Sunday, January 3, 2021

January 3, 2021 An Insider's View of Pennsylvania and the Battle for Our Republic By Frank Ryan and Dawn Keefer

 

American Thinker

January 3, 2021

An Insider's View of Pennsylvania and the Battle for Our Republic

By Frank Ryan and Dawn Keefer

On December 28, 2020, a group of state lawmakers, having performed an extensive analysis of election data, revealed troubling discrepancies between the numbers of total votes counted and total number of voters who voted in the 2020 general election.  These findings were in addition to prior concerns regarding actions by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the secretary of state, and others impacting the conduct of the election.

A comparison of official county election results to the total number of voters who voted on November 3, 2020, as recorded by the Department of State (DoS), shows that 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, while the DoS's Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors (SURE) system records indicate that just 6,760,230 total voters actually voted.  Among the 6,962,607 total ballots cast, 6,931,060 total votes were counted in the presidential race, including all three candidates on the ballot and write-in candidates.

The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, adds up to an alarming discrepancy of 170,830 votes, which is more than twice the reported statewide difference between the two major candidates for president of the United States.  On November 24, 2020, Secretary Boockvar certified election results, and Governor Wolf issued a certificate of ascertainment of presidential electors, certifying that Vice President Joe Biden received 80,555 more votes than President Donald Trump.

The Department of State's response and rebuttal were swift and condescending toward the 17 legislators issuing the press release.  The Department of State acknowledged the disparity in its published data, explaining that the SURE system is not the source of the information utilized to certify the election.


While we appreciate the secretary's attempt to explain the discrepancy, the reality is that this discrepancy is yet another example of the failings of Pennsylvania's November 3 election.  Our focus remains on ensuring the sanctity of the election process in the commonwealth.  We would have expected the secretary to align with our focus and respond in full transparency instead of responding with contempt, as has been the pattern with the secretary and her agency to questioning of their systems.

Unfortunately, the courts have yet to address any of the process control concerns we have presented.  Specifically, our press release pointed out issues at the strategic process control level and at the operational level to include the following.

Strategic level:

We were already concerned with the actions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Executive branch, and election officials in certain counties compromising and undermining Pennsylvania Election laws by eliminating signature verification, postmarks, and due dates while allowing the proliferation of unsecured drop boxes and the unauthorized fixing, (curing,) of ballots, as well as the questionable treatment of poll watchers, all of which created wholesale opportunities for irregularities in the 2020 presidential election.

Operational level:

However, we are now seeing discrepancies on the retail level raising even more troubling questions regarding irregularities in the election returns. These findings call into question the accuracy of the state's SURE system, consistency in the application of the Pennsylvania Election Code from county to county, and the competency of those charged with oversight of elections in our Commonwealth.

"These numbers just don't add up, and the alleged certification of Pennsylvania's presidential election results was absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in error.

The DoS asserts that the SURE system is not the basis for confirming an election, but in the press release refuting the significance of the voter deficit, the DoS indicated, "But the only way to determine the number of voters who voted in November from the SURE system is through the vote histories.  At this time, there are still a few counties that have not completed uploading their vote histories to the SURE system." 

This statement confirms our concern about the data and the process controls.  Any reasonable person would suspect that 6–8 weeks would be sufficient to upload such data.  Further, the absence of such critical data brings into question how any official results could have been certified.

It is important to point out that many of our concerns over the years relating to the DoS's election system have been resisted and dismissed in virtually every respect by the agency.  This history is important to understand, as the most recent Department of the Auditor General (DAG) performance audit of the SURE system reinforces our reasons for our initial review and our conclusions.  Had the DoS cooperated with process reform efforts, perhaps the quandary the Commonwealth is currently in would have been avoided.

According to the DAG report, "DOS' denial of access to critical documents and excessive redaction of documentation resulted in DAG being unable to fully achieve three of the eight audit objectives. ... This sustained refusal to cooperate with our information requests was done without DOS providing any plausible justification for their noncooperation.  Accordingly, DAG was unable to establish with any degree of reasonable assurance that the SURE system is secure and that Pennsylvania voter registration records are complete, accurate, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and related guidelines."

Additionally, the report indicated:

[W]hile DOS requested this audit, management does not seem to grasp that we cannot properly conclude and satisfy the audit objectives in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing Standards without obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence, which they refused to provide to us.

(Source: Pages 2–4, Executive Summary, Performance Audit Report of the Department of State, Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors [SURE], prepared by the Department of the Auditor General, dated December 13, 2019.)

The detailed reasons above and our findings, however limited by access denials, are intended to shed light on these troubling findings as well as our own concerns identified in our report.

Just as the DoS refuted and ignored deficiencies reported by the auditor general, the department is again dismissing issues and inconsistencies identified by members of the General Assembly, without providing access to any substantiating information.  Pennsylvanians deserve better.  Our nation deserves better.  The challenges we submitted were the result of findings from the DoS's publicly provided data.  The DoS explanation that the data they provide to the public are not the same data used to certify the elections demonstrates yet another process failure and roadblock for transparency.

Our sole purpose in attempting to resolve these audit findings, and our own conclusions, is to publicly demonstrate that a lawful election should have been conducted such that we would be able to assure every voter in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that his vote counted.  In our attempt to provide a comprehensive understanding of exactly how elections were facilitated throughout the commonwealth, and answer constituent questions, we identified a plethora of process control flaws, internal control weaknesses, and a battery of inconsistencies.  In light of these findings, it is incumbent upon Pennsylvania's secretary of state to explain why the voters should trust the election process that unfolded in Pennsylvania.  If voters are to trust election results, they must trust the election process.  The process was clearly compromised, and the voters deserve an explanation and remedy. 

Col. Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (ret.) represents the 101st District in the PA House of Representatives, and Rep. Dawn Keefer represents the 92nd District in the PA House of Representatives.

Image: Rlibrandi via Wikimedia Commons (cropped), CC BY-SA 3.0.
at

January 3, 2021 The New Jewish Exodus By Adrienne Skolnik

 

American Thinker

January 3, 2021

The New Jewish Exodus

By Adrienne Skolnik


Three months ago, with great sadness, I terminated membership with my synagogue.  I am not alone.  This phenomenon is happening to thousands of religiously conservative Jews throughout our nation who are Republicans.  What would cause thousands of Jews to feel so alienated they would break from tradition and be without a “religious and spiritual home?”  How much sadness has this caused within this segment of the Jewish community?  Even more importantly, When did Judaism stop being Jewish?

I joined a local synagogue in 2014 when I moved to Asheville, North Carolina.  My initial conversation with my rabbi was welcoming and informative.  Over time he became a trusted friend.  I also enjoyed being a member for many years, and all seemed well.

In 2017, I befriended a Jewish woman who was a Democrat.  She had no religious affiliation so I invited her to a Shabbat service.  Surprisingly, she didn’t kiss the Torah when it passed by us, and fell asleep during the service.  I wondered why she came at all.  Then during my rabbi’s sermon, I found out.  That week there had been a community service with various clergy at a local mosque.  My rabbi spoke at the service.  My friend also attended.

After the service, she rudely asked why I didn’t go to the mosque?  I replied, “I had another commitment.”  She thoughtlessly and antagonistically barked, “You’re a racist!”  I was shocked for she knew I had an adopted Ethiopian-Jewish son.   Because of her callous disregard for others, insulting me in my synagogue on this peaceful Shabbat, our friendship ended.   


What is the significance of this unpleasant event?  It was an omen of a changing Jewish culture where social justice/identity politics meant inclusivity, and nonconformity meant exclusivity.

