Supreme Court to Trump lawyers: Drop dead

 Iknow a lot of people who are absolutely convinced that Democrats stole the election and that Donald Trump is the rightful president-elect. And, for a while, there was some hope that one of the Trump campaign’s Hail Mary lawsuits would throw out the election results in a handful of close states. That hope dimmed as, one by one, the lawsuits were dismissed and now the Supreme Court has closed the door on a second Trump term entirely.

The decision from the Supreme Court in the case of Mike Kelly v. Pennsylvania is the shortest and most to-the-point opinion that I have ever seen rendered by the Court. The decision reads, in its entirety:

The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The implication of the decision is much more important than the quantity of the 18 terse words implies.

The request for an injunction in the case claimed that Pennsylvania election law violated both the state and federal constitutions. The request, made by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), made a number of claims including that early voting was unconstitutional, that Pennsylvania had illegally expanded absentee voting, and that the Pennsylvania supreme court erred in dismissing the lawsuit at the state level. The applicants requested an emergency injunction stopping the state from certifying the election.

Note that the applicants did not allege election fraud in their appeal to the Supreme Court. The hype in the media and at the unofficial ‘hearings” notwithstanding, fraud claims were conspicuously absent from the legal documents that the Trump campaign brought to court.

Even so, the Supreme Court unceremoniously threw the case out with a succinct statement that it would not hear the claims against Pennsylvania. The implication is that the claims made in the lawsuit were not worthy of the Court’s time. It is important to note that there appears to have been no dissent from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, which includes three justices appointed by President Trump.

There was never serious legal doubt as to how the case would turn out. The time to have questioned election law was before the election, not after voters render a decision that is unpopular in some circles. Act 77, a Pennsylvania law at the center of the suit, was passed in 2019 with strong Republican support yet no legal challenges were filed until after Trump lost the state. No court would throw out an election on that basis.

My Trump-supporting friends must now make a decision on what to believe. On one hand, they can continue to believe that Donald Trump was cheated out of an election victory and that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president-elect. However, that belief requires them to also believe that there is a massive conspiracy to cover up the theft of the election. This conspiracy now has to be enlarged to include Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neal Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett as well as Republican-appointed judges in several states.

The conspiracy would also have to include Attorney General Barr, who has come forward to tell the country that “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”

On the other hand, they can accept that Donald Trump lost an election that was free and mostly fair. This belief is supported not only by the about 40 judicial decisions against the Trump campaign, but also by the fact that the Trump legal team has yet to file a lawsuit that includes the same fraud claims that they have been making in the court of public opinion for the past month.

Trump’s lawyers have two separate and very different narratives: one for the courts and one for the voters. When deciding which version of reality to believe, Trump supporters should ask themselves if the election fraud was so pervasive and blatant, not only why the Trump legal team has not presented their evidence in court, but why the Department of Justice is not investigating and making widespread arrests as we speak.

As a final point, even if the results in Pennsylvania were somehow overturned and Republicans could turn the state red, Joe Biden would still win the Electoral College with 286 votes. If either Georgia or Michigan, both with 16 electoral votes, turned red, Biden would still have the 270 votes necessary to become president. Trump needs to flip three states and the Supreme Court just signaled that it will not entertain requests to override the will of the people. The election is over.

To me, the truth is clear. Donald Trump lost and Joe Biden is the legitimate president-elect. I hope that more Republican elected officials tell their constituents that truth before the situation devolves into unnecessary bloodshed.

Posted on The Racket

Looming recounts may extend election

If you thought the election was over except for the protests and the formality of the Electoral College, prepare to be disappointed. One recount has already been requested and experts are urging Hillary Clinton file for recounts in three states.

The first recount was requested by Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, on Tuesday according to Politico. McCrory, the Republican candidate, was trailing Democrat Roy Cooper, by more than 8,500 votes according to the Cooper campaign. McCrory’s campaign has alleged widespread voter fraud.

The first recount of this election season may not be the last. New York Magazine reports that a team of computer scientists has urged Hillary Clinton to file for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania citing signs that vote totals could have been manipulated.

J. Alex Halderman, director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, was among the scientists who found a suspicious pattern of Clinton performing more poorly in counties with electronic voting machines than where paper ballots were used. The group said that the seven percent difference was large enough to raise the possibility that election computers could have been hacked.

So far no proof of tampering with the election has been found, but the large difference between counties with electronic voting machines and paper ballots is an anomaly that Halderman believes should be investigated. There may be other explanations for the discrepancy as well.

Donald Trump’s margins of victory in Michigan and Pennsylvania were less than one percent. Michigan has not been formally decided, but Clinton trails by 11,000 votes there. She lost Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes. Wisconsin had a margin of one percent, about 27,000 votes. Halderman’s statistical analysis, focused on Wisconsin, shows that there were enough suspicious votes to throw the outcome of these states into question. It would take a reversal of all three states to change the outcome of the Electoral College election, although faithless electors may change that total. As many as six electors have said that they will not vote for Donald Trump.

It is not clear if the suspicious pattern extends to other states as well. Also unclear is whether the North Carolina recount will examine presidential as well as gubernatorial votes.

The deadline to apply for a recount is looming in all three states. NY Magazine reports that Clinton supporters are lobbying for recounts and a forensic examination of voting machines, but the Obama Administration does not want the results challenged in order to smooth the transfer of power.

The possibility of Russian tampering with election results was raised prior to the election. The Obama Administration has blamed Russia for the hack of Democratic National Committee emails. Donald Trump has remained skeptical of the Russian connection, but Mike Pence has indicated that he believes that Russia was behind the email hack.

Whether Hillary will ask for a recount hasn’t been determined yet. The outcome of any recounts and investigation may not change the election, but it does raise the possibility that the election that everyone thought was settled might not be over yet.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trump's election rigging claims debunked

As Donald Trump declined in the polls, he began making claims that elections are rigged and that the system is stacked against him. Trump even went so far as to say that he may not accept the decision of the voters on November 8.

It is true that there have been recent instances of voter fraud in this country. The 2008 Senate race in which Democrat Al Franken beat incumbent Republican Norm Coleman stands as one of the sleaziest episodes in recent electoral history. Democrats “found” enough votes in recounts to turn a Coleman victory into a Franken upset. A watchdog group later found that enough felons had voted illegally to sway the election.

The electoral system is not foolproof. Even in states with voter ID laws, there are ways to commit voter fraud. People can vote in more than one state. They can abuse absentee ballots. They can buy votes. Elected officials or political groups can suppress or intimidate voters.

There is an easy way to tell if Donald Trump is in danger of losing the election due to a rigged system. If the system is rigged against Republicans, then the Democrats orchestrating the fraud would probably want to elect Democrats to Congress as well as the White House. If Democrats are manipulating the races and polling, then Democratic congressional candidates should be performing as well as Hillary Clinton. Republican candidates should be performing as poorly as Mr. Trump. A quick look at several hotly contested races should determine whether Trump’s charge of election rigging is accurate.

• ·         In Florida, Donald Trump trails Hillary Clinton by four points according to the Real Clear Politics average. In contrast, Senator Marco Rubio leads his Democrat challenger by a five-point average. Marco Rubio performed so well at his debate this week that Democrats have cut off funding to his challenger. Florida is a must-win state for Trump.
• ·         In the blue state of Illinois, Clinton leads by an average of 15 points. Tammy Duckworth, the Democrat challenging Republican Mark Kirk also holds a lead, but by only seven points.
• ·         Trump trails Hillary Clinton by four points in Nevada. Republican Joe Heck and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto are locked in a close race for Harry Reid’s Senate seat.
• ·         In New Hampshire, Trump trails Clinton by eight points. Kelly Ayotte, the incumbent Republican, is in a close race with Maggie Hassan. Most polling shows the race in a dead heat, but one outlier poll shows Hassan up by nine points.
• ·         In Ohio, another state critical to the Trump campaign, the presidential race is in a statistical tie. On the other hand, Senator Rob Portman, the Republican incumbent is cruising to reelection with a 15-point lead.

The story is the same in other states as well. Trump is running behind Republican Senators in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Texas, where there is no Senate race this year, Clinton polls within five points of Trump. Mitt Romney won this reddest of red states by 16 points.

In one interesting case, Trump actually trails Clinton by one point, within the margin of error, in Arizona. John McCain, the incumbent Republican who is reviled by many as a “Republican in name only,” leads his Democratic opponent by 15 points. Arizona is not normally a swing state.

In state after state, Donald Trump performs poorly when compared to other Republican candidates. If there was really a conspiracy to rig the vote against Mr. Trump, his Democrat opponents would probably scheme to defraud Republican congressional candidates as well. There is no indication that this is happening.

Trump’s performance seems to be poor across the board. He lags behind other Republicans in red, blue and swing states. Trump is in trouble regardless of whether local voters are conservative or liberal and whether election officials are Democrats or Republicans.  

Since many of the same voters who prefer a Republican congressional candidate over a Democrat choose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, Trump’s theory of rigged elections can be discarded. If, after watching him for a year, voters, including many Republicans, are rejecting The Donald, he should bear the blame himself and accept responsibility.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Response to the Busta Troll hoax

In light of the revelations regarding the hoax of Busta Troll’s alleged outing and retirement, I feel that a few personal comments are necessary to complete the record.

First, the world of Facebook politics, goats and trolls is a shadowy world where many people on both sides protect their anonymity with fake names and “alts,” fictitious accounts. “Busta Troll” is simply one (or possibly several) of many people with a fake identity on Facebook. With such a high premium placed on anonymity, it can be extremely hard to verify who is who and what is true.

This is not to say that I posted the article without fact-checking. Busta suggests that searches for “Christopher Lyman” in Orono, Maine would yield no results. This is not true. I found several results for Christopher Lyman in Maine, some close enough to the Orono area that they could be considered legitimate hits. What I did not find was a phone number that I could use to call and make a direct verification.

Addresses are funny things. Depending on the area, who one is talking to, and what medium is used, a person might give different answers to the question of “Where do you live?” For example, a person from New York City might answer that he lives in Queens, the neighborhood of Astoria, or on 50^th Street in addition to saying that he lived in New York. All three different answers could be equally truthful. In smaller towns, the address might be a post office in the larger city nearby, but a small, unincorporated community could legitimately be listed as a hometown on a medium such as Facebook.

Additionally, I attempted to check the legitimacy of Kevin Kopper, another anonymous source. No one seemed to know who Kopper was, but everyone seemed to consider him legitimate. Anyone who has seen the goats harass people online could understand Kopper’s desire for anonymity.

When dealing with anonymous sources, especially on the internet, there is always the chance that they are lying or are not who they claim to be. This is particularly true when dealing with goats who, by definition, base their online personas and actions on deception and dishonesty. That turned out to be the case with both Christopher Lyman and Kevin Kopper. Nevertheless, the information in the article was the best available at the time.

As it turned out, the deception was only half false. Christopher Lyman was Busta Troll. When I submitted a series of questions in good faith to Lyman, it was Busta who answered them as he admits in his video. Busta trumpets the fact that I published his unedited replies, but that was always the point. I submitted the questions to him because I and my readers wanted to know what made a liberal troll tick, why they do what they do. By definition, an interview is an attempt to find out what someone else thinks and to communicate it to others. In that, I was successful. The fact that Busta’s answers were not based in fact is an indictment of him and not me. I chose not to rebut Busta’s answers in the interview piece because that was not its purpose, but I can do so here.

First, I must agree with Busta that it irks me to see “ridiculous rumors that can be easily debunked by five minutes of searching Google.” In fact, I’ve written more than a few “tinfoil hat” articles that debunk conspiracy theories from the right. Some recent examples include the rumors that Barack Obama was planning to run for an unconstitutional third term and that Obamacare would make beheadings legal in the U.S. Where I disagree with Busta and his trolls is their notion that people with “ridiculous” ideas don’t have as much right to share them as anyone else. The best cure for ridiculous and untruthful speech is more speech.

Further, Busta seems to have a partisan view of what is “ridiculous.” I’m not aware of any liberal pages ever being goated in spite of the fact that there are some liberals spout stories just as outlandish as any conservative site. In fact, the idea that Barack Obama is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen is not a right wing idea at all; this conspiracy theory has its roots in a 2007 memo from Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, according to Businessweek. Further, as late as 2011, Politico reported that more than half of Democrats subscribed to 9/11 conspiracy theories propagated by liberals such as Michael Moore.

Second, Busta’s claim that page owners “posted pure hate and lies” and “refused to talk about it, listen to reason or even debate in a civil manner” is not true in every case. Some page owners had posted indefensible material such as the infamous “noose” meme. Others were guilty only of operating conservative pages.

I first became aware of the goats when they took my friend Jason Doolin’s “Citizens’Post” Facebook page. Doolin did post the “noose” meme “in an attempt to defend the original poster.” The goats never contacted him with their objections to the meme, however. In fact, Doolin says that he doesn’t think that he realized that they existed prior to their hijacking his page.

As I described in an article in January, a goat purporting to be Patrick Blair contacted Doolin and several others with promises to help them expand their page reach. Blair claimed to be a representative of the Freedom Alliance, a real organization. The goats say that they were given control of the pages and that they have done nothing wrong. In reality, their actions are a textbook example of fraud. In other cases, their actions could be considered slander, harassment, and cyber stalking.

In fact, the trolls seem to be part of a left wing that is focused on shutting down debate through harassment and intimidation. Some of the most famous harassment of conservatives came during and after California’s “Prop 8” definition of marriage campaign in 2008. The blog Tom O’Halloran has compiled a list of incidents against Prop 8 supporters that include harassing emails and phone calls, attempts to jeopardize employment, vandalism, threats and actual acts of violence. Liberals are attempting to use campaign disclosure laws and other means to attempt to intimidate other conservatives as well. The ultimate fulfillment of the liberal intention to stifle debate is the Udall Amendment which would gut the First Amendment and allow Congress to regulate money “that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to” candidates.

Third, Busta’s concerns about conservative harassment and endangering children were revealed to be totally false. In fact, it was Busta himself who put an innocent man, the real Christopher Lyman, a firefighter in Maine, in danger of losing his job. By citing his fictitious role as an umpire in a real Little League, Busta also was the one who brought innocent children into a potentially dangerous situation. In essence, Busta did what he accused conservatives of doing. If anyone endangered children, it was Busta himself. The fact that Busta claims to have planned the hoax for more than a year speaks volumes as well.

For what it’s worth, I do have to admit to laughing at a number of goat memes. There are some clever and creative people among the goats and trolls. The problem is how they use their talents as a tool for bullying and conning others. Perhaps they will take to heart the words of President Obama who said, “Bullying can have destructive consequences for our young people. And it's not something we have to accept.” In 2011, Obama pointed out that “bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up.” It doesn’t make it better when the behavior is that of adults.

Interview with Busta Troll

Last week, the infamous internet “goat” leader, the identity of Busta Troll was revealed by a group of conservative activists (read the story here). Examiner contacted Christopher Lyman, Busta’s true identity, via Facebook messages on Monday. Lyman agreed to the email interview with the stipulation that his answers be repeated in their entirety. What follows are Busta’s own words with only minor grammatical editing for clarity. The conclusion is also Busta’s.

How and why did you start goating pages?

I started goating pages because I can’t stand it when a page posts ridiculous rumors that can be easily debunked by five minutes of searching Google. When they post those things and won’t listen to reason, I feel it’s better for the general public to see a harmless picture of goats instead.

Why goats?

Goats became a staple of our [liberal troll] community before I became Busta Troll. I use them out of respect for those who started this movement.

How many pages were you responsible for goating?

I personally goated 17 pages.

Are you done with goating for good?

This is how my career will end. I don’t see a future in it or in Facebook for that matter. I plan to ride off into the sunset having accomplished my mission.

Now that you are out of the goating business, will you return control of the goated pages to their original owners, shut them down, or leave them in place?

The pages I was given were in turn given to others. I remained an admin on them until yesterday when I deleted myself. After the initial admin change, I very rarely post. The herd takes over from there. Those pages will always be for the goats.

Have you actually been harassed or contacted by anyone since your identity was revealed? Are you still concerned for your safety or your job?

The employment information given about me was old. I am no longer employed there. I have resigned my position as Little League umpire for the safety of the people in my town and my children. I am and always have been an advocate for responsible gun ownership, gun safety law, and reasonable restrictions on military grade equipment like most Americans. If these nut jobs think they’re going to show up at my house and threaten me or my family they have another think coming.

Are you concerned that the owners of the goated pages will take legal action against you (i.e. theft by fraud)?

I’m not at all concerned that the previous admins of goated pages will take legal action against me. Before you make someone an admin on your page, you have to enter your password after reading the disclaimer that they will have the same power as you. The pages are still there and I have never even been contacted by Facebook telling me I’ve violated their terms of service.

Is it true that you were a “paid liberal troll?” If so, who paid you?

No. I was not paid to troll.

Do you have anything to say to the owners of the pages that you goated?

To the original owners of the goated pages I say this: You posted pure hate and lies. You refused to talk about it, listen to reason, or even debate in a civil manner. Therefore, you got what you deserved.

~Busta Troll smiles and waves and walks off into the sunset.

 

Read the full story on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Leader of liberal ‘goat’ con men outed on Facebook

The true identity of the leader of the group of liberal con men known as “goats” has been made public by a rival group of conservative internet activists. The leader of the goats, who used the online persona of “Busta Troll” as well as many other false identities, was revealed last week by a Facebook community page called Kevin Kopper. Kopper provided the details of the outing to Examiner.

As Examiner reported last January in a story that went viral, Busta Troll and the goats would befriend the administrators of conservative Facebook pages to gain their trust. This was accomplished by using false identities and making promises to help administrators expand their pages by gaining “likes.” In some cases, the goats apparently ran their own pages and recruited real conservatives to run them. When the administrators could be convinced to give the con men administrator status on their pages, the goats would hijack the page, deleting the other administrators and replacing the content with memes of goats and vulgar attacks on conservatives and Republicans.

“One of our friends had their pages taken and goated by Busta Troll and we decided to stop him,” Kevin Kopper told Examiner. “We posted a $1,000 reward for the real identity of Busta Troll so we could shut him down and stop him from stealing and goating any more conservative pages. We had no idea how many different people were working on it independently from our efforts and the leads started pouring in.”

Eventually, Kopper said that several leads led to Christopher Lyman, a cabinet maker from a small town in Maine. When Lyman’s name and personal information were linked to Busta Troll in online postings, Busta/Lyman admitted that the information was accurate in a post on the Busta Troll Facebook page saying, “Posting my name is all well and good, I don’t really care, but when someone posts the name of my employer and the little league I umpire at so a bunch of teatarded [sic] gun nuts can show up and scare a bunch of kids, mine included, they’ve crossed the line.” Lyman continued, “My wife is absolutely mortified and I actually fear for the safety of my children.” Christopher Lyman’s Facebook page currently features a meme that announces “I am Busta Troll.” Examiner attempted to contact Lyman, but had received no response at press time.

Kopper says that Busta/Lyman “is lying about his family being threatened. Nothing could be further from the truth. We simply posted his correct ID. If anyone else has acted in a threatening manner we are unaware of those activities and certainly would not condone any threats of harm to him or his family.”

The personalization of politics is becoming more common as the country becomes more divided. Liberal activists have harassed the supporters of conservative initiatives such as California’s Prop 8 definition of marriage amendment. The most well known victim of the effort was Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich who was forced to resign in April after the fact that he had contributed to the effort to pass Prop 8 became publicized. In another incident, the IRS leaked the donor list of the conservative National Organization for Marriage to its chief political foe, the Human Rights Campaign, which then passed the list along to the Huffington Post. National Review reported that NOM chairman John Eastman told Congress that the harassment and intimidation of the group’s backers included business boycotts, physical assault and vandalism. Eastman said, “Our donors tell us ‘We are fearful of giving money to you to help support the cause that we believe in because our businesses and our family are at risk.’”

So far the goats have apparently limited their harassment to the internet. R.W. Burgin, owner of a Facebook page called “The Seditionist,” said that liberal internet trolls had copied pictures from his page and used them to make parody pages and videos. The pictures, which included Burgin, his girlfriend, their parents and grandchildren, were put on other pages. In some cases, the pictures were photo shopped onto pornographic videos. Burgin says that he was called a pedophile and that personal information, including his employer’s name, was posted online and that the trolls threatened to try to get him fired. The trolls also contacted his mother and girlfriend. Burgin is not sure if the trolls that harassed him were affiliated with Busta/Lyman, but says the he hopes Busta’s unmasking “will make people start to think before they threaten or torture people.”

Kopper says that he has been in contact with Busta/Lyman via Facebook private messages and that “he has informed us that he has taken down his pages and is done.” Examiner confirmed that the Busta Troll Facebook page, as well as a second page called “Busta’s Army,” is no longer active.

“We feel very satisfied with the outcome and will be providing Lyman’s information and messages to the admins of the pages he took,” Kopper said. “If they decide to pursue legal action we won’t have any problem with that.”

Kopper said that the $1,000 reward would be sent on Monday. He declined to name the recipient, citing the source’s wish to remain anonymous. He did note that the source was a retired military veteran.

The desire to remain anonymous is understandable given the vitriol that the goats have unleashed upon Kevin Kopper’s Facebook page. The postings there by the goats include the typical goat pictures along with profane insults and graphic sexual innuendo.

Jason Doolin, owner of the goated Citizens’ Post Facebook page, hailed the news of Busta’s retirement: “I’m happy about it. He deserves the agony of every person he terrorized and stole from” Doolin said that he hoped that Lyman would find something less harmful to replace “whatever was leaving that hole in his heart which he used hatred to fill.”

Doolin added, “There was a time when I would have gladly disseminated his personal information, whether or not anything negative came out of it. I would have been neutral or happy even. I’m ashamed of myself for that. In an effort to be more like [my friends who were calling for people not to be hateful] I want to share that same message: Love. Period.” Doolin says he has no plans to take legal action.

Kopper says that the team that identified Busta will remain in place. “We will absolutely be continuing our work, focusing on stopping goatings wherever and whenever possible. We have more tools and tactics at our disposal and we intend to use them.”

Read the full story on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Leftist con men hijack conservative Facebook pages

In the early morning hours of January 11, a group of leftist con men launched a sneak attack on an undetermined number of conservative Facebook pages. The perpetrators, calling themselves the “Goatz Alliance,” gained access to the conservative pages, deleted the page administrators, and began posting anti-conservative propaganda and memes depicting goats.

Jason Doolin, owner of the conservative Citizens’ Post page on Facebook, said that Patrick Blair, allegedly a representative of The Freedom Alliance contacted him several months ago about helping him to expand his page. Blair gained his trust over a period of months. There is a real Freedom Alliance as well, a Virginia based charity organized as 501(c)(3) organization that educates young Americans in civic responsibility and provides scholarships to the children of American soldiers.

Blair apparently operated several fake conservative Facebook pages and websites as a cover. In some cases, he seems to have even recruited conservative activists to administer and work on these pages, only to delete their work and revert the pages to goats later. Blair used the fake conservative pages to make conservative friends and seem more credible to his targets.

Doolin said that after gaining his trust Blair proposed an “admin exchange” in which the various pages in his Freedom Alliance would grant each other administrator status and exchange ideas. The plan was also promoted as a way to increase awareness of smaller pages like Doolin’s Citizens’ Post.

Blair allegedly put his plan in to action on January 10. He asked Doolin to grant administrator status to himself and a friend, Lyman Briggs. Late that night, Blair and his comrade deleted Doolin and his other page administrators and vandalized the page with anti-conservative and anti-Republican hate.

Doolin attempted to contact Facebook to report the abuse and theft of his page, but it is almost impossible to get in touch with Facebook’s customer service and security personnel. Although Facebook says on its legal page that the company “respects the intellectual property rights of others and is committed to helping third parties protect their rights,” the company makes it very difficult to report problems.

Emily Garman on the blog, The Social Animal, posted a video that describes the process to recover control of a hijacked Facebook organizational page. The process is essentially to report the abuse via dropdown menus on the page and hope that a Facebook representative deigns to contact you. A search of the internet did turn up a Facebook page with a procedure for reclaiming business pages. Depending on how the page was set up, this procedure may allow users to regain control of hijacked sites.

Patrick Blair was traced to a Facebook page in Buxton, Maine. On his timeline, he admitted to duping conservatives and “goating” their pages. Blair appears to also be involved with pages called “Busta Troll” and “Busta’s Army.” These pages are dedicated to “trolling,” visiting opposing sites and trying to provoke arguments. A post on Busta’s Army from January 10 claims responsibility for hijacking Doolin’s Citizens’ Post.

Various posts on the three pages refer to “paid liberal trolls.” It is unknown whether these internet denizens are actually paid and, if so, by whom. On his Facebook page, Blair claims to be paid by George Soros, but this is doubtful.

Examiner’s investigation turned up an several earlier attacks by the Goatz Alliance. Miss Lilly (name changed to protect her identity) was an administrator on a conservative page called, “America, the Next Generation.” One of the other administrators on the page posted a picture of President Obama in a noose, a picture that Miss Lilly agrees was “in bad taste.” The page’s owner removed the picture, but not before it was noticed by leftist bloggers.

Orlando Liberal Examiner Robert Sobel was apparently the first to notice the picture on December 31, 2013. The next day, Addicting Info, a far left-wing blog picked up the story and credited Steve Marmel, “a TV writer and producer with a left-wing Facebook page,” for pointing it out.

As the story hit the liberal blogs, Miss Lilly said their page was inundated with liberal trolls. “These were the nastiest, vilest [people],” she says. “I have never encountered such utter hatred and contempt. This goes way beyond racism. They called us racists, but what they said and did to us was beyond the scope and definition of racism. They are truly sick people.”

She continued, “We must have banned hundreds and hundreds of them. Facebook did nothing to help.”

Eventually, the site’s owners were contacted by James M. Ritchie, a.k.a. “Ranger,” who claimed to be a “troll killer.” Ritchie offered to help the site’s owners fight off the liberal attacks if they granted him administrator status on the page.

About the same time, the goats first appeared on the page, posted by a user calling himself “Vlad the Emailer.” Vlad claimed that goats were “an international peace sign” and offered his help as well. Another user who offered help, “Irwin Jr.,” may also be one of the goats.

There are several levels of administrators on Facebook pages. Content creators can post content, moderators can delete comments and messages, and managers have the ability to delete other administrators. Ritchie quickly persuaded the site’s owner to grant him manager access. Almost immediately, the page was hijacked and the legitimate administrators were deleted.

At this point, Patrick Blair enters the story. Miss Lilly says that he contacted the owners and told them that he had seen what happened to their page and that he wanted to help as well. He said that he had several pages that were “abandoned” by other administrators and offered to give one to the owners of America, The Next Generation. Where Blair got these pages is uncertain, but they may have been hijacked as well. Miss Lilly worked on one of these pages until Blair changed it back to goat pictures again over the weekend. “All they got from me the second time,” she says, “was the pleasure of calling me a dummy.”

Miss Lilly also said, “We took the goats for what they are, symbols of Satanism.”

While there is no evidence that Blair and his band are Satanists, they have made anti-Christian and anti-religious postings on their pages. It is likely that they have the same anti-religious beliefs that many members of the modern left seem to share.

At this point, Examiner has identified at least seven pages that have been hijacked by the goats. Owners of conservative Facebook pages should be aware that Patrick Blair and Busta’s Army may try to target them as well. While it might be difficult to stop a horde of liberal trolls like the one that assaulted Miss Lilly’s page, owners can prevent their pages from being hijacked by not elevating anyone to administrator status that they do not know personally. In most cases, the page owner should keep manager status for himself or closely trusted associates.

Abuse or harassment should be reported to Facebook. This can be done by clicking the gear symbol at the top of the offending page or user’s timeline and selecting “report page.” Individual posts can be reported as well. Click the “v” symbol in the upper right corner of the post. This will open a menu with an option to “report post.” Any threats should definitely be reported to Facebook as well as to the police.

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Answering the religious left

The religious left, while still small, has grown somewhat over the last decade. While often perceived as hostile to religion, particularly Christianity, Democrats are somewhat tolerant of religious leftists. As an example, black voters are both heavily religious and heavily Democratic.

The signature issues of the religious left are war, the environment, and poverty. As the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq winds down and concerns about global warming abate, the major point of contention between the religious right and left concerns how to address poverty.

A passage frequently cited by religious leftists is Matthew 25:40, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’” The theme of charity occurs throughout the Bible. Religious conservatives don’t dispute Jesus’ command to help the poor. The question is how best to do so.

Religious leftists advocate government anti-poverty programs. These programs are notoriously expensive, inefficient and prone to fraud. According to the Cato Institute, the state and federal governments spend more than $1 trillion annually on anti-poverty programs. This translates to $20,610 for every poor person in America, yet the poverty rate is still almost unchanged from 1964 when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. As Ronald Reagan put it, “Some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty - and poverty won.”

The left is also fond of pointing to Matthew 22:21 where Jesus tells the Pharisees to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's….” Often the second part of the verse, “and unto God the things that are God's” is not quoted. Christians should pay taxes, but they are also commanded to support their local churches and charities. Ironically, statistics from the book “Who really cares?” by Arthur Brooks show that although liberals tend to earn more than conservatives, they give less in terms of money, time and even blood.

The fallacy with unquestioningly rendering to Caesar is that we do not (at least not yet) live under an authoritarian regime. As participants in a republican democracy, it is our duty to make sure that our tax money is spent wisely. In fact the Bible commands it. Since voters are responsible for their government in a republic, they must ensure that the government is a good steward of tax money.

According to Jesus in Luke 16:1-2, a good steward is not wasteful. A good steward works diligently for his money (Proverbs 28:20, Colossians 3:23-24). A good steward invests wisely and diversifies (Ecclesiastes 11:2). Good stewards provide for their own families (1 Timothy 5:8). Even though a good steward pays taxes (Romans 13:6-7), that does not alleviate the responsibility of personally helping the poor and doing so cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:6-8, Acts 20:35).

Government-enforced charity runs afoul of Biblical doctrines in several areas. First and most obvious, the Bible calls for voluntary and cheerful giving. This is not consistent with mandates and taxes that are enforced by the government at the point of a gun.

Second, the Bible clearly values honest work. People who are legitimately in need should be helped, but those who are capable of working should support themselves and their families. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul wrote, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” Charity should not go to people who could be working to support themselves. Many government programs actually encourage people not to work because they lose their benefits if they do.

Third, government is wasteful. No one seriously doubts that much of the money that the government confiscates to help the needy is wasted. The waste is two-fold. First, the money flows through bureaucracies at both the state and federal levels. These bureaucracies have high overhead due to expensive buildings and pay and benefits for employees that are substantially higher than their private sector counterparts according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Second, fraud is rampant in government entitlement programs. Untold billions of dollars are lost to fraud every year. Bureaucratic caseworkers with scant contact with their charges are often unable to tell when they are being duped. As entitlement programs grow, the propensity for fraud becomes more likely due to the sheer numbers of people involved.

Finally, government programs ignore the Bible’s warnings against incurring debt. Proverbs 22:7 warns that “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” Psalm 37:21 says, “The wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous give generously.” Paul writes in Romans 13:8, “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another….” and admonishes “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings” (1 Corinthians 7:23).
What, then, would God think about borrowing 40 cents on the dollar and confiscating money from workers trying to feed their families to pay for a wasteful and inefficient system that encourages the poor not to work? It is hard to imagine that he would be pleased.

The religious left also lacks Biblical support for two other prominent issues. First, with respect to abortion, it is clear from numerous Bible passages such as Matthew 19:14 that Jesus loved little children. In Matthew 18:6, Jesus said that it would be better for a person to have a “great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” than to cause a child to sin. How much worse would it be to physically harm a child than to cause one to sin?

The Old Testament was even more specific saying, “Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood” (Deuteronomy 27:25). In Exodus 21:22-23, there was something akin to a personhood law: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life…. ” Jeremiah 1:5 indicates that a baby in the womb is already a person known to God.

The Bible is also clear on same-sex marriage. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament laws concerning homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. There are also hints that homosexuality was one of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom (from which we get the word “sodomy”) and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Christians are not bound by Old Testament law (Galatians 5:18). Neither is the United States a theocracy (nor should it be). Old Testament laws do provide clues to right and wrong however.

Less commonly known is the New Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. In Romans 1:24-27, homosexuality is described as God’s judgment on people who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator….” In 1 Timothy 1:9-11, homosexuals are listed with other sinners including the sexually immoral, slave traders, liars and perjurers. Jude 7 confirms that homosexuality was one of the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Nowhere does God command Christians to hate homosexuals, but it is clear that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful act that should not be encouraged. Especially when the welfare of children and God’s prohibition against leading children astray (Matthew 18:6) are considered, it becomes clear that same-sex marriage should not be considered for societal as well as religious reasons. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, offers compelling evidence that children of same-sex couples do not fare nearly as well as children of traditional families.

Members of the religious left are free to vote for whoever they choose and upon whatever basis they choose. If they believe that their political views are aligned with their religious views, however, they should seek to learn what Jesus and the Bible say about the issues at hand.

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/answering-the-religious-left

The Climate Conspiracy

Conspiracy theories have become a hallmark of modern life. The modern conspiracy theory probably can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the belief that undiscovered gunmen actually killed the president. Another long lasting conspiracy theory is the belief in a government cover-up of an alien spacecraft’s crash in Roswell, New Mexico. More recently, conspiricists on the left and right have been busy promoting theories that the Bush Administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks or that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake.

From time to time, however, proof of an authentic conspiracy emerges. This was the case with the recent publication of hacked emails from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit. After years of hearing about climate science being “settled” and that there was a scientific consensus supporting the belief in human-caused global warming, the leaked emails present a very different picture. Ironically, the story has received scant coverage from most media sources in spite of the implications to the upcoming Copenhagen conference and cap-and-trade debate.

The conspiracy was revealed when an unknown hacker penetrated the Climate Research Unit’s computers and forwarded thousands of documents and emails to a server in Russia. Shortly after, a link was posted to the documents along with the message “"We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it" [1].

Global warming skeptics quickly learned that the documents revealed two important things about global warming proponents. First, much of the data that “proved” the reality of global warming was corrupt. As global temperatures flattened or declined in the years after 2000, climate scientists were at a loss to explain the lack of warming. For example, an email from Dr. Kenneth Trenberth, a scientist at the US Center for Atmospheric Research, said “This means we can't fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why….”[1].

Second, the documents confirmed the belief that there was a widespread conspiracy to discredit dissenting scientists and deny publication of scientific papers that pointed out the flaws in global warming theory. Scientific journals rely on peer review of scientific papers to ensure their validity. The climate conspirators would use their status as article reviewers to prevent scientific journals from publishing articles critical of global warming theory. In one email, Phil Jones of East Anglia University writes of dissenting articles, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" [4].

In 2003, after a paper questioning the extent of warming in the 20th century was published in the journal Climate Research, Dr. Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, sent emails to his colleagues to boycott the publication: "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal" [3].

The scientists also discussed ways to mislead opponents. In one discussion of the medieval warm period, a period of extremely warm weather from AD 800-1300 which led to an economic boom, Dr. Trenbarth suggested creating a blog on a neutral web site and then referring inquiries to his own blog [5].

The email trail extended as far as the White House itself. One email was authored by President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Dr. Holdren had sent an email in 2003 defending Dr. Mann’s research. Dr. Holdren was working at Woods Hole Research Center at the time.

Since many of the scientists who contributed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report were implicated in the email scandal, the conclusions of the report itself have been cast into further doubt. The inability of climate change scientists to explain the lack of warming also casts global warming and the need for expensive government programs to combat it into doubt. The Environmental Protection Agency has been on the verge of regulating carbon dioxide due to the conclusions of the IPCC report.

Global warming defenders have decried the leak of the emails claiming that not all emails were released; only those that were the most damaging. They do not, however, deny the validity of the emails.

Already, the release of the emails has sparked legal action. In Congress, Republican lawmakers have launched an investigation into the role of the implicated scientists in the formulation of the IPCC report. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also announced the intention to sue NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies for failure to provide climate-related documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious question is how the revelation of the climate fraud will affect the upcoming climate conference in Copenhagen and President Obama’s attempt to pass a cap-and-trade energy tax in the United States. Hopefully, diplomats and lawmakers will step back and examine the science on both sides of the debate before rushing into climate policies that would be potentially disastrous for the economies of the world.
====

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.
-James Taranto

====

Sources:
A complete database of the emails can be found here: www.eastangliaemails.com
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2752337.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html
5. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=868&filename=1206628118.txt
Secaucus NJ

Federal Government Rejects Georgia's Voter Citizenship Test

After the state of Georgia fought a protracted court battle over its voter identification law, the US Justice Department is again rejecting a Georgia voter verification law. Georgia voter laws are still required to pass federal muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a letter released June 1, the Justice Department said that the new law discriminates against minority voters.

The charge of discrimination was also used to challenge Georgia’s photo ID law. In spite of the fact that the law offered identification cards free of charge to voters, opponents claimed that the law placed an undue burden on minorities. The law was eventually upheld by upheld by an appeals court.

The new law would have cross-referenced voter social security and driver’s license numbers to ensure that they were citizens, a requirement for voting. The Justice Department charges that many of the voters flagged by the system were citizens who were flagged in error. Further, the citizens flagged in error were disproportionately from minority groups.

For anyone who paid attention during the 2008 elections, the need for voter verification is obvious. Groups like ACORN were implicated in massive amounts of voter registration fraud. The Minnesota senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken is still contested, in part because of numerous irregularities in vote counting. The 2000 presidential election in Florida is a case study in the need for integrity in our electoral system.

Additionally, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said that Georgia is currently investigating 30 cases of non-citizen voting. One case involves a Jamaican woman, living legally in Georgia, who has been voting illegally since 2004. The woman turned herself in after she learned that she was not legally entitled to a vote.

Voter fraud comes in two areas. First, there is the possibility that people who are not eligible to vote will cast illegal ballots. This may include illegal aliens, dead people, or people casting multiple ballots. It is this possibility that the Republican Party tends to focus on. The second possibility is that legitimate voters will be barred from voting. This gets the most attention from the Democratic Party.

The obvious answer is that both angles need to be covered to have a trustworthy election. People who are entitled to vote need to be able to vote, but only once. People who shouldn’t vote need to be barred from casting a ballot. If people can’t trust election results then the very foundation of our democracy is in danger.

In keeping with that line of reasoning, if the current system of validating citizenship for Georgia voters doesn’t work, fix it. Don’t throw it out.

Some Democrats seem to understand this; others do not. For instance, Rep. John Lewis said the citizenship checks were “an attempt to take us back to another dark period in our history when people were denied access to the ballot box simply because of their race or nationality.” Evidently, some people feel that any burden of proof is too much.

I seriously doubt that there is any plans withing the General Assembly or the Georgia Department of State to deny minorities the right to vote. The only minorities that should be denied the right to vote are non-citizens and people who have lost that right, such as felons.

Interestingly enough, there have been several proposals around the country to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. There have also been proposals to allow felons to regain their right to vote. It should come as a surprise to no one that these proposals originate from the left side of the political spectrum. (Georgia already allows felons to vote upon completion of their sentence.)

For that reason, Secretary Handel has decided that the Obama Justice Department may require some urging to approve any such citizenship test at all. To that end, she has created a petition asking President Obama and Attorney-General Holder to allow Georgia to prevent illegal aliens and non-citizens from voting.

You can sign the petition here.

Sources:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/01/14/georgia_voter_id.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKbnt8hNDF4uWrTudYii_cvprHcwD98I5V8G0
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/stories/2009/06/01/georgia_voter_screening_immigration.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab&imw=Y
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/09/BAGB57IUMF1.DTL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/regionalnews/let_aliens_vote__activists_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/statelegispolicy2007.html
http://www.karenhandel.com/site/c.nmL0KhN0LxH/b.5208601/k.ADFC/Help_Karen_Handel_Stop_NonCitizens_from_Voting_in_Georgia/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=nmL0KhN0LxH&b=5208601&en=ghJHJSNCKhJLLTMBJ7IGLYPLLkJLKZPFKdKLK3PQKvE&msource=KH060209B&tr=y&auid=4927846



Burbank CA

6/4/09