This is just a quick note to explain why I haven’t been posting too much lately. Its not that we’ve run out of content, I’ve just been busy with life. I took a new job a few weeks ago and the learning curve is steep both in terms of learning new processes and procedures as well as a crazy amount of new jargon and acronyms. The job I took is with California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) and yes there will be some posts on my misadventures at EDD in the coming weeks. I also have enough material on Kirk Uhler to regularly beat him like a piñata until next Cinco de Mayo. In my spare time, I’ve been painting the exterior of the house.
The rest of the staff has been waiting patiently for the Chief to pony up at least two more articles on Dominic Foppoli. Sadly, we have agreed to hold much really damning stuff on Dominic until the court cases against him go live. Trust me, whatever you’ve read is just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, and accuser number seven has gone public with her accusations.
When a politician employs the Park Brothers, one of their go-to plays is attempting to register the URLs of the other candidates in the race. Then the bogus websites are used to smear other candidates in the guise of providing information about them. A corollary to this is practice is registering fake sites for ballot measures. These practices are intended to smear candidates and/or mislead voters. They have been doing this for many years. Often the Just US Brothers are guns for hire employed by consultants to given them both more freedom to attack and also to give the candidate a degree of deniability. Most recently they set up a website to mimic the official site of Placer County elections.
Cybersquatting in Placer County
In Placer County, registrar Ryan Ronco realized he faced a serious problem when he was alerted to a website mimicking the appearance of the official county elections website, down to the same color scheme, identical photos and an official looking seal. Local officials asked for help from the Office of Election Cybersecurity and the federal Department of Homeland Security.
The Office of Election Cybersecurity emailed Facebook to alert it to the website and described it as cybersquatting, which is when a website is established to mimic another. The cybersquatting website was advertising on Facebook to promote itself and the state wanted Facebook to take action.
“It looked so close and mirrored a lot of the colors and style (of the official Placer County Elections website) and it was done intentionally,” Ronco said.
Aaron F. Park, president of the Placer County Good Government PAC, set up the site. The PAC bought ads on Facebook, which eventually removed three of the ads. Yet they received between 12,000 and 19,000 impressions before they were removed, according to Facebook’s Ad Library. Campaign finance documents show the Placer County Good Government PAC paid Facebook $4,546 for ads this election cycle, but Facebook’s Ad Library shows at most a $1,300 charge for ads.
One ad, which received the bulk of the impressions and was designed to be indistinguishable from the county’s official site, read: “Local Government Matters! They make decisions that affect you right where you live! Support law enforcement, security, schools and business. Click to see our picks for your community!”
Placer County responded to Aaron’s fake website by sending him a ceased-and-desist letter.
If you didn’t know it, Aaron has a special place in his heart for cease-and-desist letters. On his blog he claims to have received 29 of them. He publishes them in full on his blog and then ridicules the sender, and why not? Nobody has ever done anything to him as a result of such threats. It costs too much to enforce them and he knows it. Its not that he doesn’t step over the line but that he doesn’t do it in a way that will have meaningful negative consequences to him personally. Often his candidate and others in his circle are not so fortunate. Remember Clint Parish anyone?
While the Park Brothers are not a party in the legal document that I will introduce shortly, clearly their fingerprints are all over this; something they proudly proclaimed on camera in 2016.
Let’s go back to our blog post from 2016.
This year, Aaron has set his sights on Victor Bekhet. Bekhet—like many people in Placer County—is tired of the antics of Supervisor Uhler. Victor Bekhet however committed the unforgivable sin; he had the nerve to pull papers to run against Uhler. Kirk Uhler then decided to retain Park’s services of character assassination and dirty tricks to steamroll Mr. Bekhet.
Aaron created a fake website and assembled a bunch of nonsense to smear the character of Bekhet. Aaron’s antics got a feature story at KCRA TV.
Oh, lest you think I am sticking my neck out blaming Aaron Park for making this fake website, (VictorBekhet.com) here’s Park taking credit for the website and its content.
The website was created by RightOnDaily,com political blogger Aaron Park.
“There’s documentation backing every claim I made,” Park said. “I know better at this point in my life, doing different political stuff, than to make claims that I cannot prove. Because my God, if someone can sue you in the political world, they will.”
On the website, Park claims Bekhet, who is of Egyptian descent, used zoning loopholes for his own property and is not a registered financial advisor. He also links to Bekhet’s personal Facebook page — which includes posts written in Arabic.
On the website, Park said, “If you can understand any of that, please let us know what it says. We would really like to know who Victor Bekhet really is.”
Park is a friend of Uhler and was paid during his 2012 campaign for what Park describes as grunt work. He said the website was created of his own accord.
Mr. Bekhet took offense to this action and sought to regain the rights to the URL bearing in his name. I don’t know exactly what it took for him to right this obvious wrong, but the determination went to binding arbitration earlier this year. Folks you have to wonder why Park would continue to hold the website after the election which happened almost five years ago. I’ve accused Aaron Park of being a bully many times and this is one reason why. He clearly enjoyed taunting Bekhet or why continue to squat on the URL?
Anyway, Bekhet got his day in court—Ok, binding arbitration anyway. Enter the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center is a neutral, international and non-profit dispute resolution provider that offers time- and cost-efficient alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options. WIPO mediation, arbitration, expedited arbitration, and expert determination enable private parties to efficiently settle their domestic or cross-border IP and technology disputes out of court. The WIPO Center is also the global leader in the provision of domain name dispute resolution services under the WIPO-designed UDRP.
Complainant, a politician, asserts that the domain name was “used to impersonate me, deceiving voters into visiting the malicious website from flyers that purported to be circulated by me.” Complainant also asserts that the website to which the domain name resolves “continues to damage my business reputation and career aspirations through the hatred and prejudice targeted against me and my family,” contains libelous and defamatory material, and “tarnish[ed] my unique name and reputation […] causing me to lose economic opportunities.”
Victor Bekhet
Uhler’s response
Respondent, Complainant’s political rival, asserts that he “used the domain [name] […] to publish a website informing voters of my district about Mr. Bekhet’s positions on the issues that voters in my district cared about.” Respondent further stated: “Since Mr. Bekhet decided to publically put his name on the attack ads against me, … I found it necessary to once again remind the voters of my district about Mr. Bekhet’s positions and public statements by using the domain name I had purchased years earlier.”
Please note that Park claimed all credit for this website in 2016 but Uhler claims all responsibility in 2021. Oh, and this aspect gets even more interesting. Uhler claims the website was an expense of his business and the web registration was done by an employee.
Complainant filed the Complaint against Respondent Kirk Uhler. The Registrar, in its verification, indicated that the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name was Brian Jagger, and that Mr. Jagger is associated with Rensa Group. Complainant thereafter amended the complaint to add Mr. Jagger as a Respondent, noting that Mr. Jagger is an employee of Rensa Group LLC, and that Mr. Uhler is the member of Rensa Group LLC. In response to the Complaint, Mr. Uhler filed a Response in which he acknowledged that he was responsible for the registration of the domain name and that he used the domain name to publish a website about Mr. Bekhet. The Panel therefore concludes that it is appropriate to treat both Messrs. Uhler and Jagger as the Respondent.
The cybersquatting question generally focuses on the domain name itself. As the WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear, in assessing whether a registrant has a right or legitimate interest in a domain name used for a criticism website, it is critical to assess whether the domain name communicates that the website at issue is a criticism site (as <sermosucks.com> did), or whether the domain name instead impersonates Complainant and purports to be the Complainant’s own site (as the Disputed Domain Name does):
Here, there is no doubt that the Disputed Domain Name consists, in its entirety, of Complainant’s trademark, with no additional words added. As such, the Disputed Domain Name impersonates Complainant. That impersonation is exacerbated by the flyers that were distributed in the community that also impersonated Complainant and encouraged Internet visitors to visit Respondent’s website on the pretext that it was Complainant’s website. Although the record does not contain sufficient evidence from which the Panel can definitively determine whether Respondent was responsible for producing and distributing those flyers, given that Respondent did not refute any involvement with the flyers, it is a fair inference that Respondent was behind those flyers (which, after all, encouraged community members to visit the website that Respondent admits he created and posted).
Because of the confusion and deception created by Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In so finding, the Panel does not intend to prevent Respondent from creating a criticism site concerning Complainant, including in the event of any future political campaigns between the parties. Rather, this decision is only intended to prevent a stratagem that uses deception to trick Internet users into believing that the criticism site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. Such confusion is precisely what the UDRP is designed to guard against.
Respondent’s conduct in this case violates both the spirit and the letter of the Policy. It violates the spirit because Respondent has engaged in deceitful conduct in passing off his own website as Complainant’s. Respondent is free to engage in open and honest debate about the parties’ qualifications for political office, but Respondent should do so in a way that makes it clear that his domain name resolves to a website that is critical of Complainant rather than through a domain name that impersonates Complainant. The flyers Respondent appears to have distributed in the community exacerbated the confusion, and support the Panel’s view that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, to promote confusion as to the source of the website with Complainant.
Respondent’s conduct also violates the letter of the Policy.
First, Respondent essentially admits that he registered the Disputed Domain Name “to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.” In particular, Respondent stated in his Response:“
Having learned that Mr. Bekhet was planning a run against me, I had researched the availability of domain names. . . . It never occurred to me that Mr. Bekhet would have been so foolish to file for public office without purchasing his own domain name, so you can imagine my surprise when my search revealed it was available. . . . I used the domain that I had legally acquired to publish a website informing voters of my district about Mr. Bekhet’s positions on the issues that voters in my district cared about.”
Never fear though, Aaron’s appearance on KCRA TV was noticed as part of the arbitration.
This statement is a plain acknowledgment that Respondent deliberately selected this Disputed Domain Name to prevent Complainant from launching his own campaign website reflecting his name and trademark. Although the Policy normal requires a pattern of such conduct (because such a pattern would be circumstantial evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith), when the bad faith is essentially admitted, the Panel finds that even a single incident of registering a domain name “to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name” can be sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use. In any event, there is some evidence that Respondent and his associates have engaged in a “pattern” here, as Respondent’s friend Adam Park (who also worked on Respondent’s 2012 election campaign) was accused by the Placer County counsel of improperly registering the domain name <placerelections.org> and using it for a website that impersonated the County’s official elections website, <placerelections.com>. Although Complainant did not name Mr. Park as a Respondent, Mr. Park did admit in published news reports that he created the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves. See Dana Griffin, “Website seemingly attacks Placer County supervisor candidate,” KCRA, April 13, 2016 (available at https://www.kcra.com/article/website-seemingly-attacks-placer-county-supervisor-candidate/6428098). Given that Mr. Park appears to have been acting in concert with Respondent, the Panel deems it appropriate to consider his conduct as well in assessing whether Respondent engaged in a pattern of registering domain names reflecting a third party’s mark.
Second, Respondent’s conduct also violates paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, which deems it bad faith if a respondent registers a “domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.”
Complainant’s business is not the sale of commercial goods; rather, Complainant’s business (as reflected in his trademark registration) is the offering of political information and commentary. This business is separate from Complainant’s activity as an electoral candidate (as well as Complainant’s business as a financial advisor.) The Panel therefore needs to distinguish Respondent’s use of the website to campaign against Complainant as a political opponent from Respondent’s use of the website to disrupt Complainant’s political information and commentary business. Making this distinction is challenging given that Complainant’s business is so closely linked to his own political activity as an electoral candidate.
Here, though, Respondent’s conduct has made that distinction easier. That is because Respondent continued to use the website to impersonate Complainant even after Complainant ceased to be his electoral opponent. Specifically, after the 2016 election, Respondent continued to update the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves in order to criticize Complainant and respond to Complainant’s political commentary. Respondent’s post-election conduct thus demonstrates that Respondent was acting as a “competitor” with respect to the political information and commentary services provided by Complainant, and was using the website to disrupt Complainant’s offering of the registered services… That post-election conduct also supports an inference that, when Respondent first registered the Disputed Domain Name, he did so primarily to disrupt Complainant’s political information and commentary business. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business of providing political information and commentary.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name, <victorbekhet.com>, be transferred to Complainant.
It’s about time that someone finally busted the Just Us Brothers for doing this, but these guys are rarely mistaken for ethical guys. Its good that Aaron’s name did make it into the decision even if he was called “Adam Park.” Sadly, this typo will make future searches of Aaron’s deeds even more dependent on websites like this one.
In summary, the binding Arbitration action found the following to be true:
Uhler’s Rensa Group was the legal owner of the site not Aaron Park. Aaron and Uhler have both taken credit for the content of VictorBekhet.com. Their use of a website in Bekhet’s name is cybersquatting and impersonation of Bekhet. This was done to impersonate Bekhet and harm his reputation. This resulted in “confusion and deception”, something Uhler & Park had no right to do. Their conduct “violates both the spirit and the letter of the Policy” and terms of website registration. Uhler and Park “registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith”.
Again, are these really Uhler’s words or Parks?
“I had researched the availability of domain names. . . . It never occurred to me that Mr. Bekhet would have been so foolish to file for public office without purchasing his own domain name, so you can imagine my surprise when my search revealed it was available. . . . I used the domain that I had legally acquired to publish a website informing voters of my district about Mr. Bekhet’s positions on the issues that voters in my district cared about.”
Folks, I have heard Park say similar things about registering domain names prior to 2016.
The arbitration finding further states that Uhler and Adam (sic) [Aaron] Park have engaged in a pattern of working in concert to improperly register domain names. Even more disturbing is that Uhler continued to squat on the web name for many years after Bekhet was no longer a candidate. This continued cybersquatting was solely for the purpose of continuing to attack Bekhet and to harm his ability to earn a living.
Concluding remarks
My hope is to never post about the Just Us Brothers (George and Aaron Park) ever again. I know—Kirk Uhler is technically the third Just Us Brother—and sadly, I’m not done with him just yet. I have another topic to hit him on that I may get around to in the next week or so. Nevertheless, since the Park Brothers are living so close to hell that they can see Sparks, I would really like to leave them be. However, just like Karen England, the Parks think they can reside in another state and still influence the politics of California. Sorry guys but moving out of state cuts your claim and any meaningful ties to what happens here. In fairness, I will be subject to the same limitations in about two more years when I abandon the once golden state.
So why expend any energy on blogging about Uhler and the Brothers Park?
The short answer is two things:
They won’t go away. Kirk Uhler is still clinging to Placer County politics even after his defeat as a Supervisor. Aaron Park is still doing his schtick as a political gun for hire. I suspect his brother George is hoping to pay the “Mouse Tax” sometime in the next few weeks.
All three Just Us Brothers are literally doing what they do in God’s name. Uhler is in good with the gang at Bayside Church in Rocklin and last I heard; the Parks were likewise doing their church thing somewhere. The disconnect between their professed faith and their behavior; especially in politics, is breathtaking to behold.
Lastly, I doubt you’ll be reading about this anywhere else so as is my practice, I’ve posted long excerpts of the sources cited above so I can’t be accused of taking matters out of context.
Folks many aspects of the Covid 19 search for immortality have proven utterly worthless. I say immortality because for the first ten months of Covid—which just happened to coincide with the Trump Administration—nobody died from anything other than Covid 19 except Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
First the funny but true Babylon Bee strikes at the heart of the matter with this headline:
The article explores the barbaric practices used to produce vaccines for Covid 19. After reading this, I can only conclude that despite the promises of “the Greatest Generation” and the Jewish community that survived that era, the practices of human experimentation and eugenics which were the basis of the Nuremberg Trials are still alive in the West.
Here’s a few paragraphs to give you an idea of the article—which is thoroughly footnotes and sourced.
The two cell strains used by COVID vaccines are named HEK293 and PERC6. The name HEK293 stands for a Human Embryonic Kidney from the 293rd experiment — we can be confident that more babies preceded the final baby used for HEK293.
With fetal tissue research, cell death renders the tissue unfit for purpose: tissues and organs must be harvested “within 5 minutes” and at times this occurs while the baby’s heart is still beating — this was also revealed during a Planned Parenthood court deposition.
Vaccines produced in cell lines contain fragments of the child’s DNA — one study even found “a complete individual genome” of the aborted child. The divided cells the vaccine was grown in would have been the child’s as she grew.
The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicated that the B.1.351 variant of the virus was found eight times more in individuals who were vaccinated—or 5.4 percent against 0.7 percent—against those who were not vaccinated. Clalit Health Services, a top Israeli health-care provider, also helped in the study.
“We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group,” said Adi Stern of Tel Aviv University. “This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection.”
Isn’t it funny that the same folks that promise to keep abortion safe and lethal are the same ones that say a Covid 19 vaccine is safe? Facts are stubborn things, but I doubt you’ve seen this article on your favorite cable news station.
April 14, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — More than 10,000 people have died shortly after COVID-19 vaccination since December, American and European authorities have revealed. The deaths include more than 7,100 in Europe, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and 3,005 reported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
As of Tuesday, EudraVigilance, the EMA’s database of suspected drug reaction reports, noted that 4,036 “fatal outcomes” after vaccination with Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, as well as 1,922 and 1,234 deaths after administration of vaccines made by Moderna and AstraZeneca, respectively.
EudraVigilance also reported 20 deaths from the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Johnson & Johnson. The database has disclosed more than 200,000 injuries possibly linked to the four vaccines, with tens of thousands of cases deemed “serious.”
Covid 19 has a fatality rate of 0.15 percent so why do we need that vaccine passport other than to restrict our movement?
STANFORD, California, April 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A new study released by Professor John P. A. Ioannidis of Stanford University, California, has found that the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 is significantly lower than previous studies indicated. According to Ioannidis, a medicine and epidemiology professor, the virus is less deadly than once thought, registering at a mere 0.15% fatality rate.
If I hear we’re following the science ever again, I might hurl without advanced notice. Time to quit wearing masks already.
Yep, after over a year of Covid shutdowns, California’s public schools are making preparations for standardized testing. The results are supposed to determine funding levels from the federal government. This year’s tests will be given to students with less security measures in place than Lori Loughlin’s daughters taking an SAT test. Most California students taking these tests will be unsupervised by anyone.
In a recent meeting of Elk Grove teachers discussing the topic, the following was announced to all in attendance.
“Whatever kind of shitshow it turns out to be, don’t sweat it and just move on. Relax, give it, and move on. Don’t stress your kids out or yourself out over it. It’s just another hoop we need to jump through for the federal government.”
Translation: this year’s testing results are gonna be a train wreck.
The test results are in on California’s children …
Some more conscientious teachers that I know, were concerned about such a comment. They know the test scores will be lower and think that’s bad because the quality of education over the last year has been abysmal. Some teachers really care that children have been harmed by the Covid restrictions.
My response was something like this:
Yes, the children have suffered due to the panic and isolation thrust upon them. They are suffering mentally and emotionally. It’s not natural for children to grow up without others to play with. They probably are being warped in their development.
But no worries. The good news is that the worse the test scores, the more money the teacher’s unions can get out of California taxpayers. I’m sure Gavin and our legislature will do much “for the children”. It really won’t help children recover from Covid—how do you give restitution to a kid for stealing a year of their already short youth—but the politicians will get facetime on camera saying that redistributing your wealth proved how much we care.
Yet another example of not letting a good crisis go to waste.
I have yet to meet anyone that demands that I celebrate Christmas on December 25th because it is the exact date when Jesus was born. The important thing is that Jesus was born on earth to become one of us. Celebrating his birth on a specific date in December or January (if you are an Orthodox Christian) is not a measure of piety or Christian orthodoxy. Contrast that with what you are about to read about Easter and Passover. It seems like some Protestant groups are always looking for ways to unchurch the rest of us. As you read this, I hope you keep this in mind…
If you thought we only swat Liberals on this blog, you’d be wrong. What follows is the result of an Easter weekend post on World Net Daily (WND) by the editor’s wife, Elizabeth. Before I get into this, let me just disclose that in the last days of the Sacramento Union that I knew Joe Farah and briefly worked for the Union. I even had an Op-Ed published in the paper. When the Union shutdown, Farah left the area and moved north—to Oregon I think—and started WND.
Elizabeth Farah starts her video with the claim that the topic that she wished to discuss (keeping Passover v Easter) was the first major schism of the Church. This is demonstrably false; the first schism was over Judaizes. Did Gentiles first need to become Jews and then Christians? Was circumcision, etc. necessary? In the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts, this issue necessitated the first church council in Jerusalem. Judaizes were a constant problem in the First Century Church.
“Keep the Passover of Jesus”
“The fact that most of ecclesia or churches of God kept Passover. It is important to remember. Rome’s will was to eradicate Passover and replace it with Easter; despite Jesus’ command to keep the feast and do this in remembrance of me.” Elizabeth Farah timestamp 8:10-33
“By the way, this is a biblical command not a custom.” Farah 17:31-35
Speaking of keeping the 14th day of the first month, “That was the Lord’s Command.” Farah 18:30-32
Farah is offended that Constantine wanted the Church to “separate themselves from the customs of the Jews”.
Farah thinks that we need to bless Israel (the Jewish people); however; the New Testament makes it plain that the Church is Israel. Or to paraphrase David Chilton, God divorced Israel for infidelity and took to himself a new bride, a new people, the Church. The Church is the new Israel.
Farah repeatedly tries to repudiate the Church Council of Nicaea by calling it a minority, which also undermines the legitimacy of the Creed. I find this very problematic and arguably just as intellectually lazy as parts of Constantine’s reasoning for adopting Easter. Constantine could have advocated regularizing fragmented practices of worship without dumping on the Jews but he didn’t.
At the end of her presentation, Farah also tries some bait and switch tactics to buttress her argument. She ignores that the Council was unanimous in its support of adopting Easter as a Christian feast and tries to flip it that Constantine is claiming that his will on the matter is God’s will. This is wrong. Anybody that has any experience with Churches making important decisions knows that a unanimous vote is understood as a group finding God’s will on the matter. In his letter, Constantine is simply repeating the declaration of the Council and using the vote to call for normalizing the practice throughout the Empire.
Farah is not the only person that you can find on the Internet promoting this understanding of Passover and Easter.
Many of the arguments on this topic seem rooted in strange interpretations of Scripture tied to the idea of the Regulative Principle of Scriptural interpretation. This idea is often invoked when people look at the Bible’s ideas of things like proper worship and moral behavior. Basically, the Regulative Principle of Scriptural interpretation is if it’s in the Bible we do it and if not, then we don’t. Some Protestant groups go further and say if it’s not specifically in the New Testament them we don’t follow it.
If you take this belief literally (especially limiting yourself to the New Testament), you can get some strange and theologically pretzel-like beliefs. For example, bestiality in only prohibited in the Old Testament but is not mentioned—let alone prohibited—in the New. Musical instruments are often mentioned as part of worship in the Old Testament but the New is silent on this topic, so what is the correct practice? This idea, especially when trying to divide the Bible against itself, results in crazy stuff.
You can see this belief being applied in the next article and when it is, in parts it’s gut splittingly funny.
The Apostle Paul confirms he maintained the customary observance of Passover, as was given to him by Christ Himself, when he said, “For I received of the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed [not Easter Sunday!] took bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23).
Ok, here is a twisted understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Yes, the first time Jesus celebrated it was on Passover, but the early church did this celebration every week, and not on the Sabbath to boot. The practice of the early church was to meet on the first day of the week—a regular workday for their society—and meet in the evening for a feast. In the Corinthians passage cited above, Paul was scolding them for abuses in how they were doing it. Some were eating too much and other were starving. At the conclusion of the feast, they would then celebrate Communion, Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper, or whatever your group wants to call it. Contrary to the claim above, this was not a once-a-year activity. It was weekly.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1 Corinthians 11:26
Emperor Constantine – Saint or Villain
The absolute proof that Christians shouldn’t celebrate Easter is this next quote:
It is important we remember: Jesus Christ never kept an Easter in His life! Unequivocally, it is undeniable that Easter has no Biblical connection, foundation, or authority on the name of Jesus Christ that requires observance and/or recognition by any who claim Christ as their Savior.
Yep, Jesus never celebrated his own Resurrection while he was alive on earth and thus, we shouldn’t either. This, folks is the Regulative Principle of Scriptural interpretation in action. Just because Jesus rose on the first day of the week and the early church met on that day to worship has no bearing on the issue. Oh, while he was alive, Jesus worshipped on the Sabbath not the first day of the week. Remember when I said the Regulative Principle can tie you up in intellectual pretzels?
Later the author comments on the results of the Council of Nicaea:
It was now made “official”: Easter Sunday, the day after the first full moon, after the spring equinox, became the day to celebrate Jesus Christ’s resurrection. This was a serious and critical shift of theology. Critical, because it not only changed the day of the observance, but changed the focus, the meaning of the observance. It now became an observance and celebration of His resurrection, contrary to the Biblical admonition of remembering His death!
The author now claims that Christians celebrating the Resurrection is contrary to biblical admonition. So dear author, why were they meeting on the first day of the week for worship if celebrating the resurrection of our Lord is wrong? I don’t know about your church, but my preference is to celebrate a meal with Christ every time we worship not once a year. Christians celebrate both Jesus’ death and his resurrection. Trying say we can only pick only one is the unbiblical position. This is the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
Lest you think I exaggerate read on:
Notice what Paul says, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death [not His resurrection] till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). There is a purposeful point of significance our Lord placed exclusively on Passover concerning His death. It’s very fundamental, but crucial to understand; Passover was intended to distinctly address the impeccable fact that it was by Jesus Christ’s sacrificed life and shed blood that we have access to eternal life. Unfortunately, merging His death and resurrection into one holy day, as Easter describes, blurs the deep profound meaning of both these events by taking away the emphasis that each so richly deserves.
This guy again opens his mouth and removed all doubt about how foolish his argument is. Most of the Christian Church celebrates both Good Friday and Easter. We do not merge “His death and resurrection into one holy day, as Easter describes…” This is the logical fallacy of the strawman.
The reality is that many churches have Holy Week services on almost every day of that week. Starting with Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, a Saturday Easter vigil, and Easter (or Resurrection) Sunday.
If you want to read yet another article on the subject, try this one.
This article is written by a group claiming to be neither Christian nor Jewish. They call themselves the Natsarim. It has a lot of information and claims not only all the stuff that you read already about the Passover but claims that the modern Jewish way of reckoning the Passover is wrong as well; talk about a pox on both your houses! This article also quotes the full letter by Constantine.
All three articles seem to agree that abandoning a lunar calendar for a solar one was a bad idea and dumping a Passover celebration in favor of Easter was even worse. In Constantine’s letter, it is clear that the Jewish people were not generally liked by Christians in the West.
Comments
I could go deeper into this subject, but I think this post is long enough as it is so I’m going to wrap it up with some Scriptures that illustrate that the articles mentioned above are cherry picking arguments that can’t stand up before the biblical record. Farah and her fellow travelers will find the New Testament is not in agreement with their claims.
Regarding days is a matter of personal liberty
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:16
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Romans 14: 5 & 6
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Galatians 4:9-11
Christ our Passover
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I Corinthians 5:7b-8
Clearly these verses use Passover imagery, but to trying to limit their application to one day a year is a misreading of the text and wrenching them out of context. Paul is contrasting the way that people live, not discussing a literal Passover celebration.
The Bible makes it clear that Christ was both the Lamb sacrificed for us and also the High Priest. He died once for all and is seated at the righthand of the Father. We remember his words each time we gather together to eat the Lord’s Supper not just once per year.
Jesus raised on first day of the week
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Matthew 28:1
And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Mark 16:2
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Mark 16:9
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
Luke 24:1
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
John 20:1
Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
John 20:19
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Acts 20:7
Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
1 Corinthians 16:2
Conclusion
The actual date of Jesus’ birth, baptism, death, or resurrection or other event in his life is secondary to the reality that it happened. Creating a false dilemma over celebrating the Passover or his Resurrection is trivial. The truth is many Christians celebrate both events in his life and more. Saying that we shouldn’t celebrate his resurrection because Jesus didn’t is a stupid claim.
Clearly Jesus worshipped on the Sabbath, but his followers worshipped on the first day of the week. Were his Apostles incapable of following his example?
If following Jewish law and custom was so darn important then why did the disciples decide that Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised, keep the sabbath, or follow the dietary laws?
The truth is that Passover was a shadow and a type of symbol of the work that Jesus completed on the cross. He is our Passover Lamb. His was a sacrifice once and for all. He is our High Priest. He is seated at the righthand of the Father making intercession for us. We come to him not on the basis of keeping rules or festivals but by way of his blood shed in our place.
Whenever we gather in worship, we should gather around his table as he instructed.
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
I Corinthians 11:23-26
In the early church, remembering his death was a weekly occurrence not an annual one.
Jews and Gentiles all come to the Father thru Jesus Christ or not at all.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:6.
It is a myth in certain Protestant sects that Jews have special treatment and need not bow the knee to King Jesus to go to Heaven. Such ideas are sentimental crap and damnable heresy.
Efforts to unchurch the rest of us for using the wrong calendar or celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus, are efforts not spent spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Rumor has it that CRA’s favorite warrior, Jorge Riley, may be granted their highest honor at the California Republican Assembly’s statewide convention later this month. The Freedom Fighter Award was first bestowed by CRA on Lt. Colonel Oliver North in 1991.
Why Oliver North got the award
Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North did something really, really bad. He sold weapons to Iran in an effort to help fund rebels fighting Nicaragua’s Socialist government.
Translation, in the midst of the Cold War, North found a way to finance the opposition to the socialist/communist government of Nicaragua (funded by Russia) by selling US arms to another country (Iran) and funneling the proceeds to freedom fighters that the American Congress refused to help. The Congress was majority Democrat and loved hanging out with Communists like Castro and other likeminded dictators.
North’s nationally televised testimony before Congress portrayed the political class as a bunch of idiotic, children that knew nothing about protecting American interests abroad. His testimony shredded the premise for the hearings which really was a witch hunt that Democrats hoped would implicate President Ronald Reagan and give them an excuse to remove him via impeachment. Democrats were so sure they had Reagan in their sights that they never even bothered to depose North and others before the live television broadcast.
After the Congressional dog and pony show was over, Reagan was still firmly in control of the White House. North was charged and convicted of lying to Congress—something Congress does to the American people on a daily basis with no repercussions. North’s conviction was eventually overturned because he had been granted immunity prior to his Congressional testimony.
The California Republican Assembly invited North to speak at their convention and wanted a way to thank him for his service to our country and for making the other Party look like a bunch of jackasses. At the time, CRA was claiming more than 30,000 members.
The Award in Recent Years
In the years since, the Freedom Fighter Award has been occasionally granted to others. The most recent recipient was Tom Hudson. Hudson presided over CRA as the membership shrank to less than 1,000 souls scatted throughout the state.
Hudson is best known for his ferocious defense of CRA when the Just Us Brothers shredded the records of the organization—including its membership records—and deleted or withheld much of the financial ones as well.Hudson and his fellow CRA attorney, Craig Alexander, prosecuted George and Aaron to the fullest extent of the law. As a result, the Park Brother left California in disgrace and moved to Nevada.
Oops, Tom promised to do all that stuff and more to the Just Us Brothers but after filibustering for over a year eventually did nothing. However, the Park Brothers really did leave California for the Silver State.
Riley on Deck?
In the wake of his recent recognition for leadership by the Sacramento Chapter of CRA, Jorge Riley, seems on track to gain the Freedom Fighter award in a matter of weeks. Riley brought much needed attention to CRA as a result of his penetration of security at the Nation’s Capitol. By one act, Riley has done more on social media to publicize CRA than all his predecessors during the last two decades of the organization’s history. Who knew there were any Republicans left in California? Thankfully, Riley set the record straight and finally got the media talking about what a difference that one man can make. (Riley’s job on the statewide CRA Board was to boost the CRA on social media.)
So why else are we so confident that Riley will be so honored?
Look at the CRA support that Jorge Riley has received.
Riley is supported by Bill Cardoza. Bill has been in, under, and around, those controlling the levers of power in CRA since Barbara Alby and Greg Hardcastle took over the organization in the late 1980s and early ‘90s. Bill then followed this group as they then took over the California Republican Party. Word is that he bought the plane ticket so Riley could pay his respects to Speaker Pelosi on January 6th.
Riley is supported by the aforementioned Tom Hudson. As a CRA Board officer, Hudson is uniquely qualified to recognize raw talent when he sees it on CNN.
Sue Blake helped guide the Sacramento Republican Party into obscurity by selling-out her values for an opportunity to hangout with political consultants and cigar smoking armchair quarterbacks.
Riley also has the backing of both current and former rank-and-file members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Any Republican that can gain such support without compromising his values, is worthy of another look; especially, here in California.
Jorge Riley Facebook page 03/11/2021
I could go on, but as they say, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Pictured above, Angela Azevedo, Tom Hudson, Bill Cardoza, Jorge Riley, Russell Gray, Justin Hardcastle, Sue Blake, and Todd Freeman.
Disclaimer: Folks I try to be as ecumenical as possible —as long as we can agree on the Historic Creeds—but sometimes you just gotta chime-in. I was once a Roman Catholic but became a Protestant during my teenaged years. In my experience, nothing divides otherwise orthodox Christians as much as the doctrines surrounding Mary. Truthfully, I think this divide concerning Mary is a bigger obstacle to reuniting the Western Church than the Papacy!Oh, I’ve been working on this post for several days, that fact that it’s going live on Good Friday is not by design.
In Roman theology, beliefs about Mary have continued to evolve over the years.
Per Rome:
Mary lived a sinless life,
Mary was a perpetual virgin,
She ascended into Heaven,
She is Queen of Heaven,
She and various saints are routinely prayed to,
And now she is being further elevated to Co-Redemptrix.
Mary in the Roman Church
Here is more info on Mary from Roman Catholic sources.
The Catholic Church relies heavily on sacred tradition, as passed down from the apostles, and manifested in the teaching authority of the Church. The assumption of Mary is one doctrine of the Church that has emerged from apostolic tradition, rather than directly from scripture. It is not officially declared whether or not Mary underwent human death. However, what the Church does officially pronounce is that after the course of her earthly life, Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven by the power of God. The Church’s belief that Mary’s soul was perfectly sinless gives us confidence that she went directly to God. At the same time, her body was not subject to corruption, as our human bodies typically are.
The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what “immaculate” means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.
In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die.
Mary’s body has been glorified in heaven and she has been given an important role near her Son as Queen of Heaven and Earth. Mary is entitled “queen” because she is the Mother of Jesus, who is truly a King of kings. With the queenship Mary has been given by her Son, Mary offers abiding mercy and compassion, interceding for all of God’s children. In the book of Revelation 12:1, Mary’s status as queen is reflected, “and a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” The feast of Mary’s queenship is celebrated on August 22nd of each year.
The Op-Ed that I wish to comment on finds me somewhat on the same side as the Pope; a position that puts me at odds with the author of this article, published on Life Site News.
It is a sad state of affairs in the Church when a simple child of God, devoted to Our Lady, hears words shocking to pious ears coming from the Vicar of Christ himself and feels the need to cry out in protest, from the depths of a heart consecrated to the Immaculate Heart, in order to defend Our Lady’s honor, against anyone — even the Holy Father — who would appear, through apparently casual and careless remarks, to very nearly deny Her the just veneration due to Her as Mother of God who participated, through her Compassion, in Her Son’s salvific mission from His Conception to Calvary. However, such is the sorry state of Holy Mother Church today.
…Pope Francis had qualified the idea of Mary being given the title of Co-Redemptrix as being mere “foolishness”.
[the Pope] has reiterated his hostility to this title: “The mother who covers everyone under her mantle as a mother, Jesus entrusted us to her as a mother, not as a goddess, not as a co-redemptrix, as a mother.”
Part of the rebuttal to the Pope put forward by the author reads as follows:
Indeed, this theologian [Father Frederick William Faber] explains beautifully in what sense Our Lady cooperated with our Lord in the redemption of the world by showing the necessary link between the Divine Maternity and Our Lady’s Coredemption, and so between Mary as Mother of God and as Co-Redemptrix:
“Her free consent was necessary to the Incarnation … She gave Him the pure blood, out of which the Holy Ghost fashioned His Flesh and bone and Blood. She bore Him in her womb for nine months, feeding Him with her own substance. Of her was He born, and to her He owed all those maternal offices which, according to common laws, were necessary for the preservation of His inestimable life. She exercised over Him the plenitude of parental jurisdiction. She consented to His Passion; and if she could not in reality have withheld her consent, because it was already involved in her original consent to the Incarnation, nevertheless she did not in fact withhold it, and so He went to Calvary as her free-will offering to the Father … the cooperation of the Divine Maternity was indispensable. Without it our Lord would not have been born when and as He was; He would not have had that Body to suffer in … It was through the free will and blissful consent of Mary that they flowed as God would have them flow. Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and Calvary, came out of her consent, a consent which God did in no wise constrain.”
A few paragraphs later, the author put forward this to buttress his thesis.
The martyr-saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe links the promise of a Co-Redemptrix at the dawn of time with Her essential role in the triumph of the end times: “From the moment of the Fall, God promised a Redeemer and a Co-Redemptrix, saying ‘I will place enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and her Seed: She shall crush thy head.’” And, quoting Pope Leo XIII, Saint Maximilian calls for prayers to Our Mother to hasten the solemn dogmatic proclamation of Our Lady’s role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces: “We have recourse to the Immaculata and we are instruments in Her hands, because She distributes all the graces of conversion and sanctification to the inhabitants of this valley of tears … Every grace passes through Her hands from the Sweetest Heart of the pure Jesus to us … In his encyclical on the Rosary (September 22, 1891), Pope Leo XIII says: ‘It can be affirmed in all truth that according to the divine will nothing of the immense treasury of grace can be communicated to us except through Mary.’ Let us pray, therefore, that our Holy Mother may expedite the solemn proclamation of this Her privilege, so that all humanity may run to Her feet with complete trust, since today we are in great need of Her protection.”
Mary as Co-Redemptrix
For Protestants readers, the above is mind-blowingly heretical. This is a good example why some Protestants have no place in their theology for Church Tradition. I think Tradition in the Church has a place but when it becomes more important than the Scriptures then it’s out of balance.
I’d like to point-out a few problems with the arguments being advanced about Mary; however, my intent is not to scorch the earth as I do so. I think Protestants tend to totally discount the role of Mary while the Roman Catholics err in the opposite direction.
I’ve tried to get my head around this Co-redemptix idea, and it seems to hinge on a rather novel concept, Jesus died with Mary’s consent and permission. Thus, Mary was an active participate in the passion of her son.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962-1965), in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) of November 21, 1964, painted this picture of Our Blessed Lady’s collaboration with the Almighty, which included her heroic surrender to Christ’s ignominious death.“
Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.”
Deacon Miravalle spells out precisely what Mary did next to her dying Son.
“Mary uniquely participated in the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary and in the acquisition of the graces of Redemption for humanity (theologically referred to as “objective redemption”). Mary offered her Son and her maternal rights in relation to her Son to the Heavenly Father in perfect obedience to God’s will and in atonement for the sins of the world. Mary’s offering of her own Son on Calvary, along with her own motherly compassion, rights and suffering, offered in union with her Son for the salvation of the human family, merited more graces than any other created person. As Pope Pius XII confirmed in his encyclical On the Mystical Body, Mary “offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father, together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love, like a New Eve for all children of Adam.”
“Well, I guess you could call it Hail Mary. You throw it up and pray” Roger Staubach 1975
My Brief Rebuttal
Folks Mary observed the life of her son and pondered these things in her heart (Luke 2:19) but the claims above are nowhere found in the Bible.
The suffering of Jesus was twofold, the physical pain and the spiritual pain. The beating, torture, and humiliation of Jesus are better understood than the spiritual pain of bearing the cup of God’s wrath for the sins of the world; this was clearly the difficult part of his crucifixion. (Matthew 26:39) God the Father turned his back on the Son—sin separates—when Jesus became sin for us. This is why Jesus, while on the cross said, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)
All four Gospels are silent to the idea that Mary “collaborated” in the sacrifice of Christ or “lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her.”There is zero biblical evidence affirming the claim of “Mary’s offering of her own Son on Calvary”.
The gospels say that “…the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
Jesus gave his life not Mary.
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” (John 10:17)
“For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
The idea that Jesus needed Mary’s consent, cooperation, or permission to be sacrificed is anathema to Holy Scripture.
Claims that “Mary ‘offered Him on Golgotha…’” are without any biblical foundation.
Roman Catholicism attributes to Mary things which are solely those titles belonging to Jesus.
Throughout the last two decades, there has been an increasing interest in three words used to honor Our Blessed Mother and describe her role in our regard: Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (I Timothy 2:6)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16-17)
Jesus is our Mediator.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (I Timothy 2:5)
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8:6)
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9:15)
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:24)
Jesus is our Advocate.
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (I John 2:1)
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. (Romans 8:34)
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
Conclusion
Biblically there is no warrant to claim that Mary is Redeemer, Mediator, or Advocate. All three titles are clearly those of Christ Jesus. Thus, there is no biblical basis for us to pray that Mary intercedes on our behalf before God. Only Jesus can rightfully be prayed to. Only He makes intercession on our behalf with the Father. John reminded believers that “…if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” (1 John 2:1)
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (John 14:13)
Brief as this blog post may be, I think I have pointed-out that the Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary are as much or more problematic to Protestants than maybe even the Papacy. That I’m agreeing with the Pope-especially this one—about anything is THE definition of “irony”. Heck, if you give this a few more centuries then Mary might be inducted as the fourth person of the Holy Trinity. From an orthodox Protestant viewpoint, that seems to be the trajectory of Marian theology.
Yep, remember that pesky voter fraud problem that Big Tech, Democrats, the Media, and others claim never happened? Well, the truth is slowly leaking out that voter fraud is a universal problem that goes beyond the so-called swing states.
The November election is being given a second look in many states including Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Montana. Here are a few recent examples from March 2021; five months after the election). For those that have eyes to see, isn’t not hard to find even more examples of fraud or opportunities for it.
Montana 03/24/2021
MISSOULA COUNTY, Montana — A mountainous, 2,600-square-mile region with a population of approximately 119,600 does not seem like your prototypical setting for machine politics. Yet a recent audit of mail-in ballots cast there found irregularities characteristic of larger urban centers — on a level that could have easily swung local elections in 2020, and statewide elections in cycles past.
‘Unexplained irregularities’ found in large percentage of ballots
In November, the group approached state Rep. Brad Tschida, a Republican, to formally take up the issue. Tschida hired a lawyer involved in the group, Quentin Rhoades, to represent him in corresponding with Missoula County Elections Administrator Bradley Seaman, a Democratic appointee and a longtime supporter of progressive causes.
Seaman’s office complied with Tschida’s request for access to all of the county’s ballot envelopes, and on Jan. 4 a team of volunteers, overseen by Rhoades, conducted an audit with the assistance of the Missoula County Elections Office. The audit consisted of both a count and review of all ballot envelopes and comparing that to the number of officially recorded votes during the Nov. 3, 2020, general election.
Its conclusions were troubling: 4,592 out of the 72,491 mail-in ballots lacked envelopes— 6.33% of all votes. Without an officially printed envelope with registration information, a voter’s signature, and a postmark indicating whether it was cast on time, election officials cannot verify that a ballot is legitimate. It is against the law to count such votes.
What’s more, according to auditors, county employees claimed that during the post-election audit, some of the envelopes may have been double-counted, possibly indicating an even higher number of missing envelopes.
Auditors also tested a smaller, random sub-sample of 15,455 mail-in envelopes for other defects. Of these, 55 lacked postmark dates, and 53 never had their signatures checked — for a total of 0.7% of all ballots in the sample. No envelope had more than one irregularity.
Extrapolating from the sub-sample, that would make more than 5,000 of Missoula County’s votes — roughly 7% — with unexplained irregularities.
Still another issue arose during the audit that aroused auditors’ suspicions: Dozens of ballot envelopes bore strikingly similar, distinctive handwriting styles in the signatures, suggesting that one or several persons may have filled out and submitted multiple ballots, an act of fraud.
One auditor asserted that of 28 envelopes reviewed from the same address, a nursing home, all 28 signatures looked “exactly the same” stylistically.
Another auditor reported that among the envelopes she reviewed, two very unique signatures appeared dozens of times, describing one such signature as starting out flat, moving to a peak, and tapering out, and another as consisting of numerous circles — a “bubble signature.”
Auditors were unable to conduct a more comprehensive count because, they say, Missoula County elections officials refused to permit them to take pictures of the signatures, and envelopes were not shared across the different tabulation tables at the audit, so reviewers could not cross-compare ballot samples.
The magnitude of defective — and potentially fraudulently cast — ballots identified during the Missoula County ballot audit is particularly troubling given the small margins by which local 2020 elections were decided, and previous statewide elections have been decided.
The 2020 local House District 94 race was determined by 435 votes; that of local House District 96, a mere 190.
In 2012, Bullock won his gubernatorial race by just 7,571 votes. Montana’s then-superintendent of public instruction, also a Democrat, won her race by an even smaller margin of 2,231 votes. If Missoula County generated problem ballots on the level of those cast during 2020, they may well have swung these statewide elections.
Nevada 03/11/2021
More than 90,000 ballots mailed to registered voters in Nevada’s largest county were returned undeliverable, according to an analysis of the election data by a conservative legal group.
Clark County, which includes the Las Vegas metro area, made the extraordinary move to mail ballots to all the nearly 1.3 million active voters in the county instead of just those who requested them. The county justified the move as helping people vote remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.
More than 450,000 voters cast their votes through the mail-in ballots. But more than 92,000 ballots were returned by the postal service as undeliverable, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s (PILF) March 10 research brief (pdf).
(Thus 17 percent of the ballots mentioned in the preceding paragraph were returned.)
Michigan 03/22/2021
A small county in northern Michigan voted to conduct a hand count for its primary election instead of using its Dominion Voting Systems machines that became the subject of a lawsuit that has drawn national attention.
Antrim County Clerk Sheryl Guy, who issued the request, said the machines were not “certified for use” as required by the Michigan secretary of state because of a forensic examination conducted in December as part of the November election lawsuit against the county.
As I’ve said before, as long as the Party in power stays in power, there is zero chance of meaningful election reform. Whether they want to admit it or not, is irrelevant to the truth of its existence.
I grant there has been a lot in the news lately about Democrat men exploiting women and getting a pass on it; not that this is really anything new but …
When I think about news stories of Democrat men behaving badly, obviously there is Joe Biden sniffing women’s hair and making inappropriate comments to them, and New York Governor Mario Cuomo groping the women around him. Nine accusers and counting. (Funny how one false accusation is almost enough to keep you from the US Supreme Court if you are a Conservative but nine is not enough to make a Democrat Governor resign.)
Also, I thought of Kamala Harris getting together this week with Bill Clinton to talk about empowering women. Clearly the funniest story of the week. Clinton has preyed on women his whole adult life and gotten off with hardly any consequences (OK there is one guy in Arkansas who claims to be Bill’s Love Child) while Harris is Vice President today because she slept her way to the top—thanks to Willie Brown and Lord knows who else.
Vice President Kamala Harris has accepted an invitation from former President Bill Clinton to join him Friday to discuss “empowering women and girls in the U.S. and around the world.”
Kamala Harris dons mask to protect her from Bill Clinton prior to their joint appearance
When he was mayor of San Francisco, Gavin was messing around with his appointment secretary. As a result, his wife dumped him and went to work for Fox News. How bad of a notorious cheater do you have to be for your wife to dump you and change political affiliation?
Kimberly Guilfoyle and Gavin Newsom were married 2001 – 2006
Then this morning I read that Governor Newsom has been playing hide the salami with his Capitol staffers. Some people never learn.
Hews Media Group- Cerritos News has learned from high-level sources that Gov. Gavin Newsom is having a romantic relationship with one of his close staffers.
With his recall heating up, this could be the last straw between voters and Newsom.
The sources are telling HMG-CN that many of Newsom’s other high-ranking staffers are aware of the relationship, and are ready to jump ship. Another said, “I have heard rumors!”
Newsom is currently married to Jennifer Siebel Newsom and they have four children.
Will the “worst-kept secret in Sacramento” blow into public view?
It’s hard to say.
The secret? That Gov. Gavin Newsom was engaged in multiple alleged extra-marital affairs over the course of 2020, a time where many of his orders shuttered nearly all personal and economic activity across the nation’s largest state.
Sources on K Street and within the Capitol complex peppered The Sun with corroborating rumors of infidelity by Newsom during the pandemic year.
One such instance allegedly occurred with a high-ranking official within his own office, K Street sources told The Sun.
“This is spiraling into the worst-kept secret in town,” a K Streeter, speaking anonymously to The Sun on Wednesday afternoon, said.
Underlying the growing chatter? Word of an impending exposé from The Los Angeles Times, adding professional woes of the 40th Governor currently under threat of recall.
Wednesday night, hours after announcing Rob Bonta as his appointee for Attorney General to replace U.S. Health and Human Secretary Xavier Becerra, the top auto-fill search result for “Newsom” on Twitter was “Newsom affair.”
Late in the evening, Capitol sources noted that POLITICO had also joined the chase for the story.
While Newsom deserves to be recalled, the position of this blog is that whoever replaces Newsom will be worse than he is so why subject taxpayers to this Quixotic exercise? Will this be the straw that causes Dems to abandon Newsom and rally around another? The morality of this lot is so twisted that I won’t be surprised by whatever happens.
Folks, the likely recall outcome is that we will get a more efficient tyrant than Garvin that will harm us even more.
My family’s plans to escape California took several big steps forward this past week.
First, we are getting proper access to our property installed from the main road by a contractor that we hired. The driveway should be completed in a few weeks. The house plans are slated to be ready soon as well.
We also took steps to get utilities installed on the property. The final price is unknown but the local government overseeing everything has had their preliminary fees paid to do the necessary engineering. We also met with the person installing electrical service to the property. Unlike California, where we are moving, hydroelectric is considered a reliable renewable energy source.
As part of our plan, I have accepted a promotion with a new agency, the dreaded Employment Development Department (EDD). Per conversations with some folks working there, it’s supposed to be an improvement from where I was before. The only concerning part is that the interview process was very minimal which makes me think they are just throwing as many people as they can at their problems. It is a “limited term” assignment which means I could be there 12 to 24 months, unless they convert me to permanent. I’d settle for the 24-month option. It will be more pay which of course will allow me to get more when I retire in two years …such a bargain.
I find it funny that after all these months of working from home, two weeks before I leave my current agency, I finally was issued the official department laptop. This laptop from Dell is perfectly fine, or it was before the IT department got ahold of it. Folks, I’m a better IT guy than almost anyone they have on their payroll. After years of trying to get hired by them, I finally gave up. Anyway, the laptop that I was issued was missing the accounting program and the VPN (Virtual Private Network) software. I had to get our building’s IT guy to install the programs. When I got it home and tried to use it, I found even more problems. The IT department stripped out the default Windows Power Plans and set it to use one of their own design. The max CPU usage I can get out of the thing is about 15 percent. My Excel program tops out at 2 percent CPU usage when under load and running macros in Excel. My Windows XP box from ten years ago was faster. Due to all the Group Policies, poor patching, and other nonsense, this thing is 85 percent brick and 15 percent computer. Oh, i7 processor and 16 GB of RAM should be faster. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think it was a 32-bit OS. The IT guy tried to remote in and fix it, but he doesn’t even know that Windows has Power Plans or how to configure them. Oh, this thing is so slow that web pages won’t resolve because they time-out’ thus looking for help on the Internet is impossible with this machine.
Also, there is no antivirus program on the laptop. I should have McAfee End Point Enterprise AV but that too is missing.
When transferring to the laptop, I abandoned about 90 percent of the files on my desktop machine and only transferred a few working files, and my photos and podcasts that I had accumulated over the last ten years. It’s a good thing I didn’t try to transfer everything. I have about 250 GB of data on my desktop and the laptop SSD is about 250 GB so it wouldn’t all fit anyway.
In light of my impending move to EDD, my question was how to get my personal stuff off of the laptop. Over the years the IT guys have gradually blocked thumb drives, DVD burners, and cell phones. I tried file transfer via network and Bluetooth but that didn’t work. Since I can’t get webpages to resolve, I couldn’t even use email to move anything. I know BIT Locker has been hacked but I had decided not to brute force any solution. I had about 50 podcasts and about 25 GB in photos that I wanted to move plus a few other odds and ends. (In most cases, the photos were copies that I probably had elsewhere but I wanted to compare them to my master copy on my home computer before deleting them.) I did many web searches on my desktop computer before I found a solution that worked. Thankfully, the IT guys don’t run Windows 10 in the real world so what I did was use something already baked into the OS.
Here is the solution that I found:
On both your home computer and the laptop, go to Setting > Shared Experiences and turn on both sharing buttons.
Then in Windows Explorer you can select files and broadcast them from one machine to another. I found that this usually worked but I was limited to about 14 files at a time. To move 25 GBs of photos at this rate would take forever. As a workaround for this file limit, I found that I could zip a whole directory of photos and transfer them as one file. I was able to move 8.5 GB of photos in a single zip file. I then deleted the stuff on the laptop. I recommend that you add Shared Experiences to your toolbox of things to consider as a method for moving files. The speed is limited only by your Wi-Fi.