Shabbat luncheon was a lovely time to visit with friends. To honor the sanctity of Shabbat, I preferred conversations that were dispassionate. This changed after President Trump was elected.  When Democratic friends asked me political questions and I casually answered from a Republican viewpoint, their backs arched and they became confrontational.  “You’re a what?  You’re a Republican?  You mean you voted for Trump?  How could you?”  And then the expletives started to fly.  “He’s a this, a that (some expletives were too offensive to write). 

I refused to be confrontational on Shabbat and would calmly reply, “The greatest thing about this country is we have the constitutional right to choose.”  Then I’d ask three questions.  Has your life changed in any way since President Trump was elected?  They said no.  Has your 401K improved?  They said yes.  If you own a business and you now have a 14% profit because President Trump lowered the corporate tax from 35% to 21%, isn’t that a good thing?  Yes.  I explained that although I didn’t vote for President Obama and disagreed with his policies, I didn’t personally attack anyone like they were doing now.  If their vitriol against President Trump didn’t stop, I left the synagogue.  The sanctity of Shabbat had disappeared. 

Progressive-left ideologies and social justice discourse monopolized conversations and email newsletters.  Even sermons contained political references.  Tikkun Olam (improving the world) by their definition, was not to be questioned.  As a Republican, I didn’t agree with their causes or agendas, so sadly the once peaceful feeling in my “religious and spiritual home” was vanishing.  Many Republican friends were experiencing similar situations and ended their memberships.

Then a series of events occurred.  When Tamika Mallory (a known anti-Semite) spoke at UNC, my Republican Jewish friends peacefully protested.  In the next synagogue newsletter, they were publicly criticized. The author apologized to the black community and hoped it didn’t hurt relations.  My friends wrote a concerned letter to the Board of Directors asking that the newsletter not have political content.  The letter was ignored, so they ended their membership.  (After black radicals killed two Jews and their employee in New Jersey, and attacked Jews with machetes in New York, I asked the author if the black community apologized to the Jewish community so it didn’t hurt relations?  When I heard that members of my synagogue protested with BLM and one got arrested, why weren’t they publicly criticized in the newsletter?) 

Some members even tried to convince me that BLM is an idea.  You can’t see an idea!  Ideas don’t destroy cities, loot and harm people. A Republican Christian friend sent me these videos and an article debunking and exposing the radical Marxist BLM doctrine because there is also a Christian exodus occurring.   

Six months ago, an article appeared in the synagogue newsletter presenting, “Jews of Whiteness and Jews of Color.”  This identity politics terminology upset me, since I have an Ethiopian son.  When people ask me if he is black, I answer, “I never noticed.  He’s a Jew.”  Why is this divisive rhetoric in our community?  What is this self-imposed segregation?  It was so offensive I wrote an article called, “Whiteness, the New Evil.”     

I sent this article to another Jewish liberal friend.  After she read it, she ended our relationship.  So saddened, I wrote another article called, “Losing a Friend to Politics.”   

I met with the board of directors and addressed their messaging of inclusivity, diversity, equity and exclusivity; their social justice agendas supporting BLM and identity politics; Republican members being alienated and leaving; and to maintain neutrality keep the newsletter apolitical.  Also, that there was more concern for people outside of Judaism than for fellow Jews in the community who needed to feel welcome in their “religious and spiritual home.”  My concerns were ignored.     

To retain equity, I asked to contribute links and articles to the synagogue newsletter from a Republican viewpoint.  Instead of putting my organizations’ links and articles contiguous to other member’s social justice links at the top of the community section, my articles were rejected and my links were relegated to the very bottom.  Social justice, identity politics and articles supporting BLM appeared (even after BLM vandalized synagogues), another about the Southern Poverty Law Center featuring a black fist.  This wasn’t what I signed up for when I became a member.

Because I didn’t conform to Orwellian doublethink or Janis’s groupthink, I was being censored, silenced, and squeezed out.  This contradicts everything Judaism represents.  Midrash (Rabbinic interpretations of the Bible) teaches differing viewpoints, exchange of ideas, dialogue, debate, inquiry, investigation, and interpretation.  The direction and mentality of Jewish culture was drastically changing.  Why remain here?  Why work long hours on fundraisers for this synagogue and be disrespected and alienated.

The ethics of civility have disappeared.  Virtue signaling, divisive rhetoric, personal attacks (verbal and written) meant to intimidate and silence you, and the altering of Tikkun Olam are tearing the Jewish people apart.  The precious sense of community, cherished relationships and shared aspirations that once created unity are vanishing.  Anti-Semitism is on the rise, yet social justice warriors (from Jewish elected officials on down) ignore the history of ill-treatment against the Jews and acquiesce to protect others.

To quote Chabad.org on the destruction of the Second Temple:  “Aside from the troubles caused by these external powers, the Jews were also plagued internally by tumultuous politics, and they divided into factions -- a phenomenon that ultimately led to the Temple’s destruction and our nation’s tortuous exile.”

When did Judaism stop being Jewish?  When it turned its back on its own.

Adrienne Skolnik is Chairman of the North Carolina chapter of the Conference of Jewish Affairs.

Image: Uoaei1 
at

January 3, 2021 America’s Alliances: The Case for an Overhaul By George Handlery

 

American Thinker

January 3, 2021

America’s Alliances: The Case for an Overhaul

By George Handlery

Here in Switzerland, your correspondent likes to say that the sign of a Great Power is that its internal affairs take precedence over foreign policy considerations.

By this standard (and some others), America is certainly such a power. One might add that prioritizing local matters over world politics is paired with a neglect of world affairs about which general ignorance prevails.

Abroad, especially in Europe, America’s economic weight is generally recognized, but her foreign policy is not taken seriously. Where this applies, the U.S. is belittled as a hulk with much muscle and little brain.

On the whole, the prejudice of inborn superiority betrays a somewhat surprising condition. Facetiously put, it is that here in Europe, the public has not yet become fully aware of a development that commenced when the U.S.A. entered World War I.


That decisive intervention of a committed neutral determined who the victor would be. It also revolutionized global affairs. America’s growing might has shifted; a remote observer became an active participant.  Since then, the reluctant newcomer could not avoid involvement in the contests by which Europe’s and Asia’s states attempted to assert their real or fantasied interests.

All along, the U.S.A. has been a rather unusual Great Power. This is so even if the culturally related Continent is inclined to project its own ways and goals on its remote relation. That inclination reflects errors in the thinking within the Transatlantic Alliance. Indeed, America’s partners like to view their ally as a larger and uncouth offshoot of themselves that shares their craving for power. By this thinking, quantity is on the side of the Americans but quality, savoir vivre, and culture are a European domain. That way, it is possible to use the big guy as a bodyguard without impairing the proper relationship between the brain and the knuckles.

Scores of Europeans, especially the “liberal” Left, see America as striving for global domination and as inclined to use its hedonistic way of life as an imposed article of export. This depicts American “imperialism” as a beneficiary of the weakness of others. In the light of that, a counter-balancing response seems needed.

One would be an effort to make Europe the power factor that it should be on account of its population and economic advantages. After decades of dependence of the for-free American protection, that project gets blocked by the required effort. Also, with the EU-exit of Britain, only France or Germany could take the lead. Becoming subjected to the de facto rule of either is an unattractive prospect. Especially for the suspicious central Europeans who have only recently regained their independence from Moscow. Some of these already see the EU as another organization that legalizes tutelage over “lesser” peoples.

With the end of the Trump era, America’s internal turbulence will bring with it a new era of the alliance she heads.

The coming Biden-Harris era will remove much of what pains the partnership’s left-liberal-run entities. With Washington in the lead, tremor-free decline will be enjoyed and the dream will prevail that such a condition can be endlessly extended. Even a coalition that applies its skills to give gradual surrender a dignified wrapping will not avoid challenges. However, it will defang its consequences by excluding the option of resistance so as to avoid the risks and sacrifices that action implies.

This method of crisis management will silence some of the objections of decadent allies that wish to moderate what they see as the Wild West diplomacy of their activist protector. America’s shrinking role will even be greeted as “statesmanship.” 

Some of the approval will come from those who have not noticed that the era of the traditional great powers (France, Germany, Britain, Japan, Austria) has ended a century ago. This crowd ignores that, although American somnolence might increase their influence, there will be a price. Ultimately, in the era of superpowers, the security and survival of Europe and its parts depends on the resented natural protector’s might. That potency is more than size and armament.

Power is customarily measured by quantifiable factors, such as the size of the territory, population, resources. Additionally, recalling Stalin’s ill-conceived question regarding the Vatican’s might, the “number of divisions” might be added. Such material criteria are easy to add up.

However, power has a further component. It has to do with the mindset of those that dispose over it. This will be contingent on the system and the prevailing definition of the national interest. There are legal as well as psychological barriers that limit, enhance or exclude the pursuit of certain goals. A political culture that is inclined to attribute conflicts to its own mistakes, one that confuses compromise and capitulation, will score lower than a community that is persuaded of the rightness of its cause.

America is a hesitant country. It looks for faults within herself and enjoys self-flagellation. Her political culture explains why she has not made use of her nuclear monopoly after World War II. Never has a state had as much global power as possessed then by the U.S. And hardly has power been used with more inhibition than between 1945-1949. The explanation lies in the restrains that America’s system imposes on her modus operandi.

One American weakness is that she craves to be loved abroad. Machiavelli would have a revealing reaction to the advantages of being liked, respected, or feared. The wish to be liked by her haters leads to actions that appear to express the weakness of her convictions or naivete. Some more and measured “America First” - a natural goal of good governance - would bring more and better results. The more so since in the countries she has helped most is she liked least. This is not as illogical or unfair as it sounds. Help suggests dependency. A state cannot afford not to appear to be sovereign. In 1849 an Austrian premier had his state saved from a revolution of the Hungarians by a Russian intervention. Minister-President Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg commented: “The world will be surprised by our ingratitude.” De Gaulle applied the same logic after 1945.

Some myths that are especially attractive to Liberals need to be dispelled.

(1) In the countries the U.S. has helped most, she is not liked. It is so precisely in response to this aid. Being liked is a nice bonus but respect is more fundamental.                                              

(2) America has national interests and these should be clearly and predictably formulated and asserted.                                                                                            

(3) The aggression of hostile extremist regimes must be resolutely opposed. The argument that resistance undermines the “liberals” on the other side is toothless. Wanting to oppose aggression that is limited to the means the aggressor approves is nonsense. So is to believe that counter-measures are to be avoided as they might be “insulting.” To think that holding back will encourage moderation, is foolish. All this achieves is not restraint but only a damaging excuse to justify inaction.                                                                           

(4) Become cognizant that if a system vows to destroy you it should be believed. Admit that some foes cannot be converted into friends by cuddling them.                                                                                                                                

(5) What appears to be a demonstration of good will and restraint in a democracy is read as indecisive weakness by dictators. Therefore, appeasement does not appease but it incites contemptuous aggression.                                                                                  

(6) Do not let American support appear to be unconditional. An ally that wishes the kind of protective action he is unwilling to take in his own behalf is not an ally but a security risk. Applying this as well as the foregoing points does not result in international isolation, because:            

(7) There are numerous countries out there that are willing to pull their weight to help themselves. These can make a partnership into an instrument of protective mutual self-help.                                                                                                                      

(8) If this is true, then the system of alliances needs to be reviewed, renewed, and partially re-based. 

Such a revision of the system that is often a one-sided security risk to the U.S.A., is unlikely in the coming presidential term. Thereafter, something already suggested by the departing president’s praxis, will need to be undertaken. Even America cannot afford to cling to the current state of affairs.                   

Image credit: Franz Schrotzberg, via Wikipedia / public domain                                                                            

at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *