ahead, and then what? This is the abyss into which we daren’t not look.

A part of ‘Blue’ Millenarianism does reflect something substantive: a shift in how Americans (and many Europeans) conceive the world. But in another way, this Manicheanism is cynical political manipulation: laying the groundwork for the narrative that Trump will lose. He will lose in the popular vote (even if he gains a majority in the Electoral College), and will then refuse to leave office – in flagrant disregard for the (so-called) public ‘verdict’. The U.S. constitution, however, is plain. The candidate who wins 270 votes in the Electoral College is President.

The Democrats’ and ‘never-Trumper’ Republicans have released a 22-page report, The Transition Integrity Project, an exercise in war-gaming a contested election. The outcome of each TIP scenario results in mass mobilisation and political impasse, which the authors argue can and should lead to the removal of Trump.

The point here is that the TIP blueprint, is perversely portrayed as no coup. On the contrary, it is fore-staged as a heroic effort to save the country – to save Democracy from Despotism. Cynical it may be, but that does not make it any less effective.

Anne Applebaum’s new book, Twilight of Democracy, offers some important pointers about the roots to this Manichean ‘dark versus light’ narrative. She is a prominent U.S. journalist and the wife of Radek Sikorski, a senior Polish politician. Ron Dreher summarises thus: “She begins her book by talking about a New Year’s Eve party at their Polish country home at the turn of the millennium. Poland had been free from communism for about a decade. Everyone was giddy. But now, half the people at the party – aren’t talking to the other half”.

In Applebaum’s view, that key anti-communist consensus has been fractured into classically liberal internationalists like her — pro-globalism, pro-liberal social values, pro-immigration — and, on the other side of the schism, nationalist populists, like supporters of Poland’s Law & Justice Party, Hungary’s Fidesz – and Donald Trump. That is to say: the middle ground is empty, and has migrated either to wokeness, or to the new-Right.

Her conclusion is that the U.S. is not heading into a left-wing, soft-totalitarianism (wokeness), but rather into right-wing authoritarianism. (Authoritarianism here, is defined as a strong national leader, exercising something approaching a monopoly of power, whereas totalitarianism is not just authoritarianism, but extends to require an ideological ‘hold’ in which ‘all’ are required to ‘live’ the ideology – in every facet of their thinking, and in daily conduct.)

Here we get to the root of it: Applebaum presents a world where everything has become inverted: Conservativism is no longer conservative. And Radicals are no longer radical, but rather seek ‘to conserve’ what exists. She writes: “The new Right does not want to conserve or to preserve what exists at all … It has broken with the old-fashioned, Burkean small-c conservatism that is suspicious of rapid change in all its forms. Although they hate the phrase, the new right is more Bolshevik than Burkean: these are men and women who want to overthrow, bypass, or undermine existing institutions, to destroy what exists”.

Trump thus becomes the dangerous radical revolutionary wanting to pull down everything ‘good’, which Applebaum defines as secular, liberal, capitalist, and globalist. People on the ‘new Right’, she says, think of the institutions that exist (the American-shaped global order), as a threat to their particular traditions and sovereignty – and therefore are intent to disrupt both those institutions, and the global order, per se. Thus taking America to the type of despotism that used to characterise East European regimes.

Ivan Krastev has written that Applebaum’s “much-praised history books about the Soviet Gulag and the establishment of the communist regimes in Central Europe were her historical introduction to ‘The Inevitability of 1989’. For her, the end of the Cold War was not a geopolitical story: It was a moral story, a verdict pronounced by History herself. She tends to see the post-Cold War world as an epic struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, between freedom and oppression”.

“It was Marx who believed that communism was inevitable because History – a force with godlike powers of determination – required it. Well, the Democrats’ Millenarianism now precisely lies with the shared belief that humanity is on a “Grand March” upward toward ‘Progress’. It goes on and on, obstacles notwithstanding, for obstacles there must be, if the March is to be the Grand March”.

And if progress is ‘inevitable’, and the Democratic Party is leading society’s Grand March to conserve the future, as it were, the ‘March’ becomes a struggle precisely against those reactionary forces standing against the future – and History, too. As for those who oppose or disrupt The March: “How necessary—indeed, how noble—it is of the Party to bulldoze these stumbling blocks on the Grand March, and make straight and smooth the road to tomorrow”.

The mirror-image to Applebaum’s account is that many American conservatives exactly do see an increasingly illiberal Left – and she has this correct – as antagonist to those early U.S. traditions and ethos that they believe made America once great – and which they would wish to see restored again.

Pro-Trumpers however, see the plan to forcibly remove President Trump clearly (even were he to win a majority in the College). The TIP is explicit: “We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power”.

The TIP scenarios, Professor Mike Vlahos foresees, inevitably will be portrayed as that of ‘saving democracy’ – from Trump – and from the ‘aberration’ of an Electoral College that could award Trump the Presidency, even as he loses the popular vote (an outcome that occurred in 2016, too). Vlahos thus foresees the possibility of the Electoral College (and even the Constitution itself) being cast as ‘the enemy’, standing in the way of democracy – the latter to be saved to great public acclaim, through the removal of an ‘illegitimate’ President.

The purpose behind the Manicheanist dualism therefore, becomes clear: The U.S. election is to be imagined as the epic struggle between the forces of democracy and despotism. It is in this sense that Applebaum is a classic ‘1989er’, Krastev writes: She was shaped by the Cold War without ever really experiencing it: “For the ’89ers, the Cold War was what the anti-fascist resistance was for the West’s student revolutionaries of the 1960s, the ’68ers – a time of inspiring heroism and moral clarity. It was precisely this mindset that made many ’89ers first to detect the danger coming from Vladimir Putin’s Russia, but also Poland’s Law & Justice Party, Hungary’s Fidesz – and Donald Trump”.

What is going on here is, of course, classic ‘colour revolution’ management of mass psychology – albeit perpetrated from within the U.S., against its own incumbent President. What the TIP represents is the laying down of the narrative mosaic: It proposes nothing abrupt. The Electoral College simply is incrementally ‘moved along’ from the ‘in need of reform’ category, to the ‘obstacle to democracy’ that “should be dumped” category (see here, for example).

TIP is all about massaging public perceptions about Trump’s likely election mis-behaviour, Vlahos relates (as a historian, and former War College professor), so as to slide the notion of the need to remove him under a soothing mantle of legality and acceptability.

The project also permits people a period of time to put behind them the shock of what is about to unfold: providing them with time and space to embrace this ‘new world’ – and, for them to come to see that the world they were inhabiting has become unbearable and unacceptable. (i.e. Classic myth-making instrumentalised for political ends.)

All this is being orchestrated so that people will be able to move smoothly through and be prepared for the violence and turmoil – of that which is to come.

And what is to come? Massive demonstrations (in the millions, that are already being prepared) to give the impression that all of America is against the President, thus posing the question to the U.S. military: ‘On whose side, are you: Democracy or Despotism?’ The TIP outlines clearly: “A show of numbers in the streets – and actions in the streets – may be decisive factors in determining what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome”. Or, in other words, events will conspire to suggest to people and to the military command, the only ‘correct’ answer.

Will it work? It just might. Only a clear win in the popular vote might be a spanner in the works, but that seems a stretch. Will the senior military balk? Debateable.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 
 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Convergence of Quandaries – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2020

Afterward, BLM “protesters” showed up at the hospital where the deputies were undergoing surgery, shouting “I hope they die.” I can’t wait to hear Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell try to explain that to their faithful fans on MSNBC.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/convergence-of-quandaries/

James Howard Kunstler

And so, America has a new manufactured crisis, ElectionGate, as if all the other troubles piling up like tropical depressions marching across the September seas were not enough. Let me remind you what else is going on. The Wuhan pandemic is still on the scene, the economy is collapsing, a domestic race-war is escalating, the whole west coast is burning, and US oil production is crashing. Oh… and slow-moving tropical storm Sally is forecast to come ashore as a hurricane on the Gulf Coast today, dumping up to two feet of rain.

America needs a constitutional crisis like a hole in the head, and that’s exactly what’s being engineered for the holiday season by the clever folks in the Democratic Party’s Lawfare auxiliary. Here’s how it works: the complicit newspapers and cable news channels publish polls showing Joe Biden leading in several swing states, even if it’s not true. Facebook and Twitter amplify expectations of a Biden victory. This sets the stage for a furor when it turns out that he loses on election night. On cue, Antifa and BLM commence to riot all around the country. Meanwhile, a mighty harvest of mail-in votes pours into election districts utterly unequipped to validate them.

Lawfare cadres agitate in the contested states’ legislatures to send rogue elector slates to the electoral college. The dispute ends up in congress, which awaits a seating of newly-elected representatives on January 4, hopefully for Lawfare, mostly Democrats. Whoops…!  Turns out the Dems lost their majority there too. Fighting in the streets ramps up and overwhelms hamstrung police forces in Democratic-run cities. January 20 — Inauguration Day — rolls around and the Dems ask the military to drag Trump out of the White House “with great dispatch!” as Mr. Biden himself put it so nicely back in the summer. The US military breaks into two factions. Voilà: Civil War Two.

You didn’t read that here first, of course. It’s been all over the web for weeks, since the Democratic Party-sponsored Transition Integrity Project (cough cough) ran their summer “war game,” intending to demonstrate that any Trump election victory would be evidence of treason and require correction by any means necessary, including sedition, which they’d already tried a few times in an organized way since 2016 (and botched). The Democrats are crazy enough now to want this. They have driven themselves crazy for years with the death-wish of eradicating western civ (and themselves with it). There are many exegeses of this phenomenon, mostly derived from Marxist theories of revolution, but my own explanation departs from that.

The orgy of political hysteria, insane thinking, and violence is a psychotic reaction to the collapsing techno-industrial economy — a feature of it, actually. When all familiar social and economic arrangements are threatened, people go nuts. Interestingly, the craziness actually started in the colleges and universities where ideas (the products of thinking) are supposed to be the stock-in-trade. The more pressing the practical matters of daily life became, the less intellectuals wanted to face them. So, they desperately generated a force-field of crazy counter-ideas to repel the threat, a curriculum of wishful thinking, childish utopian nostrums, and exercises in boundary-smashing. As all this moved out of the campuses (the graduation function), it infected every other corner of American endeavor, institutions, business, news media, sports, Hollywood, etc. The country is now out of its mind… echoes of France, 1793… a rhyme, not a reprise.

The US economy began a slow and insidious collapse because its petroleum energy base became unaffordable. The reality of that was obscured by paradoxical appearances: the shale oil miracle goosed up US oil production from under five million barrels-a-day in 2007 to thirteen million barrels-a-day in 2019. Pretty awesome. Seemed like we were awash in oil. The problem was the companies producing shale oil couldn’t make money at it, and the loans that went into staging the shale oil “miracle” went bad… and then the companies couldn’t get new loans… and went bankrupt. So, the crash of US oil production is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that is sure to continue and will make things worse. Now, less than a year after reaching that majestic 13 million barrels-a-day, production has fallen to around 10 million a day — quite an impressive drop. Further obscuring the actual dynamic in play, gasoline prices at the pump are quite low — under $2.50-a-gallon where I live, compared with $4-plus a couple of years ago — and most citizens consider the price of gasoline their sole index of how things are going in the oil industry.

The Covid-19 pandemic has aggravated and accelerated the damage from that by shutting down much of small business across America since March. The businesses and people who owned them have suffered terribly. That and the public lockdowns have greatly depressed the demand for oil products, driving the price-per-barrel down and reducing the cash flow of the oil companies. That also aggravated worsening relations with our principal trading partner, China, the net effect of which threatens the supply chain for all sorts of critical parts and products needed to keep our complex systems running.

Whether Mr. Trump or anybody can respond intelligently to this long emergency is a matter of considerable moment. As far as election politics are concerned, Mr. Trump is only marginally better positioned because he is not in favor of destroying the existing institutions of the republic as his opponents are. There’s less reason to believe he’s capable of coping with the nuts-and-bolts of the economic collapse that awaits after the election dramaturgy plays out. For Mr. Trump, much depends on the illusory performance of the implausible financial markets. This is the season for market crashes, as it is the season for Atlantic cyclones, and those markets have been acting as toppy as a moon-shot lately.

Meanwhile, the BLM mayhem continues overnight, this time in stodgy little old Lancaster, PA, where a knife-wielding Hispanic man was shot by the cops. Crazy how unjustified that seems. The incident and the reaction to it (riot… fires) followed the assassination attempt of two LA County sheriff’s deputies in their car Saturday night by what appears to have been a black child or a dwarf. Afterward, BLM “protesters” showed up at the hospital where the deputies were undergoing surgery, shouting “I hope they die.” I can’t wait to hear Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell try to explain that to their faithful fans on MSNBC.


Note: I am posting on Parler now as jhkunstler.


This blog is sponsored this week by McAlvany ICA. To learn more visit: //icagoldcompany.com/

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Bipartisan” Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan For Chaos If Trump Wins The Election | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2020

Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bipartisan-washington-insiders-reveal-their-plan-chaos-if-trump-wins-election

Twitter Facebook Reddit Email

Authored by Whitney Webb via UnlimitedHangout.com,

A group of “bipartisan” neoconservative Republicans and establishment Democrats have been “simulating” multiple catastrophic scenarios for the 2020 election, including a simulation where a clear victory by the incumbent provokes “unprecedented” measures, which the Biden campaign could take to foil a new Trump inauguration.

A group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a cadre of “Never Trump” neoconservative Republicans have spent the past few months conducting simulations and “war games” regarding different 2020 election “doomsday” scenarios. 

Per several media reports on the group, called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), they justify these exercises as specifically preparing for a scenario where President Trump loses the 2020 election and refuses to leave office, potentially resulting in a constitutional crisis. However, according to TIP’s own documents, even their simulations involving a “clear win” for Trump in the upcoming election resulted in a constitutional crisis, as they predicted that the Biden campaign would make bold moves aimed at securing the presidency, regardless of the election result.

This is particularly troubling given that TIP has considerable ties to the Obama administration, where Biden served as Vice President, as well as several groups that are adamantly pro-Biden in addition to the Biden campaign itself. Indeed, the fact that a group of openly pro-Biden Washington insiders and former government officials have gamed out scenarios for possible election outcomes and their aftermath, all of which either ended with Biden becoming president or a constitutional crisis, suggest that powerful forces influencing the Biden campaign are pushing the former Vice President to refuse to concede the election even if he loses.

This, of course, gravely undercuts the TIP’s claim to be ensuring “integrity” in the presidential transition process and instead suggests that the group is openly planning on how to ensure that Trump leaves office regardless of the result or to manufacture the very constitutional crisis they claim to be preventing through their simulations.

Such concerns are only magnified by the recent claims made by the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary Clinton, that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.”

“I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is,” Clinton continued during an interview with Showtime a little over a week ago. The results of the TIP’s simulations notably echo Clinton’s claims that Biden will “eventually” win if the process to determine the election outcome is “dragged out.”

The Uniparty’s “war games”

Members of the TIP met in June to conduct four “war games” that simulated “a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day” in which “Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it,” according to a report from The Boston Globe. However, one of those simulations, which examined what would transpire between Election Day and Inauguration Day in the event of a “clear Trump win,” shows that the TIP simulated not only how Republicans could use every option at their disposal to “hold onto power”, but also how Democrats could do so if the 2020 election result is not in their favor.

While some, mostly right-leaning media outlets, such as this article from The National Pulse, did note that the TIP’s simulations involved the Biden campaign refusing to concede, the actual document from TIP on the exercises revealed the specific moves the Biden campaign would take following a “clear win” for the Trump campaign. Unsurprisingly, these moves would greatly exacerbate current political tensions in the United States, an end result that the TIP claims they were created to avoid, gravely undercutting the official justification for their simulations as well as the group’s official reason for existing.

In the TIP’s “clear Trump win” scenario (see page 17), Joe Biden – played in the war game by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton – retracted his election night concession and subsequently convinced “three states with Democratic governors – North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan – to ask for recounts.” Then, the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan “sent separate slates of electors to counter those sent by the state legislature” to the Electoral College, which Trump had won, in an attempt to undermine, if not prevent, that win.

Next, “the Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms. (emphasis added)” Subsequently, “with advice from [former] President Obama,” the Biden campaign laid out those “reforms” as the following:

  1. Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
  2. Divide California into five states “to more accurately represent its population in the Senate”
  3. Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70
  4. Eliminate the Electoral College

In other words, these “structural reforms” involve the creation of what essentially amounts to having the U.S. by composed 56 states, with the new states set to ensure a perpetual majority for Democrats, as only Democrat-majority areas (DC, Puerto Rico and California) are given statehood. Notably, in other scenarios where Biden won the Electoral College, Democrats did not support its elimination.

Also notable is the fact that, in this simulation, the TIP blamed the Trump campaign for the Democrats’ decision to take the “provocative, unprecedented actions” laid out above, asserting that Trump’s campaign had “created the conditions to force the Biden campaign” into taking these actions by doing things like giving “an interview to The Intercept in which he [Trump] stated that he would have lost the election if Bernie Sanders had been nominated” instead of Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate.

The TIP also claimed that the Trump campaign would seek to paint these “provocative, unpredecented actions” as “the Democrats attempting to orchestrate an illegal coup,” despite the fact that that is essentially what those actions entail. Indeed, in other simulations where the Trump campaign behaved along these lines, the TIP’s rhetoric about this category of extreme actions is decidedly different.

Yet, the simulated actions of the Biden campaign in this scenario did not end there, as the Biden campaign subsequently “provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress [on January 6th] by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden,” adding that this was “based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.” The Republican party obviously did not consent, noting that Trump had won the election through his Electoral College victory. The “clear Trump win” election simulation ended with no president-elect being inaugurated on January 20, with the TIP noting “it was unclear what the military would do in this situation.”

Of course, some TIP members, including its co-founder Rosa Brooks – a former advisor to the Obama era Pentagon and currently a fellow at the “New America” think tank, have their preference for “what the military would do in this situation.” For instance, Brooks, writing less than 2 weeks after Trump’s inauguration in 2017, argued in Foreign Policythat “a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders” was one of four possibilities for removing Trump from office prior to the 2020 election.

Full TIP document below:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nolte: Washington Post Says Election Will End in Violence Unless Biden Wins Landslide

Posted by M. C. on September 3, 2020

This is WaPo saying it is expected you rape and pillage if it’s chosen candidate doesn’t win.

WaPo/Anifa what is the difference?

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/09/03/nolte-washington-post-says-election-will-end-violence-unless-biden-wins-landslide/

by John Nolte

The far-left Washington Post blackmailed the country Thursday with a threat framed as analysis that says only a landslide victory for Joe Biden can save us from violence.

Because the Post piece is both fake news and irresponsible, I’m not going to compound those sins by linking it here. The Post’s tweet advertising the piece (which I also won’t link) sums up the threat perfectly: “The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis,” the tweet reads. “In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically.”

Only a Biden landslide can save America from a national catastrophe.

In other words…

That’s a nice country you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

The Post’s bald-faced threat is couched in a piece of analysis that does not even attempt to be serious, especially in a country where, as I write this, countless Democrat-run cities are on fire thanks to Black Lives Matter and Antifa, two left-wing terrorists groups who operate as Brownshirts for the Democrat Party and media outlets like the Washington Post — who regularly encourage and protect these domestic terrorists.

Even more ludicrous, the Post’s threat is only made possibly by way of its cherry-picking of “experts.”

They make it all so official-sounding. I’ve emphasized the howlers:

President Trump has broken countless norms and ignored countless laws during his time in office, and while my colleagues and I at the Transition Integrity Project didn’t want to lie awake at night contemplating the ways the American experiment could fail, we realized that identifying the most serious risks to our democracy might be the best way to avert a November disaster. So we built a series of war games, sought out some of the most accomplished Republicans, Democrats, civil servants, media experts, pollsters and strategists around, and asked them to imagine what they’d do in a range of election and transition scenarios.

A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis.

I swear I’m not making that up. I know it sounds like something I’d make up, especially something as hilarious as a “Transition Integrity Project” operating from the same Washington Post hellhole that led the fake news propaganda jihad for the Russia Collusion Hoax coup plotters. But it’s all real. I swear. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Anyway, the Transition Integrity Project’s war games (can you believe they used the term “war games?”) are staffed only with ringers. The “accomplished Republicans” are all — and I do mean all — bitter, half-witted, Trump haters:  Michael Steele. Bill Kristol. Trey Grayson.

On the other side are only Biden loyalists: John Podesta. Donna Brazile. Jennifer Granholm.

Not even one disgruntled Bernie Bro.

Not even one.

So the Transition Integrity Project asked six people who fucking hate Donald Trump something about Donald Trump and the answer is not looking so good for Donald Trump.

Transition Integrity Project?

More like the Transition Rigged Project.

So even though Joe Biden’s supporters are right now — I mean right now as I write this — burning down a whole bunch of Democrat-run cities and Joe Biden has said almost nothing to stop them and PLENTY to encourage them, the Transition Rigged Project talked to six people who fucking hate Donald Trump and came to this bottom line [emphasis added]:

In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets. Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests, while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence, then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to “restore order,” leading to still more violence. (The exercises underscored the tremendous power enjoyed by an incumbent president: Biden can call a news conference, but Trump can call in the 82nd Airborne.)

Yep, the 82nd Airborne, y’all.

Here’s something else the Transition Rigged Project war gamed:

In the “narrow Biden win” scenario, Trump refused to leave office and was ultimately escorted out by the Secret Service — but only after pardoning himself and his family and burning incriminating documents.

Let me tell you what’s happening here…

If Trump wins, the organized left, and you can bet that includes media outlets like the Washington Post, intend to declare war on us. On you and I.

Not political war.

War-war.

That’s what they’re doing now.

That’s what the Democrat Party’s and the media’s Brownshirts in Black Lives Matter and Antifa are doing right now in Kenosha and Rochester and Minneapolis and Portland and will do in any other place where an excuse can be found or manufactured.

The war is a hot war. If Trump wins re-election it’s going to get hotter.

The Washington Post is warning us — not just that there will be a war if Trump loses, but that we will be blamed for the war.

Hey, we warned you if you didn’t pay for protection your store would burn down.

Hey, we warned you if you didn’t vote for Joe Biden your store and your home and your car and your life would burn down.

This is not a drill.

This is a threat.

Take this threat seriously.

Prepare yourself.

Prepare yourself before it’s too late to prepare yourself.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »