House speaker, Nancy Pelosi when addressing the avoidable humanitarian crisis unfolding on the southern border of the United States, blamed the ‘impact of climate change,’ not good border policy being ditched for bad.
Speaking straight from her hate-Trump-era playbook, Pelosi shifted the blame, acknowledged Central American “corruption, violence, and all that” as a factor, then insinuated that President Biden’s hands were tied because “they” inherited a ‘broken system.’
Pelosi apparently wrote the script for Biden, which was echoed by his White House Press Secretary on Tuesday, who also said, “the last administration left us a dismantled, and unworkable system.”
Heaping praise on Biden, Pelosi stated, that he’s assigned FEMA the task of helping resolve the developing crisis, by ‘transitioning [from] what was wrong before, to what is right.’
Democrat political doublespeak for attempting to deflect accountability for a human tsunami that their ‘policies and rhetoric’ invited. (Attested to by Julio Rosas for Townhall)
Commenting on Pelosi’s political manoeuvre, Australian journalist, Miranda Divine rightly called it, ‘Soviet level gaslighting.’
In other words, manufacture a crisis, push the credibility of another manufactured crisis. Then blame others for it.
Melanie Phillips described as much in 2010, writing, ‘the left divides the world into two rival camps of good and evil, creating as the sole alternative to itself a demonic political camp called “the right,” to which everyone who challenges it is automatically consigned. Since “the right” is by definition evil, to dispute any left-wing shibboleth is to put oneself beyond the moral pale. There can be no dissent or argument at all. Only one worldview is to be permitted.’
Without a doubt, interference in the United States election was a four-year long campaign to manufacture the 2020 election result, on a ‘whatever it takes’ to payback Trump for dethroning Hilary Clinton basis.
The framework of debate, if debating about 2020 electoral procedures and its outcome were allowed, includes the relationship between interference in the election, and electoral fraud.
Being convinced there was election interference, doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing that there was widespread electoral fraud.
MyPillow’s CEO, Mike Lindell’s now banned 2 hr exposition ‘Absolute Proof’ takes this approach, but lands squarely on the conclusion that the election result was ‘the biggest cyber attack in history’ involving both foreign and domestic players.
‘Absolute Proof’ is a “paper or plastic” critique of electronic voting systems. It seeks to show how easy it is for ‘votes [to be] wiped out and replaced’ through malware programs like ‘Qsnatch.’
Lindell’s argument draws from professional assessments, and forensic analysis, which establishes the plausibility, intent and technological process that can be used to manufacture an election result.
Acknowledging assurances from organisations like Dominion, (and others) regarding the safety and security of their product, Lindell unpacks how, despite those assurances, ‘massive security vulnerabilities’ compromise electronic voting systems, and make them susceptible to interference, through digital manipulation from outside forces.
Lindell’s questions come about because of ‘deviations in the count [that] didn’t make sense’, claims that the CCP have a known relationship with Dominion (see NBC’s article from 19th Dec. 2019 supporting this), right up to ‘having access to Dominion code,’ and the fact that questions like his are met a ‘solid wall of resistance. With those asking them told to “leave it alone.”
Fortifying this is the en masse, Social Media banning of Mike Lindell. Cancel Culture’s equivalent of a public beheading.
All of it removed from the eye of the public by Big Tech, because it questions the authorised version of events, handed down from what the NY Times called: ‘a group of federal, state and local election officials [who’ve] said “there is no evidence” any voting systems were compromised.’
Lindell’s crimes? Supporting President Donald Trump, and challenging the culture of silence about electoral procedures, and the election.
Questioning that is justified, in the context of Time Magazine gloating that a cabal was involved in manufacturing the 2020 election outcome, and how these revelations infer that this cabal was the Deus Ex Machina Biden needed to win against Donald Trump.
One of Lindell’s strongest points comes from Allied Security Operations Group’s (ASOG) investigation (Transcript: Scribd) into election fraud. Specifically, Dominion equipment in Antrum County.
ASOG’s high calibre report was rejected without a whole lot of due process.
The questions being asked were dismissed as a Right-Wing conspiracy theory, and their evidence quickly discounted as being ‘false’ and ‘misleading.’
MSN citing, John Poulos, the CEO of Dominion called ASOG, a “biased, non-independent organization.” Backing ‘assertions from Michigan State officials’ about election integrity, while dismissing ASOG, because they have ‘no apparent expertise in election administration and technology. Their work is limited to the previous release and amplification of other false information and fake documents.’
ASOG was dismissed under the blanket narrative that ‘the qualifications of those who authored the report are suspect, with no evidence or credentials provided to back up their “expertise.” (Sec. of State, Michigan Jocelyn Benson)
He also claimed that “the majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology.”
Macias follows this up with an offering of tribute to the only election narrative allowed, concluding: “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”
It should be acknowledged that,
a) Macias, by all appearances, a career bureaucrat, worked with the Californian Sec. of State’s office ‘shaping the voting system and approval process in California’, 10 years before joining the U.S E.A.C in 2016.
b) has an operations management connection to Dominion.
c) appears to have analysed the ASOG report, not the evidence.
Where ASOG visited ‘Antrim County twice and examined Dominion Voting Systems’, Macias admits: ‘I have not had access to the Antrim County voting equipment, or any voting equipment in the State of Michigan.’
Exhibited by his rebuttal’s convenient dismissal of the ASOG report as ‘preposterous,’ based solely on a flimsy appeal to authority, and the approved narrative.
Macias primarily attacking ASOG, not the report, and his admission of not having done the groundwork ASOG did, works against his accusations of ASOG “bias”, opening up questions about bias of his own.
Add to this, the bandwagon genetic fallacy Macias appeals to in order to discount ASOG’s findings.
Done so on the grounds that ASOG lacks inside knowledge, and electronic expertise; and are only ‘regurgitating unsubstantiated claims of [so-called right-wing] misinformation and disinformation.’
From which Macias (much like Michigan State Democrats, as linked above) concludes ASOG’s findings can’t be trusted, or given serious consideration.
ASOG’s findings aren’t imagined.
What is imagined is Macias’ Fact Check credibility. All he’s done is regurgitate the official Michigan Democrat party-line.
Does Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ provide absolute proof of potential election interferance?
Yes. Move past the opinions, and what Lindell does is pose a series facts and questons. Unlike the suppression of opposing viewpoints from far-left ministry of propaganda “fact-checkers”, Lindell gives the facts a platform, leaving the viewer to decide.
Weighing some of the unadulterated information Lindell presents, I’m more convinced, than I was, that actual election fraud took place. Allbeit carried on a well-hidden, covert micro-scale, which, when tallied gave Biden that Deus Ex Machina, dubious, winning spike.
With a long list of Leftist meltdowns and tantrums since 2016, alongside Time Magazine’s confession, and Lindell’s expositional; election interferance and the possibility of electoral fraud, can’t be ruled-out as a ‘right-wing conspiracy.’
Attach the facism proper tendencies of the Left,
1. legacy media’s hyped-up “insurrection at the Capitol” narrative.
All of this leaves no doubt in my mind that the 2020 election was interfered with, and that this inteferance in the Democratic process was probably just the beginning of a much larger “coup” orchestrated by the far-left to punish and subdue, an unsuspecting public, and their political opponents.
In this sense, was Biden’s election was the real insurrection?
With the evidence, intent and censoring of questions, I can see why people moved from questions about electoral interferance towards conclusions about electoral fraud.
As Terry Turchie, former FBI Counter Terrorism division, told Lindell:
“the purpose of any intelligence operation of this magnitude is to conceal itself, and to be so hard to figure out that by the time you get to the conclusion, it’s too late.”
‘Absolute Proof’ is no smoking gun.
This said, Lindell hits a raw nerve.
Huffpost accused Lindell of ‘going off the rails’, YouTube deletedthe video, and Twitter booted him, locking out both his personal and business accounts – without due process.
The Leftist hegemon’s demonisinig censorship of him, his argument, evidence and video infer that Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ shines a light, where the Left don’t want light to shine.
Note that the Michigan A.G is pushing to steal the livelihoods of lawyers who failed to fail in, line up and jackboot march in unison.
With the quick suppression of anyone seeking a true and independent anaylsis of the evidence, such as JSOG presented back in January; combined with a Leftist army of so-called “Fact-Checkers” pushing a party-line, the Left’s anti-liberal behaviour shows that Lindell’s ‘Absolute Proof’ carries serious weight.
Lindell makes a good case.
Even without his conclusions, drawn from a variety of sources and evidence about Democrat election interferance, there’s also a ton of incriminating circumstantial evidence; a varifiable signpost proving that Leftist’s were not only capable of manufacturing the outcome of the 2020 election, but had probable cause, and acted with intent to do so.
Such as statements of intent, that ‘they’d do whatever it takes to remove Donald Trump from office.’
This, along with left-wing Russian collusion conspiracy theories, wall-to-wall demonstrations, and violent demonisations of the Trump administration.
In addition, we have Time magazine’s Molly Ball(a Nancy Pelosi biographer)who’s confessed to the existence of
‘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.’
Ball’s admissions are bold, and her justifications pivot on the hope that no one will care enough to notice the dishonest, type ‘a’ leftist sleight of hand abuse of language, justifying interference (even perhaps electoral fraud) as not ‘rigging the election’, but ‘fortifying’ it.
Just as, “ALL white people are racist, is anti-racism”, “abortion is healthcare”, “love is love”, “men can be women”, “Trump is Hitler”, “socialism has never been properly tried,” “Same-sex marriage is about equality,” and ‘Antifa’s fascist tactics is “anti-fascism.”
Joining the manipulative chorus of Leftist slogans, and falsehoods, is the four year long, dark Democrat campaign of fear and division, culiminating in the conditioning of the electorate to “vote for Biden, or face certain death at the hands of Covid, Climate Change, Rascists and Nazis.”
As Mark Powell expressed this week in response to Time magazine,
‘So, are we truly supposed to believe that the ultimate goal of the polyamorous relationship between Big-Media, Big-Tech™ and Big Business™ was the protection of our democratic freedoms? Because, if so, then someone better quickly inform The New York Post whose bombshell expose article on Hunter Biden’s laptop was more censored than a communist cultivated coronavirus.’
The zero-sum dishonest game from the Left, that blurs distinctions, up-ends definitions, interferes in elections, and redefines truth as opinion, makes ‘Absolute Proof’ worth the time and effort.
‘The 46th potus is more than the saviour of the Union… He’s a true-blue style icon too.’
The GQ “Grooming director” gave a glowing portrayal of the 46th President.
Complete with the praise, adulation and hagiography, you’d expect from a leftist media starry-eyed by their glorious leader, and drunk on the euphoric sense that they now not only own you, but have absolute control over your very existence.
Broeke’s “woke” rendition of the many sides of Biden, looks like a cheap Communist Chinese commercial advertising a knock-off Barbie range they’d stolen from Mattel’s design floor.
So much so, that if GQ hadn’t given it a blue tick approval by posting it to their Instagram page, anyone seeing this stuff on social media would think the geniuses at the double B (Babylon Bee) had birthed it.
GQ went all out. With high gloss, a professional set, with some serious attention to detail; right down to Biden’s correct positioning of the A-minor chord on the guitar.
Broeke’s article has all the buzzwords one would expect to see written on posters praising Dictators. The kind we see in video games like Just Cause 3, or Ghost Recon, factual copies of real life examples found in Saddam’s Iraq, Islamist Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Venezuela, and potentially, the new Democrat headquarters recently relocated to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
GQ’s praise ticks all the propaganda boxes.
From noting the ‘no surprises, designed by Ralph Lauren inauguration outfit’ to ‘it was expensively stitched demonstration of both his dependability and stability, acting as a cypher for his unimpeachable patriotism.’ [!!!]
Also, not surprising is GQ dumping some smug bitchiness on Trump. Stating that their celebration of the new president was also a celebration of the fact:
‘we no longer need to look at the giant orange buffoon in his two-legged body bags day in, day out.’
This coincided with the snarky GQ “Grooming director” referring to Trump as a ‘clown’, an ‘overinflated orange rodeo clown,’ and implying that Trump was in the list of ‘dead Presidents being carried around in Biden’s pocket.’
If you’re wondering about whether fat shaming the “former” President breaches Cultural Marxist “hate-speech” rules you’d be right to do so.
The problem there, of course, is that the Intersectionality yardstick only applies Cancel Culture to those pushed into the “oppressor” category by the so-called “oppressed” – “you are what they say you are, agree or else!” means, they can be what they say they’re against, because “it’s never wrong” when the Left does it, it’s just “never properly been tried before.”
Broeke isn’t even trying to be funny, and the juvenile smack-talk only bolsters this observation.
Let’s call a spade a spade.
GQ calling Biden ‘more than a Saviour’, while pouring scorn on Trump, is fascism proper.
GQ isn’t winning graciously.
This fascism proper comes further into focus, when you realise that this photoshoot, was photoshopped.
To quote Broeke,
‘we thought we’d give Biden the all-American makeover of his (but really our) dreams.’
What follows is a series of images showing Biden dressed in a range of clothes, in a range of settings, alongside glowing comparisons with Benjamin Franklin, JFK, James Dean, Billy the Kid, and Ennis Del Mar.
It should send a chill down the spines of every genuinely concerned keyboard warrior who fell in line, and goose stepped in time with the attempts to falsely paint Donald Trump as a racist, Nazi and/or Hitler.
There are enough trimmings here to make Leni Riefenstahl smile, and Moa, Pol-Pot, Stalin and Goebbels green with envy.
If I’ve read GQ right, Biden’s inauguration was a coronation.
This is everything you’d expect from the 47-year career politician, who’s addiction to executive orders, and ‘vetted for loyalty’ standing army now garrisoned in Washington D.C, leaves Donald Trump’s so-called “fascism” in the dust.
Quality control at GQ, must be on COVID-19 Wuhan Virus sabbatical.
Conflating Donald Trump “losing” the 2020 election with Conservatives, and their allies [i], losing the Culture War is a mistake.
Just as unsteady is the conclusion that the modern Conservative position is now irrelevant; not the majority view in the West, or that “progressive” elites have categorically won their Culture War.
This mistake is being made by many on the far-Left, who are overjoyed with the feeling of total domination; enlivened by the prospect of a Stalin-style purging of political opposition; buoyed by a false sense of security, and contempt, stemming from what is being played out as a total victory.
It’s a falsehood that shouldn’t be echoed by Conservatives and those not aligned with the Left’s extremist ideological hegemony.
It’s a false conclusion that denies key variables.
Such as the collective impact of four years of Leftist tantrum throwing. Including among other things, division, threats, and intimidation. Their war-like strategy of attrition. The wearing down of the masses through a blitzkrieg of outrage, blame and false witness, carried out against Conservatives because many on the Left couldn’t handle the legitimate 2016 election outcome.
It denies context.
Such as the universal impact of the COVID-19 Wuhan virus, mass destruction caused by Marxist Black Lives Matter riots, and the Biden-Harris campaign of fear: “vote for me, or face certain death at the hands of COVID, “Climate change”, Nazis and racists.”
Distance sharpens perspective.
Step back for a bit, recalibrate and you’ll see that today’s conservative movement isn’t dead. It’s not even on life support, but there are improvements that need to be made.
Here’s one area where I think this applies.
While 95% competition and only 5% cooperation persists among conservatives and their allies, they will remain a house divided; doomed to struggle in the Culture War forced onto society by the far-left.
As opposed to excessive self-promotion, and the holding back of support for fear of losing an audience to any “competition”, unity in purpose demands creative cooperation.
The “I’ll let you share my stuff, but be damned if I’m going to do the same for you” has to go.
More cooperation and less competition amongst those within replacement media is the primary means through which Conservatives, and their allies, will overcome the leftist hegemony’s marginalisation, and monopolisation of the masses.
Cooperation and less competition counter the attempt from the far-Left to suffocate all means of communicating reasoned opposing viewpoints, which includes the Conservative Biblical Christian message.
Take as a shining example PragerU’s relationship with The Daily Wire, BLEXIT, and the WalkAway movement. A partnership, not always in agreement, but a partnership nonetheless that accounts for a good portion of their success.
It boggles the mind that other groups aren’t borrowing from their leadership in this area. Choosing instead to work against, rather than with those who on the same team.
Healthy competition has its place, but when that competition compromises cooperation, we’re no longer talking about teamwork, we’re talking about friendly fire, and causalities of war.
The adage there is no “I” in team pulls its own weight on the battlefield of ideas.
Conservatives in media need more of a ministry approach, less of an industry approach. More willingness to work with, rather than against each other. Less suspicion over motive, and more momentum in communicating the message.
This is what we aim for at Caldron Pool.
We’re aiming high, and are praying that others, particularly our army of dedicated readers, and Australia’s replacement media industry will be aiming towards as well.
It’s a mistake to view the Biden Presidency as the death of the Conservative movement.
If the first weeks of the Biden administration are anything to go by, the far-Left overplaying their hand is inevitable.
There’s still work to be done.
Support the alternative.
Build up a replacement media that will challenge the hypnotic newspeak of legacy media, and the 24/7 manipulative propaganda opiate keeping the masses under their thumb through disaster porn.
Technocrats at Google have silenced YouTube users and content providers, after it surrendered to an avalanche of Leftist demands for the “free speech” platform to enforce “right-think” and “right-speak” about the recent U.S election.
In early November the NBC reported that YouTube was holding firm, and staring down ‘growing criticism’ for allowing boisterous disagreement and analysis.
According to the NBC, ‘YouTube wanted to give users room for “discussion of election results,” even when that discussion is based on debunked information.’
Fast forward to December and YouTube has given in to the pressure, now determining to censure any thought, or spoken word that challenges the election result, the pure farce that is the office of “President elect,” and election fraud.
The New York Times, not without smug adulation for the ‘reversal’ noted that YouTube have decided to backflip on its steadfast decision because it wanted to stamp out ‘misleading information’ and ‘false claims.’
YouTube defended both it’s decision to hold out against criticism for so long, and for its capitulation, saying, in essence, “we’ve let people have had their say. Since a large portion of states of ‘certified their results,’ fraud or no fraud, it’s now time to move on, surrender, and acknowledge Joe Biden’s, legit or not, ascendency to the throne.” (paraphrased from the NYT)
The anti-freedom of speech about-face is a complete 180 from YouTube’s previous policy which allowed commentary on the 2016 election loss by Hilary Clinton to Donald Trump. The most notable of which was Leftist commentary, and false claims about concretely debunked Russian collusion.
With YouTube’s capitulation, Big Tech appears to be moving further towards a system of indoctrination which resembles the one used by the Chinese Communist Party, who, through the inherent Marxist culture of suspicion, with the power of mass surveillance and its Golden Shield firewall, controls how Chinese people use the internet; what citizens see, search, hear, read, or learn.
YouTube’s decision to censure the expression of dissent, analysis and information further reveals the hypocrisy and bias already entrenched in the Technocrat’s billion dollar playground.
They were quick to censure President Trump and block reasoned, commentary on COVID-19 treatments, but allowed the CCP’s Lijian Zhao to keep up a tweet falsely depicting an Australian soldier slicing the throat of an Afghan child.
If this image isn’t punishable under Big Tech’s Eula regarding “misleading information” or “hate speech” what is?
Zhao’s false, offensive tweet was posted in November, 30th. It’s still active, hasn’t been fact checked, or tagged. Neither has the account been suspended, and reports to Twitter about it have gone unanswered.
The lack of action taken against Lijian’s false and misleading tweet, strongly indicates that Big Tech globalists are in bed with the CCP.
And like the CCP, they’re now blocking and censuring any content which questions the ideological paradigm.
It would appear that the insidiously wealthy Technocrats of Silicon Valley don’t want you to disagree or question the narrative.
Blocking questions, analysis and opinion about the U.S election is equal to them participating in a cover-up.
It’s worth pondering:
Why would technocrats silence dissent, analysis, free and open debate, if the alleged Democrat “win” was legal?
Ronald Reagan had a unique distaste for career politicians sucking wealth out of D.C.’s tax-payer funded tenure. Most too often more in tune with self-service, than public service. He also had a keen dislike for the faulty, seized-up mechanical inner-workings of Washington.
Reagan was a citizen president. He poked fun at the self-importance of the political class, and wasn’t afraid to include himself in it.
Talking to a gathering of Independent television stations two years after being elected to office, Reagan quipped,
‘”I sometimes think that government is like that definition – that old definition of a baby. It’s an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
Reagan came to office at the end of a dismal decade. In large part because Reagan was, as John O’Sullivan also wrote of Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, ‘one of the apostles of hope’, when despair, fear, and doom, was the order of the day.
The 70s were turbulent. Global instability was everywhere.
The mid to late 60s were an open wound. Peace in Vietnam War was won, and then lost by diplomatic fumbling. Americans were confronted with deep state political corruption, and suffered through a series of fearmongering, joyless Presidential leaders from Republicans to Democrats.
The biggest issue of them all was the “Energy Crisis.”
Concerns over the “Energy Crisis” – a decline in domestic energy production, coupled with Lyndon Johnson’s environmental restrictions, and an OPEC embargo (a consequence of America’s support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War), resulting in high oil prices – was echoed by both sides of the political aisle, coupled with apocalyptic projections, and big government solutions to them.
Republican, President Richard Nixon’s proposed energy rationing, was later extended by Democrat, President Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, told Americans that the “energy crisis” was here to stay. Then tabled a policy around big government control, such as mandatory rationing. (The 1970s version of “the new normal.”)
Carter’s panic rode on the back of urgency, caused by a drop in global oil supply, a consequence of the 1979 Islamist, Iranian revolution.
His six-point plan delivered the same year, included an increase in taxes, ‘mandatory conservation, gasoline rationing’, ‘expanding public transportation’, and creating a new government department to oversee energy rationing, and conservation.
Carter’s speech wove the “energy crisis” into a “crisis of confidence,” telling Americans that they were losing their sense of purpose, and needed to act:
“I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security, to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense, I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”
Carter’s blame shifting by way of his infamous “crisis of confidence” gave Reagan an edge.
Who said in return that,
“it’s true there’s a lack of confidence, an unease with things the way they are, but the confidence we’ve lost is confidence in our Government’s policies…there remains the greatness of our people, our capacity for dreaming up fantastic deeds and bringing them off to the surprise of an unbelieving world.” (NYT, 14th November, 1979)
“I’ve always thought that the common sense and the wisdom of the Government were summed up in a sign they used to have hanging on that gigantic Hoover Dam. It said: “Government Property. Do Not Remove.” (29th June, 1987)
It’s often said that we don’t vote for individuals, we vote for political parties, their politicians, and their current policy platform.
The 2020 choice for Americans gives this axiom resonance.
Similar in many ways to the context of Reagan vs. Carter in ’79.
One side speaks of hope, freedom, individual responsibility, perseverance, ingenuity, and protections for civil liberties.
The other speaks of crisis upon crisis; of doom, and destruction. From which they preach that only the political class, correct alignment with Leftism, and big government can save us.
Such as, Joe Biden’s “dark winter”, the alleged crises of “institutional racism”, “an unbeatable, Covid-19,” “the new normal of wearing masks, enduring lockdowns, and losing livelihoods in economic shutdowns”; unhealthy fear of conservatives in the supreme court, and apocalyptic “climate change.”
Joe Biden is too entrenched in the game to see that he is the D.C. “swamp”, that leftist activists, are part of the establishment, dancing Carter’s “crisis of confidence”, bureaucratic two-step: the art of blaming others, and looking busy while achieving nothing at all.
On this basis, a vote for Biden is a retreat into darkness. It’s a vote for a “crisis of confidence”; a vote for career politicians who are guarded by leftist activists, and guided by the idolatry inherent within their ideological nonsense.
As Ronald Reagan said in 1964,
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.”
“We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” (A Time For Choosing)
[i] Cited by Karl Menninger, 1976. Whatever became of Sin? p.142
[ii] O’Sullivan, J. 2006. The President, The Pope & The Prime Minister, Regnery Publishing
One of the first rules about giving is not parading it for all the world to see.
There’s a difference between me sharing with someone that my family and I have financially supported Compassion Australia for nearly two decades, and me boasting about how much money we’ve given to them.
Unless those asking are the tax office, it should be enough to simply state the fact about our giving, without having to prove it with subtotal, decimal, and dollar sign.
For the sake acknowledging it. The exceptions here are small businesses and corporations. Transparency exists for tax purposes. Accountability on giving to charity from a corporate income is as much for shareholders as it is for tax payers, re: the appropriate governing bodies.
Giving from personal income operates by a similar accountability structure, but has a different set of rules when it comes to freedom of information. Anonymity is to be applauded and protected. It’s none of anyone else’s business how much an individual gives from their own personal income.
There’s also a difference between a foundation, set up in a person’s name, giving to charities, and donating money to charities from that person’s own finances.
Businesses never refer to a product, or cash given out to meet a charitable need, as having been given out by the CEO, or his family. They correctly state that the business donated them.
The foundation has to be transparent; the individual doesn’t. He, or she, can remain anonymous.
As Jesus emphasized twice in His criticism of hypocrites posturing righteousness in public for all to see: ‘when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others…when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that yourgivingmay beinsecret.AndyourFather,who seeswhat is done in secret,will rewardyou.’ (Matthew 6:3-4, ESV)
This criterion makes the morbid quest to squeeze Trump’s wallet for information that could discredit his presidency, all the more lopsided and vindictive.
As The New Yorker’s, John Cassidy made more than clear in his 2016 piece on ‘Trump & the Truth: His Charitable Giving.’ Cassidy’s piece reached hard for the fraud card, up to criticizing Trump for where, when, and how much, Trump was donating of his own money to charity.
Forbes, in a convoluted attempt at the same game, insinuated that then Presidential candidate – whom they estimated to be worth ‘$3.5 billion’ – put revenue before helping ‘kids with cancer.’
Forbes accused Trump of having ‘paid their businesses with charity money.’ Speculating that money changing hands, ‘had more in common with a drug cartel’s money-laundering operation than a charity’s best-practices textbook.’
In short, Forbes acknowledges that the Trump family gives to charity, but isn’t happy about the amount they give, where, or how they do it.
Outlining how Trump’s charities allegedly paid Trump organizations for services rendered. Forbes questions the legal and ethical aspects of Trump Charity organizations, but ultimately feeds into the now far too common dissonance of “hate Trump, because love trumps hate”.
Worth noting. Forbes lists this article as one of their “best pieces of the decade.”
Most recently, Phillip Hackeney penned a piece published by NBCNEWS, responding to news about a Nov. 2019 court ruling by Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the N.Y. Supreme Court, ordering that Trump to pay $2 million in restitution for alleged misuse of Trump foundation funds.
The ruling was based on arguments presented by N.Y. Attorney General Barbara Underwood (who’d boasted about the ruling on Twitter), alleging that the Trump family ‘”illegally” used Trump foundation to further Trump’s political interests.’
The Trump’s responded by noting that all the funds collected were eventually donated to the designated charities – something Judge Scarpulla acknowledged (NBC).
Nevertheless, the Trump family were ordered to pay the $2 million to three charities, presumably pre-chosen by the prosecuting Attorney General.
It was a political win against the President, not an ethical one.
Facebook’s “independent” fact-checkers are doing the same. Flagging posts about Trump’s giving as “missing context” isn’t out of a concern for ethics, or even charities, it’s about partisan political gain.
Snopes rated the above facts as “unproven”, even though they have video of Trump stating: “well, I have a lot of men down here, right now. We have over 100 and we have about 125 coming. So we’ll have a couple of hundred people down here. And they are very brave and what they’re doing is amazing. And we’ll be involved in some form in helping to reconstruct.”
USA Today claims they’re false, and the NY Times (predictably) doubts it.
My criticism isn’t about the attempt to keep Trump accountable for claims he makes about charitable giving. It’s the motive behind the “fact checking”.
By tone, it’s easy enough to discern how the real motivation isn’t to help charitable organizations. The motivation is to sink Trump.
Should said “fact checking” take down someone they don’t like, and win them a Pulitzer in the process? Well, hey, “it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”
It’s rich for any journalist to accuse a family of being ‘vainglorious’. Only to then go looking for glory in a financial shake down of the Trump family’s charitable works.
Had Trump not been running for President, and had there been no potential personal benefit involved, it’s unlikely many in the Leftist dominated mainstream media would even care.
Have the New York Attorney General and others, chased how the $2 million ripped from the Trumps was spent by court designated charities, with the same vigor?
Have they looked into George Soros’ or the Clinton Foundation’s financial reach in the world of politics with the same scrutiny?
If I were in a diplomatic mood, I’d roll out the uber-understanding-wagon, layer on some sugar-coating, then dismiss the morbid quest to turn Trump into Scrooge, as a true-hearted selfless act of benevolence.
The truth is it isn’t. 2016 was an election year. As is 2020.
These are never-Trump self-serving gestures. Fueled by self-aggrandizement, and tinged with the flare of agitation propaganda, written for a rabid, radicalized mob who’s view of the Trump presidency only comes from the lens that’s been prescribed for them.
I doubt that even if Trump were to give away his entire fortune, those dragging him down, in order to raise themselves up, would find any benevolence in it.
Outbidding wars have their place in charitable auctions.
Outbidding wars over who is the greatest of givers has no place in politics.
For ‘each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Cor.9:6-7, ESV).