"Today, civilization is threatened by a spreading and deepening crisis far more ominous than that mastered by Benjamin Franklin and his collaborators, but the underlying issues remain essentially the same; the methods for combatting this crisis remain also essentially the same.” Lyndon LaRouche’s observation, made 37 years ago on Dec. 31, 1983, is eerily appropriate for the present moment. [TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE]
In less than one week on January 6th, 2021, the US Congress will be called upon to take the momentous step of challenging the slates of electors of U.S. Presidential candidate Joe Biden because of evidence of enormous fraud. More than a thousand witnesses who filed affidavits and testified in the 6 states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona, state legislators, One hundred-twenty-six U.S. Congressmen, and the Attorneys General of 17 states argued in a challenge cup the elections that originated in Texas, that fraud in any state, in a campaign which purported to elect the President of the entire United States, was the business of every US citizen. The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, shifting the fight into the Congress on January 6th.
Fraud of this magnitude would have involved the “Five Eyes” surveillance and cyber warfare capabilities that Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower William Binney have exposed for years. The witnessed vote fraud is only the barest hint of the real operation, coordinated against Donald Trump by British Intelligence, and their treasonous American sympathizers and employees. This emphatically includes intelligence agents deployed throughout media outlets in the United States.
This weekend’s Saturday, Jan. 2 “Manhattan Project” town meeting will use the conceptual framework offered by eight-time Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche, probably the most frauded campaign in American electoral history, to outline what must be done, immediately, to establish Citizen Committees for Truth in Elections throughout the United States and the world. “In the footsteps of Benjamin Franklin”, The January 6 actions must begin an intensive, two-week process of organizing and educating in order that we keep this Republic, as Ben Franklin admonished us to do.
DENNIS SPEED: Hello! Welcome to this afternoon’s Manhattan town meeting, the first broadcast from The LaRouche Organization. Five years from now, the United States will be celebrating its 250th birthday. And about four days from now, on January 6th, there will be an extraordinary and historic debate in the Congress of the United States, on the immediate direction of the United States Presidency, because of the contention that the election of 2020 has actually been stolen. The long view, of the next five years, and the short view, are actually identical. This is not actually a crisis of the Presidency, or even of the Constitution as such. It is a civilizational crisis in which the American people will decide whether or not this nation, or any such nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
A little bit less than eight years ago, Lyndon LaRouche, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, delivered some remarks. And today, we’ve called our meeting “Reconstituting Ben Franklin’s Republic.” What I want to do is to read to you what Lyndon LaRouche said in part on that occasion of his birthday. This is a criticism he made of the party system. He said:
“The problem is the party system.
“President George Washington and others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent republic, tried to prevent the formation of a party system. And I think the time has come to eliminate the party system….
“Why should we have party systems? We have a Constitution, which is defined; the Constitution is fine, if it’s carried through as intended; it is our system. But why do we have to have parties intervening between the process of selecting Presidential leadership in national government? Why do we do that? What screwball invented this kind of nonsense? Because that’s what happened. People become partisan, and say, ‘whichever party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!’
“No party has that kind of right. There can not be a party that has the right to oversee and control the destiny of the nation. You can have a President; there’s nothing wrong with that. But you can’t have a President as the President of a party. Or, you can not have a conniving between two Presidential teams, or two party teams, by special agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a national government! These things are obscenities, which leaders of our nation, beginning from the George Washington Administration, recognized as evils!
“And the idea of going to a European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt—by its very nature, not necessarily by the intention of the people, or the intention of the politicians—they just don’t know any better.
“And the only way this can be done, is if we infect the population with the realization, we do not want a party system. We have state governments, don’t we? Under our Constitution. We have local governments, within state governments, under our Constitution. We have bodies which the nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government, the military and the rest of it. So, we don’t need parties. They don’t do any damned good.
If Franklin Roosevelt had just been the President, and didn’t have to deal with these damned parties, we wouldn’t have the mess we’ve got into. We don’t need to have a contention, over which party is going to win, when the party was not inherent in the conception of nation. What we need is a Federal republic, with its state composition, and other local compositions playing their role.
We don’t need this party system, which is a system of inherent corruption. What we need, is the due process election of a composition of government. And we don’t want people diverting the attention of the population from the issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! That’s where the problem lies!"
We’re starting today with this because we wish to startle you; we wish to startle our fellow Americans into a realization about what the actual process is that’s being discussed on January 6th. Because people are trying to divert the attention, and say, “Well, this is just an attempt to try to steal the election to Donald Trump.” Or, “Donald Trump’s attempt to try to steal it from Biden.” Or, it’s this, or it’s that. It’s none of that. What has happened is that a crime has been committed, and that crime has involved intelligence agencies of the United States and of the Five Eyes nations. These intelligence agencies, and not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the Venezuelans, are the actual persons or agencies that have the capability of carrying out the kind of fraud that has, in fact, been documented at least in various instances by various persons who saw it or participated in electoral processes that they have come to question. Therefore, what the actual contention is, that between January 6th and January 20th, is whether or not we’re going to maintain the republic.
Why is this so important to everybody who is watching, whether you voted or you didn’t vote at all? We know that there are other nations, whether that be Russia, China, or much smaller nations, that are looking at the process presently ongoing in the United States. They’re very worried; many people are worried. Because questions of war and peace, questions concerning the coronavirus, questions that may in fact involve whether or not there’s an extinction event that humanity is facing; these are the questions that need to be being discussed with the American people and by the American President. Whenever President Donald Trump has tried to do that over the course of the past four years, he’s usually been thwarted by some crazy assertion about Russia or China or somebody. And what happens is that, instead of being able to not only stay a course, but to implement the kind of dialogue this is required among nations, the President was unable to do that.
We have found ourselves, particularly in the case of the nations of Russia and China, actually on the verge of what could even become thermonuclear war. The LaRouche Organization, as well as co-thinking organizations such as the Schiller Institute and others, have tried their best to make the point that that dialogue process among Russia, the United States, China, and other nations, is essential to our nation.
On this past Monday, Dec. 28th, there was a ceremony that was held in Bayonne, New Jersey. This ceremony commemorated a tragedy that occurred some four years ago when members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, a very famous Russian vocal and choral group, died in a plane crash in Syria. There’s a memorial in New Jersey to the victims of 9/11 that was donated by the Russian government back in 2006. What happened was, the occasion was taken there, this past Monday, to perform a memorial service both in honor of the victims of 9/11, as well as the victims of that plane crash. It was a way of reasserting the common aims of mankind, and the commonality of the aspirations and desires of the people of Russia and the United States. What we’re going to do now is to show you a portion of that ceremony, with the performance of the American and Russian national anthems, and then we’re going to allude to the brief remarks that were made there by the Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Mr. Dmitry Chumakov.
[Video begins with U.S. and Russian national anthems]
CAPT. DONALD HAIBER: As always, that was very beautiful. I would now like to ask Mr. Chumakov to say a few words. [https://russiaun.ru/en/news/alexandrovchoir28122020]
DMITRY CHUMAKOV: Dear friends, today is the fourth time we get together to honor the memory of the victims of a plane crash that took place in the skies over Sochi on Dec. 25, 2016, four years ago. Back then we lost almost all members of Alexandrov Ensemble; Ms. Elizaveta Glinka—a renowned philanthropist and humanitarian worker; as well as journalists from Russia’s leading media outlets.
I would like to express our deep appreciation to the Schiller Institute and the Fire Department of Bayonne. Annual meetings like this one have become our good tradition, which makes them all the more significant, because the biggest test is the test by the time, and we are succeeding in this test. We commend the efforts of American community to preserve the memory of those outstanding Russian musicians and luminaries in the United States. This year even the coronavirus pandemic could not stop us from gathering; neither the weather.
Solidarity and mutual help are especially needed today, when the humanity has faced an unprecedented threat—COVID-19 pandemic. For the sake of our common future, peoples and states of the world need to erase all dividing lines, and channel their creative forces to articulating a joint response to this global challenge.
Russia and the United States, as two Permanent Members of the Security Council, bear special responsibility for sustaining global peace and security. In this context, it is of principal importance that the people of our two countries maintain most cordial relations and promote inter-state ties at the civil society level…. [end video]
SPEED: It is exactly from the standpoint of looking at that international responsibility that we view the process that is about to occur down in Washington, DC. We have viewed the process not merely of the elections, but the ability to discuss policy in this way.
To do this, what we’re doing today is, we’re going to provide a panel that first will be making various presentations, and then will have a set of respondents. I’d like to introduce the first portion of our program, that panel which is: Harley Schlanger, who many people know; he’s been here many times. Not on The LaRouche Organization platform but on the various town meetings that we’ve been doing. He has a daily blog feature that everybody should be able to get from this site. There’s Diane Sare, who’s a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2022, running against Chuck Schumer. Andrea Hoopes is here from Pennsylvania. She was actually an elector for Donald Trump from that state, and is involved in a process of creating a new citizens commission for truth in elections. So, what we’re going to do first is go to Harley, and then we’ll follow Harley with Leah, and then Diane.
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Thank you, Dennis, and Happy New Year to everyone. I’m glad you’re with us today, because we have a lot to discuss. I want to begin by picking up on what you heard from Lyndon LaRouche about political parties. What we’re dealing with is something which is bigger than an election. Something bigger than political parties. Some people have the view that the Democratic Party itself was responsible for this. From my many years in Texas, we had a saying that the Democratic Party couldn’t organize a two-car funeral procession. If you look at the problems Pelosi is having, what you see is that this thing was organized from higher up. We also know that Joe Biden couldn’t be the author of this, because he’s barely the author of his salutations when he does his two-minute press conferences. So, we have to ask the question, who can pull of something like the vote fraud that we’re going to be discussing?
I’m just going to say a few things about it because the panel is much more capable of addressing it, because we have people who were there, who were witnesses, who are members of state legislatures, who have had hearings and can talk about it much more than I can. But who could pull off something like this, and why? What we have to look at is, who are the historic enemies of the United States who have the motivation and the capability to do this? The best way to look at that is from the standpoint of what is the policy that will be put in place if this vote theft is allowed to stand?
Let me just give you a little hint of that from what happened from some comments in the last days. First of all from Prince Charles. Many people are not familiar with the importance of Prince Charles of the House of Windsor as a figure, but he’s been a leading advocate of global population reduction for his whole life, following in the footsteps of his father, Prince Philip, of the World Wildlife Fund. Prince Charles did an interview with the BBC the other day, and he just laid it out. He said we have to look to protect and sustain Mother Earth, that’s what is sacred. He said we have to adopt the wisdom of indigenous peoples. This is really something coming from someone from the House of Windsor, whose fortune was built on the exploitation of indigenous peoples, and kept them poor and uneducated and under-developed in colonial systems so they could be more easily looted. What is the wisdom he’s talking about? He’s talking about how they have tamed the indigenous populations and used them now as they’re out to destroy advanced, modern civilization. Prince Charles has been at the head of the fight for a global reset; a policy of zero carbon, what’s called the Great Reset. One of his partners in this is Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, the so-called Davos group. Schwab co-hosted, with Prince Charles, on Nov. 9th-11th, an event in the City of London where they laid out the strategy for the Great Reset as the imposition by use of financial manipulation of a Green New Deal for the world. On Jan. 27th and 28th, he’s going to be hosting the Green Horizons Summit, which is a Davos event which will take this up. What he said in an op-ed the other day is, 2021 will be the year 0, and this is their intent, so just listen to these words.
“We’re going to have an end to carbon-based economic activity. Through the beginning of a government/private sector cooperation for a net-zero target for greenhouse gases and emissions, moving the world to a virtuous cycle of decarbonization.”
Schwab then went on to cite the incoming—he hopes—Biden Presidency, which you, our viewers, have something to do with making sure doesn’t happen. But he cites that potential for an incoming Biden Presidency, along with commitments from the European Union, from Japan, from China, as evidence of the power of the global climate movement. We saw some of that power the other day with the Congressional budget. You didn’t hear much about it, because it was buried in the budget. The 2021 budget includes a commitment for zero-carbon; that is, the U.S. Congress is going along with the Davos crowd and this Great Reset.
If this fraud in the election stands, it will represent the final recapture of the United States by the London-centered financial interests, who have always been the enemy of the American System and the American republic. I’m going to give you an insight into this from Lyndon LaRouche, who fought his whole life to restore the American republic to the traditions of Franklin, of Hamilton, of the Constitution; and who identified throughout our history, the battles we had to fight with forces that were tied to the City of London. The free trade policies, the colonial policies, the anti-industrial policies which today believe that they’re standing on the verge of completing the wreckage of an economic system of energy dense systems which is necessary to sustain the 7-plus billion people on the planet. In other words, their goal, they think, is within reach to reduce the world population dramatically.
Here’s what Lyndon LaRouche had to say, and I’m going back almost 20 years ago. He made a forecast in January of 2001, when George Bush first came into office. Remember, the Bush-Gore election was not settled for over a month until a Supreme Court ruling on Florida gave the election to Bush. What LaRouche said in January of 2001 is that there’s no way that Bush will be able to address the economic crisis that exists in the country. Remember, we had a collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000, and before that the collapse of the so-called economic tigers of Asia, and then a Russian bond crisis with LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) that nearly collapsed the banking system. So, when Bush was coming in, there were two aspects of the Bush-Cheney policy. In looking at that, LaRouche said, there’s no way they can do this without a Reichstag Fire type event, which would give them emergency powers to impose the kind of corporatist fascist economic and war policy that goes with it. That was his forecast in January 2001, and we saw what happened in September 2001.
In reflecting back on this in a webcast he did on January 24, 2002, he made the following comments:
“We can understand the future. We cannot understand always, or predict what events will occur. But we can foresee the conditions into which we are heading, and we can discuss the conditions. What they mean; how we should deal with them; and what the likely response is to these various proposed actions.”
He then talked about his January 2001 forecast, and he said there were three major points that he was trying to get across. First, the economic issue. That the United States was constituted as a republic based on principles of the physical economy, the American System, which were designed by Alexander Hamilton in conjunction with Benjamin Franklin, with George Washington, with a number of others, with the intention to make us an industrial republic that was connected by modern infrastructure, that had a viable financial system based on physical goods production, and science and technology which would allow for advances in productivity. What LaRouche said in 2001, what he saw, was that we were heading into an accelerated economic collapse. The post-1971 economic system, the destruction of the Bretton Woods system created a series of bubbles and then crashes that were caused by slashing investments into the physical economy. And the move at the same time to financial innovation, which is essentially a term for speculation.
Additionally connected to that, was a move away from sovereign nation-states with an ability to make economic policy for the sake of their people. Instead, we were seeing economic policy being made on behalf of global central banks and the largest banking institutions. So, that was the economic crisis he saw in 2001.
Secondly, he said, what was the motive for 9/11? It was to begin a state of permanent, global warfare. This was based on the British doctrine that was developed by Sir Bernard Lewis, furthered by Sir Samuel Huntington from Harvard with his Clash of Civilizations policy. And then carried forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski, with his commitment to encirclement of Russia and China by terrorist Islamic organizations that would destroy those countries and lead to regime change. What Lyn said is, this is classic British geopolitics, going back to the Great Game of the 1860s through the 20th century and the geopolitics that led to two world wars. He said that in the United States, this would be accompanied by what became known as the surveillance state; the security state, the use of new cyber technologies to monitor the activity and the thinking of the American people and to control them through what we know today as social media and similar types of systems.
Now the third point he made was, what was the precedent for this? And he referred to the Reichstag Fire, which was used by the Nazis for their own emergency decree, which led to the police state and dictatorship under Hitler. What he said about that was, if you look at this, while it was under Hitler that it was done, it was on behalf of the Anglo-American interests that were behind Hitler. He identified a number of individuals. I’ll just mention the names now, and you can look these up and study them, and go back to work that we have on The LaRouche Organization site and larouchepub.com, where you can find this. One was Montagu Norman, the head of the Bank of England. It was Norman who was very much involved in pulling together the financial interests that supported the takeover of power by Adolf Hitler. You had a group of American- and British-based cartels: the Standard Oil trust; the Rockefeller cartel. You had banking interests such as the Harriman family, Union Bank Corporation of New York, which had on its board Roland Harriman, and Prescott Bush, the father of future President George Herbert Walker Bush, and the grandfather of George W Bush. Then you had British banking interests that were tied to German interests such as the Schroders’ bank, as well as the Rothschilds’ bank, other international banks like Lazard Freres. Then finally, you had the person who was put in place to carry out the economic policy, Hjalmar Schacht.
Why go through this background? Well, given what Lyndon LaRouche said about parties and political parties are worthless, who’s organizing these transformations? And what must be done to stop them and carry out a counter transformation back to the American System? What we’re looking at is the monetary financial side of things, and a strategic side. He laid out on the monetary financial side what he called the New Bretton Woods; moving to a physical economy of goods production. Not just in the United States and Europe, but we saw what we saw after World War II, what Franklin Roosevelt did in the postwar period, and what the United States did to spark the reconstruction of the devastated countries of Europe, Japan. The idea that this would be spread to the colonial world; that was Roosevelt’s vision, which was sabotaged by the British at the end of the war, when they reimposed the colonial system. The strategic side of this that LaRouche identified is the need for sovereign nation-states to work together to overcome the power of the City of London, Wall Street, and related interests. Those sovereign nation-states primarily identified by LaRouche were the United States, Russia, and China. The intent of the utopian military policy of endless war, was to pit the United States against Russia and China, and possibly Russia and China against each other, to prevent that from occurring; that kind of global alliance, global cooperation.
Now, what have we had since 2001, what LaRouche was talking about? We’ve had endless wars, permanent warfare. We’ve had bubbles, crashes, and bail-outs. And after each crash, the people who caused the crash get bailed out, the families that suffer from the crash, the productive workers, end up with nothing. Losing homes, losing jobs, losing healthcare. We’ve had a further reduction of physical goods production as our industrial base has been looted, and much of our agriculture has been turned from the virtue of family farming into global cartels that can control the world food supply. And then finally, the global domination of Malthusian quackery, with Malthus having been an operative of the British East India Company; a predecessor to Prince Philip and Prince Charles, who argued that population growth will always outstrip the means to take care of it, to provide a standard of living to sustain it. Therefore, mass exterminations will take place, and in fact, those should be welcomed as a way of culling the human herd.
That’s the British system. That’s the system that was put in place under George W Bush and under Barack Obama. What happened in 2016 was a rebellion against that. Most people don’t know the details, but people know that they didn’t like the policies they were hearing; what they saw with Bush, what they saw with Obama. And when they saw Hillary Clinton as the next step in that, they voted for Donald Trump. And when Trump came in, he had an echo of LaRouche’s policies. The opposition to the free trade agreements which stripped our industry; opposition to the Paris Climate Accord which was going to destroy energy production in the United States; opposition to the permanent warfare. And a desire to have friendly, cooperative relationships with Russia and China. This was a threat to this global banker elite, this establishment that was pushing for the next phase of the destruction of sovereign nation-states, to dissolve sovereign nation-states into being vassals of a global corporate cartel of energy companies, banking and finance, food production, big Pharma and so on. Where the policies would be made at the top.
This is what the Great Reset is. The Great Reset essentially says we can’t allow elected governments to make spending policy, because they’re too much affected by the needs of their constituents. Well, what is the constitutional republic that the United States is, but a government which is supposed to respond to the needs of its constituents? We elect our representatives with that intent; that they will make policy that will provide for our needs today and the future, by giving us both the freedom and the credit—that is the capability—to make investments in science and technology to develop the new technologies that we need for the future. That’s what was attacked when President Trump came in. One of the people who coordinated Trump’s campaign, Roger Stone, said that Lyndon LaRouche was the backdrop for the Trump campaign.
What did we see happen to Donald Trump? He got what people called the LaRouche treatment, including from some of the same people, like the Washington Post, NBC News, the mainstream media that have slandered and attacked LaRouche for years, went after Donald Trump with the same line—“authoritarian; anti-Semite; racist.” Additionally, Robert Mueller, who became the Special Counsel in the Russiagate investigation, had been the lead prosecutor in Boston in the initial “Get LaRouche” taskforce. Coincidence? I don’t think so. If you know the nature of the enemy of the United States, you know that LaRouche was attacked because he was working with Ronald Reagan to bring the United States into collaboration with the Soviet Union to develop anti-missile defense systems to end the danger of thermonuclear war. Isn’t that exactly what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin were discussing in Helsinki when the media hijacked their summit into a loyalty test? Who does Trump believe? The U.S. intelligence services, or Putin? Trump said, Putin. And you know what? He was right! Because the intelligence services that said that the Russians carried out a collusion with Trump to steal the 2016 election, they were all wrong. There never was Russian hacking, Russian collusion, and there never was an operation by Putin to control the United States. There was only the tradition of the American constitutional republic that Donald Trump was trying to fulfill by making collaborative relations with people who otherwise would be the enemies under a continuation of a Bush-Obama policy.
So, what did we have? We had Russiagate; we had Ukraine impeachment; we now have blame China for everything. What’s going on behind the scenes is the Global Reset, which is something that Donald Trump opposes. When you look at it from this standpoint, and get a sense of the bigger picture, what stands out most importantly? You have to know your enemy! Which is something that LaRouche taught us going back to the beginnings of our movement in the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, where he accused most of us of being naïve and foolish in thinking that somehow you can oppose a war by marching around with signs. He said, you need to know why this happening, who’s behind it, and how to change it. One of the advantages we have, which you’ll hear from some of the people who are speaking today, is that we now know a lot about who this enemy is.
From Russiagate, we’ve had the exposure of the whole British side of it, from Hannigan of GCHQ, who first brought the fraudulent documents claiming the Russians were preparing a cyberattack against the U.S. election. We know of Christopher Steele, a so-called “former” MI6 operative, who, by the way, was working with the whole Biden-Obama team in the 2014 coup that took place in Ukraine. That same Christopher Steele was then hired by the Clintons to draft the fraudulent document which was behind the Russiagate charges that gave the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] courts a joint opportunity to issue warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. We know of people like Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, and their role in targetting Flynn, and Carter Page, and Papadopoulos and others. We know how the Congress worked, through people like Adam Schiff, to put these lies into circulation through the mainstream media. But not allowing the declassification of documents which would show that these were lies. So, we know a lot. And some of this, just as an example, the Gateway Pundit the other day in an article by Joe Hoft, he pointed to the fact that these documents must be declassified and publicly released. He said that many of them point to something that people don’t know about too well, that is that the orchestrator of this is the United Kingdom.
So, we have some work to do to win this fight. The first part of it is to stop the election theft. Between now and the 6th, people should be making calls to state legislators, calls to Congress, marching, mobilizing, talking about this. But there are other steps that can be made to build this case much more powerfully. That includes making sure that these documents are publicly released; the documents of Russiagate, which show the criminal conspiracy of the Obama intelligence community. People like Brennan and Clapper, working together with the British to rig up the fake story of Russiagate. Those documents must be released. And by the way, while we’re releasing documents, how about the 9/11 documents? How about the JFK assassination documents? All of this should come out to show how the intelligence community in the United States has been hijacked by British intelligence working directly under the Queen. Because the British intelligence services are not controlled by the Parliament, but the monarchy.
Secondly, appoint a Special Counsel. There has been massive evidence, and you’ll hear from some of the people who have compiled it. People who were there when they weren’t allowed to observe; people who saw things that were suspicious and irregular, things that should have been stopped. No certification of signatures and finding that there are dead people who are still on the voter rolls. All of these things should have been investigated, but no court in the United States has done that yet. So, now it’s before the Congress on January 6th. Will they do that? Well, let’s get a Special Prosecutor who will continue to look into this, because it’s not just this election. It’s the system that’s at stake.
Then finally, pardon Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. To get the story out of what was done that LaRouche was talking about in January 2001. The operation to use wars that were based on lies, as Assange exposed on WikiLeaks, to use the cyber capabilities to spy on Americans, to spy on the world, to rig elections in other countries, and to bring those capabilities back here. Just to cite Roger Stone again in a conversation not that long ago, Roger said, “Look, you can find all kinds of fraud from the urban political machines run by the Democrats. That’s an historic given. But the real fraud in 2020 is hidden in the computers and the cyber systems of the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI.” He said, “That has to come out.” Edward Snowden can bring something to bear in presenting that, as people like Bill Binney have done.
So, additionally, one final, crucial point: Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche! Because if you go back to the beginning of this period, which I would say goes back to the Kennedy assassination, and accelerated every step of the way—1971, in the 2001 period, in the crash of 2008—we’re dealing with a criminal cabal that carried out actions to destroy the American constitutional republic. And if we get turned into a banana republic, what hope is there for the rest of the world? So, when I say this is bigger than just an election, it really is the profound test for the American people. Will we step up to the challenge of Benjamin Franklin to keep our republic?
Thank you; that’s what I have to say.
SPEED: Thank you, Harley. Now that we have established the strategic context in which the world of significant events that are going to happen in the United States in the next two weeks are actually located, we can now begin to look at the specifics of the electoral crime environment, the crime scene of the United States.
To do so, before we go to Leah Hoopes from Pennsylvania, we’re going to show an interview we did with Senator William Ligon, the chairman of the Elections Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the Georgia State Senate.
WILLIAM LIGON: I’m William Ligon, and I serve in the Georgia State Senate, and I have been chairing the Subcommittee of the Judiciary on the Election. We have been looking into the issues dealing with this Presidential election that we just held in November.
Q: What is the level of agitation, dissatisfaction, or concern among voters in Georgia as to the conduct of the recent Presidential election?
I’ve served in the Georgia Legislature for ten years; I have never ever received the volume of calls and letters and emails from voters in this state, from people really all over the country, expressing their concerns. But not only their concern, their outrage at what has occurred. When they’re told, “There was no fraud; this was a fair election,” they are being asked to believe something which is completely contrary to what they have seen with their eyes, heard with their hears, or which they have experienced at the polls. We’ve had poll watchers locked out of the voting place, or where the votes are being counted. They have been denied meaningful access to see what is going on. There has been hostility expressed towards them, or demonstrated to them. And some of them, when they’ve raised objections, have been escorted out of the voting place by the police. That is simply wrong! We can’t have that in this country, we can’t have that in this state.
Q: In your view, has this had a broader effect on the population beyond the election itself?
I guess the doubt and the fraud and the confidence of the public, or at least in Republicans in the election results in Georgia and I believe in the nation, is shaken. And I think one of the cornerstones of having our republic is that confidence. And that, I believe, is reflected in the nature of our laws here in Georgia on what is required to question the results of an election. You can either show misconduct on the part of officials, an irregularity, or fraud which places the election in doubt. It seems as if our election officials here are just saying, “We have to have definitive proof of a fraud here in order to set this election aside, or go into a process of selecting new electors.” That’s just not the case. If there are irregularities which will place that in doubt, then you can do that. And I believe that we have shown that through our hearings that we’ve held here in Georgia.
Q: Tell us some of the specifics of the Georgia situation itself.
The election process in Georgia is fairly decentralized. Really, the epicenter of all of this is in Fulton County. There has been a history of election issues within Fulton County. What we’ve seen in this election is, it seems as if it’s run, in particular in Fulton County, it has really become an issue. It is of such magnitude that, in my opinion, there’s no doubt that it impacted the election. It has absolutely shaken the confidence of many of the people in the state of Georgia over what’s happened. If you cannot have confidence in the result of an election, then that really starts to shake the foundations of our society, which is built upon the idea of the consent of the governed. People start saying, “I did not agree to this. I was not able to participate, I was robbed.” It creates issues for us.
I think the issue really comes out of this vote-by-mail type scheme, and our absentee ballot process in the state. It’s just ripe for fraud. I have had people send me copies of actual ballots that were sent to their address, to people who had not been affiliated with that address for over 20 years. Now, these people were honest enough to say, “This is not me. I’m sending it to you so that you can see it.” But I think that what happened is, we saw the zone was flooded with a lot of these ballots, and many of them were voted by people who should not have done so. Fulton County officials at about 10, 10:30 at night, they went over to the observers, to the media and to the partisan observers, who really are the eyes and ears of the voters, of the public. And told them, “We’re going to be shutting down our counting for the evening.” You can see it happen; and then they leave. And when they leave, they go back over to a table, they pull out suitcases of ballots from under the table, and go over and start counting those ballots. Then you can see some of them running those ballots three and four times—the same set of ballots—three and four times through the counting machines. Well, that in and of itself violates Georgia law, because the public has the right to be there and observe. When an official goes and says, “We’re not going to continue counting,” because of that reliance on that statement by the observers, if you resume counting, you have broken the law.
Now, our Secretary of State has said, “Well, we had an official there.” It doesn’t matter if he had 50 officials there; the public is not there, and they did not have the right to observe. And what that does is, it creates a lack of confidence in the results of the election. Under our law, if there is such an irregularity or misconduct on the part of officials, which places the result of that election in doubt, the election can be set aside. People are focussing on the fraud; there’s no definitive evidence of fraud. My point is, no, what you saw was a breach of the law, and the election is in doubt, and we should now go back in and revisit this in the legislature. When you see some of our senior elected officials stand up and say, “There’s no evidence of fraud,” they’re not telling you the whole story. There’s evidence of misconduct; there’s evidence of irregularity. We have photographs of boxes of ballots that don’t have the proper seal. There’s no chain of custody for many of these boxes of ballots. That right there, in and of itself, brings it into question.
In my opinion, if a box shows up at the location where the votes are being counted without the seal and proper documentation of the chain of custody, those ballots are in question. Where have they been? Who has been in that box? What has occurred with it? We can just go on and on with instances of this kind of conduct.
Q: What is it that you think has to be done nationally to address the problem of our elections?
In regards to correcting the November election, the legislature should have convened and should have looked into this to determine were there sufficient irregularities or misconduct or fraud in the process to place the results of this election in doubt? And if that were to be found—which I believe it would—then the legislature would have the obligation to select new electors for this election. And we have the absolute right to do that under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It states that it is the state legislature that should do this.
One of the objections that I’m getting from my colleagues is that this should really be done through the courts. Well, the courts aren’t mentioned in that section of the United States Constitution. But they want some sort of judicial determination, but my response is, think about what happens when you carry this to court. There are two issues that a court will decide: an issue of fact; or an issue of law. Now, issues of fact are always determined by a jury, if you request a jury trial. Who comprises the jury? People; our electorate. The very people that select us, and legislators can serve on a jury. So, we have the ability to do that. Well, what about questions of law? Judges should determine that. My response is, no; judges are determining the law which was passed by the legislature. When judges do that, they’re trying to determine our intent, and to say that we do not have the ability to look into this and make a decision on behalf of our people is simply avoiding the question. Not being willing to make the tough decisions. If you can’t make these tough decisions, then in my opinion, you just need to go do something else. [end video]
SPEED: More than 1,000 witnesses filed affidavits and testified in the six states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona. 126 Congressmen of the United States, 17 U.S. Attorneys General argued in various ways, or weighed in on various ways on various cases, including a case that came from Texas, which was arguing that if there was fraud in any part of the United States, it was then therefore the business of the entire United States and every U.S. citizen within the United States. The Supreme Court refused to hear the evidence in most of the cases that were brought, and the shift has gone to the Congress on January 6th, which is in four days. Leah Hoopes, and hundreds if not thousands of Americans, stepped forward because they recognized that the nation, not the election, was at stake. We’re happy to have Leah with us; she’s gone from being just another concerned citizen to acting now as an elector for Donald Trump. Leah, happy to see you.
LEAH HOOPES: Thank you so much for having me; it’s always a pleasure to be with everyone. It’s an honor to be part of a diverse group of great minds. Even despite our differences politically, that we’ve all agreed that integrity and courage to challenge our government and transparency are the answers to what currently ails our country and the world. With open discussion such as this, that displays a concerted effort to achieve domestic tranquility and liberty for each and every one of us.
I’m thankful to people such as Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, who, despite their own reservations and fear of exposing the truth, have carried on anyway to seek and find solutions for the betterment of mankind. LaRouche was a pioneer and well before his time, and I fully believe he and our President would have been really allies. They have many similarities when it comes to policies and ideas. Despite the demonization of their views, they still pushed forward anyway. Lyndon LaRouche, like President Trump, shares views with Lincoln and our forefathers. In fact, Lincoln’s economic advisor, Henry Carey, states “There are two systems before the world. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism, while other increases wealth, comfort, intelligence, and a combination of action and civilization.” I want to tie this all in to, especially what I’ve been doing along with Greg and other citizens, that is very similar to what they are talking about specifically in this statement.
In order for the United States to raise the value in the world, we must first raise the value in our own country. Right now, our government is removing the ability for us to self-govern, and is inundating the populace with information and not knowledge. Starting with our school systems, which are basically bureaucratic institutions that generate radicalized foot soldiers in my opinion. They’ve completely removed the idea of civil discourse and civic education. As a matter of fact, 31 states only have a one-year requirement; 10 states have a half a year, and then 9 states have no requirement whatsoever for civic education. I really wholeheartedly feel that there needs to be mandatory civic education, kindergarten through 12th grade, into our public schools. That’s really where we start with informing the populace of just how beautiful the experiment of the United States truly is. What better way to destroy a country than to attack the youth? It’s much like Hitler did, and make them believe that the freedoms and opportunities that they have are false, and place others at a disadvantage, which is obviously quite the contrary.
The world is watching and waiting for us to do the right thing, and for many American citizens, they are waiting for the government to do the right thing and to save us. Let me be the first to tell you, we must save ourselves and fight to keep our republic. We have forgotten that we have the power, and that the government was created to protect our rights. That we the citizens are to restrain the government and not the government to restrain the citizens. We’ve accepted the belief that we do not have the right to self-govern, when in fact, the Constitution of the United States says otherwise. It’s important to recite the Preamble of the Constitution, which starts with “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.” It’s a very profound statement.
We are an experiment that was developed by the people, with a checks and balances system. And we’re actually seeing it come to fruition right now during this election. These checks and balances systems and these constitutional pathways that we have. It’s not just that we have an election. There are other avenues if there are issues with the irregularities and election fraud and voter fraud and what have you. I was honored to be asked by the Trump campaign to be an elector. I proudly cast my vote for President Trump and Vice President Pence. Right now, Pence has the constitutional power to choose those electors, and he will have many in Congress to back his decision. And if he chooses not to use that power and authority, there are obviously still constitutional pathways to make that decision, and it needs to be done.
I’ve spent an immense amount of time informing myself about our government, constitutional law, and have remained very vigilant in the fight for integrity and transparency. I’m really self-taught, and there’s beauty in that, because at any point a citizen can become informed and has the right to that knowledge, and they can become involved and they can truly make a difference. But the main goal, for us, is to empower others to do the same and recognize that freedom is not free at all, that we are a republic and we have a responsibility. We, the citizens, have a responsibility to stay informed, become informed, and to stay active, to keep our republic, just like Benjamin Franklin spoke of.
And that really brings me to the activism and involvement that I have at this juncture right now. Eighteen months ago, becoming a committeewoman, I never thought I would get to this point. It’s been a whirlwind, and I hope one day to write down everything that has transpired. But it’s possible: And it’s possible because I am a United States citizen. And I want for people to understand, and we want for people to understand that once you become informed, and you obtain knowledge, that you become a force to be reckoned with. And it’s very hard for a government, or any entity, really, to pull the wool over your eyes, and tell you that there’s nothing to see here. This is a constant statement that’s made in the news media and on social media, you know, “We need to move on,” and “there’s no fraud,” and so on and so forth, and this propaganda that thousands of people who have signed affidavits are just crazy tinfoil hat wearers. It’s absurd to me! Not surprising—not surprising whatsoever.
And I want to go back to a little bit about what Harley Schlanger had spoken of earlier: You know, who can pull this off? And it’s easy: There’s a combination of many things, and that is, you have a rogue judicial branch that is really kind of doing an “olé” to these cases and not allowing evidence to be presented—I mean, true evidence—to be presented to the public of what has happened in the 2020 general election. You have, you know, money is a motivating factor; you want to talk about these centralized banks and that money just has everything to do with what we’re seeing. People are paid off, on both sides, and that’s not an opinion. That is fact. And we have people in our government that are supposed to be protecting our rights that are not doing their job, and they’re not representing the people.
And then, also, we talk about this sovereignty of states, but for me, I think it’s important that we talk about the sovereignty of the people, and creating the alliances, like these voter alliances, or committees and that it doesn’t need to be done with millions of dollars. You can make phone calls, you can call your representative; you can reach out to organizations like the Thomas More Society or the Schiller Institute, and there are people that are willing to help you to develop these committees and give you resources. You can sit down with five of your friends at a coffee table and put your minds together. That’s really all it is, it’s not rocket science, what we have accomplished. I would like to think, I take a chip off the old block of President Trump, and even Lyndon LaRouche, that despite the hate, despite the demonization, despite the fear, that we have pushed through and will talk about the truth despite everything that they’re saying and kind of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
For the Pennsylvania Voter Alliance group that I am president of, and we are affiliated with Project Amistad; I also am the president of a watchdog group, if you will, and it is a group of fantastic patriots that volunteer their time to investigate, to inform the populace, and who are trying to do the right thing. And the things that we’ve informed ourselves on, things that were violated during the election—I’ll give an example: The National Voter Registration Act, Help America Vote Act of 2002, election codes in the state of Pennsylvania, paying attention to, or attending election board meetings, or paying attention to your county council and questioning your government and not being fearful of doing that. Because that’s our job: Our job is to be adversarial to the people that are supposed to be representing us.
I’ll just give a quick story. The Help America Vote Act 2002, and it’s a pretty lengthy document, but I would advise people to really sit down and read this document: The Help America Vote Act is a federal act, that there are regulations and it was a reform of our federal elections. And every state has to follow these regulations and if they don’t, they certainly shouldn’t be awarded HAVA money. And as of right now, Pennsylvania, my county especially—Delaware County, Pennsylvania—has violated this act in many, many ways! Delaware County has about 400,000 voters that are ineligible on our voter registration rolls, and according to HAVA, these voter registration rolls need to be cleaned up, I mean, constantly. So if you think about it, and you kind of put the dots together, and you have 400,000 people, just in my county alone that are on this voter registration roll that are not supposed to be there, then I’m sure those people obviously received a mail-in ballot. And who knows who sent in that mail-in ballot?
So it’s just simple things like this, where you can connect the dots. If you have common sense, you can connect those dots! And there are people that are willing to help you connect those dots. And then you just need to have the courage to speak up, and inform everybody of these issues, and not allow for people to try to shut you up. I’m certainly not planning on shutting up any time soon. And there’s a lot in store for 2021. And my goal is to inform the populace, to give people courage to speak up, to teach people how to research, to investigate, and to really push for election integrity. And we would actually like to push that nationally, and hopefully, one day across the world, of what we accomplished.
So I can’t thank the Schiller Institute enough for allowing me to have a voice, and I’m really hopeful that platforms such as thins will continue to move forward, and we’re going to have to really fight for election integrity, so that we can be an example for the rest of the world. And lastly, that we start holding people accountable on the left or the right, or even in the middle, of whoever was involved in conspiring to destroy our elections, and to allow fraud to transpire. So, thank you very much.
SPEED: Thank you very much, Leah, and there’s many thoughts that you’ve sparked with what you said….
What we’re going to do now, is we’re going to hear from Rep. Russ Diamond, state representative from Pennsylvania….
REP. RUSS DIAMOND: Good afternoon, how are you. Pardon my casual dress, this is my Saturday work outfit. Give me a brief on what you want me to deliver to the audience here?
SPEED: I think the idea is the following: We’ve already been on for a while. We’ve heard from Leah Hoopes from Pennsylvania a little bit about the situation there. We also heard from a state senator from Georgia who described the situation there. So, I think just a few minutes from you, as your view of what is at stake, particularly between Jan. 6 and Jan. 20, we’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
DIAMOND: Let me tell you where we’re at here in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, I’ve mostly focussed on what I call “wholesale invitation to irregularities,” which was all the things that the Supreme Court, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Governor, and elections officials in certain counties undertook before this election happened. I know there’s a lot of talk out there about the retail end of irregularities—I don’t use the term “fraud,” because I think the term “irregularities” is a better to use; irregularities, if you’re talking about Dominion Vote switching, if you’re talking about dead people voting, that sort of thing, all that wouldn’t have happened, had we not had the wholesale invitation to irregularities that we had here in Pennsylvania. Now, in the last week or so, my neighboring legislator, Rep. Frank Ryan, and another group of us, have tried to dig down into state data to compare ballots cast and counted by quantity, to the quantity of legal voters in who voted. And we have found that, overall, there’s a 200,000 voter shortage in relationship to total ballots cast; and 170,000 voter shortage in comparison to the total votes cast for President. So you can see it on your screen there: 170,830. When you have a presidential race that’s decided by 80,555 votes, officially, as certified, 170,000 votes is incredibly significant! It’s twice the difference.
This is the first time that we as a legislature have focussed on the retail end of what happened before the election, and we’ve documented at least two dozen actions—we as members of the General Assembly have taken, in order to address this, from filing lawsuits ourselves, and being turned away, to filing amicus briefs, whether it’s the Kelly case in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Texas v. Pennsylvania case in the Supreme Court; other cases that we filed amicus briefs on; we have written letters, we have a letter from 59 members of the House and 5 members of the Senate, begging Congress to object to Pennsylvania’s slate of electors. And that was signed by six members of the House Republican leadership team here in Pennsylvania. I sent then another message today, and I asked, “were you serious about that? Because if you’re serious about that, then the only thing that we can do next, is exercise our plenary power, under the U.S. Constitution, to reclaim authority over elections to appoint electors for President and Vice President, and decertify the slate of electors who have been ostensibly sent to Washington, according to our Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor.”
There was a point in time where I believed that we would find enough retail irregularities in Pennsylvania’s election process, that we could actually go ahead and name Trump electors, and appoint them and send them to Washington. We have not come to that point. However, we have come to the point in Pennsylvania, where I can tell you with all sincere honesty, I have no idea who won, because we cannot match up the ballots cast to the numbers of voters who voted. This is like a checkbook: You cannot have more ballots cast than you had legal voters voting. And you need to have a snapshot—a static snapshot—of a database of voters who were legal on Nov. 3rd, who actually showed up at the polls, mailed in a ballot, dated an absentee ballot, or voted provisionally, and had those ballots counted, and you need to check them off, just like a checkbook: You got to reconcile that. There has been no reconciliation. And what we’ve found is the closest thing we have to a reconciliation in Pennsylvania is our Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, which is also called the SURE system, when those are the numbers where we got that 170,000 deficit.
And what is apparent to me, is that there is not in existence, a static snapshot of all the legal voters on Nov. 3rd. That is very problematic, because it means we can’t reconcile our checkbook. Because what’s happening now, although the Secretary of the Commonwealth has said, four counties haven’t offloaded all their data yet—and that’s fine and well and good, but here, in my own personal county, Lebanon County—a very tiny county, fifth-class county, 140,000 residents, 92,000 voters; our county claims that they are done uploading data. However, I have many, many precincts, in my own legislative district, where the checkbook cannot be reconciled. And I have one, specifically troubling precinct in my district, where there 50—fifty—more votes counted than voters voting. So, I’m going to my local board of elections, and I’m going to try to sort that out. And I especially picked that particular precinct, because on Election Day, I got at least three phone calls from concerned citizens, who told me that there was somebody working the polls that day, who allowed people to cast their ballot, who did not appear in the poll book. The poll book is the one you sign when you check in, before you cast your vote and before they give you a ballot. So I’m going to ask my local board of elections to look into that. I know that concerns them, too.
The other thing I fear is that we’re going to find out that before counties certify their election results, they are only counting votes; they are not matching the count of votes up to the legal voters who actually voted in the election. If you’re sending certified data to the state, I would think that you would want to make sure that every ballot you cast has been counted. I fear that our counties here in Pennsylvania have not done that. Therefore, the statewide results have been certified, based on unverified checks of legal voters. That’s where we’re at in Pennsylvania.
I am attempting, just based on the illegality of what the Supreme Court, the Secretary of Commonwealth, the Governor, and election officials in certain counties did before the election—I am attempting to have our leadership, here in the Pennsylvania House, view this election as a failed election, because it is an unlawful election. Because the Supreme Court, the Executive branch, and county officials do not have any authority over elections, to select electors for President and Vice President. They certainly have authority over the rest of the election process. And you wouldn’t want me to have authority over my own election process. But their argument, I believe, is because these elections happened coincidentally and they’re on the same ballot, that somehow, the state legislature has ceded, diluted, or given away its plenty authority over elections to appoint electors for President and Vice President. And my argument, which I believe is a constitutionally sound argument, is that even though we did that, and combined it with other elections for convenience, we never ceded our plenary authority.
One of the other roadblocks we have to exercising that plenary authority, and it’s almost a moot point at this point, because we’re only a couple days away from us meeting anyway, is that some of our leaders did not believe that our plenary authority over election for President and Vice President, extends to our ability to meet outside any restrictions within our state Constitution or our state statutes. I believe that having plenary authority over the elections for Vice President and President is a federal authority, and under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, it absolutely trumps any constitutional restriction or statutory limitation on our ability to meet. Again, I say, that’s a moot point, at this point, because we are meeting on Jan. 5 to be sworn in, and I’m hoping that we can get a floor vote on Jan. 5th after we’ve been sworn in, so that we can in fact, take that vote.
That’s where we’re at in Pennsylvania. And where I’m, that has been my mission for the last few weeks. I have a resolution ready to go; I’m not sure we even need a written resolution. I believe we may be able to just get up and make a motion to decertify the electors, take a vote, and be done with it: Transmit that to Congress, the Vice President, the Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and say, “We have spoken and we are done with this issue.”
So with that, that’s what I’ve been doing here in Pennsylvania, so, I’d be happy to take any questions I have left with you, here.
SPEED: Thank you very much Representative Diamond. I want to go to Patrick Colbeck, former State Senator from Michigan. Because we’ve heard now from Georgia, Pennsylvania, and now we’ll get Michigan. …
We’re going to bring everybody up on screen. There are several other people that have joined us and we’re going to be getting into discussions in just a minute. Let’s bring up the other persons that we have, and I’ll name them, but I’ll also make one point specific, which is that Joe Hoft, who is a journalist with Gateway Pundit is with us. I want to see if he has something to say, as well as if he has any questions at this point.
Also joining us at this point is Bridget Thorne, who is Fulton County, Georgia election technician; Martha Rollins, electoral observer, Code Pink—I think she’s on the phone; Greg Stenstrom from Pennsylvania; and Rolf Lindgren from Wisconsin.
If Joe Hoft is there, I’d like to ask if he has anything, both in terms of any response to what he’s heard, and any questions.
JOE HOFT: Thanks, and thanks for the opportunity to be here. It’s been really interesting, the discussions from start to finish, so far; just fantastic. It’s nice to see some of these faces here, as well, on this screen.
I was invited to talk about a couple of things really briefly, and I can do that very quick. One was the fact that Julian Assange, tomorrow, a judge will hear his extradition case. So one point that was brought up to me prior to this was the fact that, way back in April 2018, had asked President Trump to somehow help him in this regard, because we felt like the work that he had done, he was being falsely accused of. That’s a big event that’s happening as well this week, and that led to another topic, that ironically, back in 2018, in April, we raised which was the fact that it appeared that the U.K. had more to do with our 2016 election issues than Russia did. And one of your individuals who presented already mentioned some of those names from the U.K. But that came out in 2018, I think we were one of the first to note that.
So, there has been foreign interference in our elections. It did happen in 2016; we believe it’s also happened in 2020. And the third piece that I wanted to mention is that we made a call, a week or two ago, asking President Trump to release the information that he has from the intel community, related to foreign intervention in our elections, related to the Mueller investigations, and related, really, to anything else that’s pertinent—unredacted, so that the American people can, once and for all, see the truth of what happened over these past few years, if not longer. So we’re asking the President for that; we’ve made that call.
I can mention the Gateway Pundit, which my brother Jim founded, back about 15 years ago. We’ve been writing extensively on the fraud in this election. We have, as a result, we’ve grown; we’re now receiving about 4 million-plus page views a day. We’re now bigger than the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and others in some measurements. As far as U.S. websites, we’re one of the top 100 U.S. websites, and it’s because we’re sharing the truth, we want the truth to get out there, and there’s a thirst for that truth as well. And as one of your prior presenters as well mentioned, there’s a lot of challenges and getting this information out, so we’re proud to be the one entity that it seems like at times that is getting that out: So I want to give a hats off to my brother, Jim and the website, and the work that we’re doing.
Finally, I’d just like to mention in the election, I’ve heard some of these great speakers, especially from these states: The one thing that hit us from the very beginning, was just the size of this—I’ll call it a fraud—from the 2020 election. The prior all-time high for most votes was 69 million by Barack Obama in 2008; and here, President Trump comes in with 74 million, crushes that record, and now, we’re supposed to believe that Joe Biden, though he received 81 million even though he couldn’t fill 12 circles in one of his rallies. And we kept tabs of those rallies, and we saw, since Labor Day to the election, President Trump had 1.1 million people at his rallies, compared to Biden’s less than 2,000 people! So we knew, it was very clear that Joe Biden was not in this race. We think he was probably lucky to receive more than 60 million votes, let alone 80 million. So, there’s a massive amount of fraud in this election, just looking at it from a high level. And I used to be a corporate executive, an auditor, head of an auditing team, head of an advanced team in Hong Kong for a major U.S. corporation, and this is what I did was audit. And so from the beginning, we could see from a high-level picture, there was some major things going on.
These guys mentioned the absentee ballots, etc., the thing that’s still not really mentioned—although it was today—was the fact of this chain of custody issue. In Georgia alone, there are 460,000 ballots that do not have the proper chain of custody documentation on them. That is required by law; and so, I assume the same goes for Michigan, as the presenter just mentioned before; the same in Wisconsin: We know that there was 200,000 ballots there, that the one judge recently said, hey, you’ve got to go through these, they’re not valid the way they are. And so, there’s 200,000 ballots there. And of course, in Pennsylvania, people were allowed to vote until maybe days later. President Trump had a 700,000 vote lead on election night, and after a couple days we see that more than a million ballots were processed that led to Joe Biden taking the lead there. So there’s massive fraud, across the board, whether it be with the voting machines, whether it be with the ballots, it’s there.
Our recommended remedy, and it’s been just mentioned, was this Jovan Pulitzer came to our attention. He can look at the ballots, and he says he can look at the paper ballots, he can go through hundreds of thousands of these ballots in a matter of a couple of hours, and he’s offered to do it for free in Georgia. And he can determine whether a ballot is valid or not based on his analysis. I’ll leave it at that, but I encourage you to study up and see what this guy can do. And my recommendation would be to let your legislatures know that, hey, this guy can do it, he can do it for free, and he can save this country by giving us that retail number that we so badly desire, for how many of these ballots were really valid and how many weren’t. So I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for the opportunity to be here.
SPEED: And thank you very much, also…. We’re going to go to Greg Stenstrom, and then we’ll open it up for everybody.
GREG STENSTROM: This has been illuminating. As many of you know, I’m ex-military, a former Naval officer, and one of the problems in warfare, and especially information warfare battlespace, is information overload. We live in a Twitter and TikTok world of sound bites, and I think we’re losing people, and we’re losing our audience by overwhelming them with information. What Leah Hoopes, who spoke earlier, and I have been working on is developing a concise, actionable evidence, entered before a trier of fact. One of the issues that’s been repeatedly stopped people—but one of the problems with this overwhelming amount of evidence, much of what we’ve heard today is that it has not been entered before a trier of fact. The appeals courts, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in general can only consider information and evidence that’s been entered before a trier of fact. So when people, our pundits and our adversaries say, “there is no evidence,” they don’t mean that—I don’t think they’re being obtuse from the perspective that they don’t recognize that we have a mountain of evidence, but we haven’t entered it into the appropriate venues where we can act on constitutionally.
What Leah and I did is, we boiled down our case, which has got an overwhelming amount of evidence, but we boiled it down to several demonstrably false and criminal actions and affirmations made by election certifiers in Delaware County, PA, and we just boil it down just to that. What we’re saying is, you can’t certify the vote if you falsify this small segment of information in the entire universe of information. And the other thing is, we’ve addressed the evidence, much of which has been destroyed, wantonly altered, lost, and so forth, we’ve addressed that by what they call “spoliation.” Basically spoliation is, when you wantonly destroy, alter, or lose evidence that would exonerate you, then a court can apply an adverse inference in a directed verdict, that since you removed the evidence that would have exonerated you, they find you guilty. That is applicable primarily in civil courts, not criminal. But in terms of this overall, overwhelming fraud, the Schiller Institute, Project Amistad, Mayor Giuliani and Sidney Powell, their organizations, and particularly advocates like the Gateway Pundit, Jim and Joe Hoft—Leah and I are both big fans—and you have all been highly effective in strategically exposing fraud. And without them, Leah and I wouldn’t have had the opportunity to tactically enter the battlespace with our specific evidence and enter it before a trier of fact, so that it can be used.
So, in a nutshell, without elaborating, I personally witnessed 120,000 fraudulent votes. I’ve testified to this, and provided sworn testimony under penalty of perjury to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and my testimony and declarations are currently included in the Texas case that the Supreme Court has said they will hear on Jan. 22nd.
I was asked to talk about that briefly, and what boggle was with that case. And what Texas did is they filed it as a Title 2 case, which is primarily administrative, and they were correct from the perspective that another state, or another sovereign entity impacted their right to a fair trial, but Title 2 is primarily administrative, and they should have filed it under Title 3.
Now, the Supreme Court made a decision that I believe was political, and not judicial. The Supreme Court could have entertained the case and said, well, you made a mistake here, you should have entered this case as a Title 3 case, which is Equal Protection and Fair Election Act prosecutional section, as opposed to Title 2. And an example of that would be Obamacare: When Justice Roberts, after hearing Attorney General Holder and Obama’s team tell them that they weren’t violating the Commerce Act, what Roberts did was he said: Well, you do violating the Commerce Act, but I’m going to call this a tax, and therefore, it’s lawful and I’m going to allow Obamacare to go forward. Similarly, SCOTUS could have done the same thing here, and entered the case—it was entered by the Attorney General of Texas and multiple other attorneys general; they should have heard that case. But they have delayed it and in my opinion, they’ve abrogated their duties and their judicial duties and have become now a political body.
That brings us to Jan. 6 and Vice President Pence, and what he’s allowed to do, and constitutionally allowed to do. The Founding Fathers recognized that political bodies, Executive branch, the Judicial branch, the Legislative branch, and other government entities could become bogged down. Thomas Jefferson, himself, being a Vice President, was actually in Vice President Pence’s position. And what he did, when he became President, he actually went with dual electors; and he recognized, and the Founders of our country recognized, that that has to come down to a sole person—one—Vice President Pence. What Vice President Pence can do on Jan. 6th, is, with the objection of U.S. Senators Hawley, Cruz, and the objections of Congressmen and/or the objections of state legislators, which we’ve heard here, earlier, what he can do, is he can choose to set aside one elector’s ballot and choose another. So he can take the Biden electors and say, there’s been fraud in these states, and I am going to go with the Trump electors, and either declare President Trump the winner, outright, if he exceeds 270 electoral votes; or, if neither Vice President Biden nor President Trump has 270 votes, they will forward it to the Congress.
That’s a very important thing, and I was asked to address that. But to kind of wrap up what Leah and I have been doing here, in Delaware County—I call it “our little hamlet”—what we have to do here, is we have to take care of our county, our fellow citizens. And what we’re doing here is, that given the fact that our law enforcement has abrogated their duties, that the U.S. Attorney General has not stepped in, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who is actually one of the Biden electors; the Chairman of the Board of Elections, here, who is also a Biden elector, they have either blocked us or abrogated their duties: It is up to the citizenry, which is Leah, myself, and other concerned citizens, the candidates, Dasha Pruett, who is part of our lawsuit, to press forward. Now that we’ve exhausted our administrative recourse, our trial and our case is ripe for hearing by the Common Pleas Court. What we expect, we expect to win our case, which is the violations of the judge’s orders, in contempt of court, and also violations of election law, we expect to win that. But in the harm and the findings, the judge is somewhat limited, or does not have the direct authority to decertify the vote. However, he can make recommendations and the data and the information can be there so that later, when the Pennsylvania Legislature reconvenes on Jan. 5th, they’ll have that evidence or they’ll have the initial entries and they can take further action. Vice President Pence can act on that. The Congress can act on it. And SCOTUS can act on that data. And that’s why it’s important, I think, what Leah and I are doing at a local level.
What I encourage other people to do, to wrap this up, is that everyone here can make a difference. The citizenry can make a difference at their local level, and it will ripple up. Getting your state legislatures—in fact, if we have to, shaming state legislators into action, and shaming our Congressmembers and senators into action, is our duty and it’s within our realm of capabilities.
And I tried to keep it as a wrap; I said I was only going to take three to five minutes, and I think I’ve exceeded that. Thank you for your time, and I hope that was helpful and an update on our case here in Delaware County.
SPEED: I want to thank you also, and I also want to say to everybody that we’re very, very grateful for everything that people are saying. I think that what’s actually emerged is the possibility—we have a correlate publication called Executive Intelligence Review, and it may very well be that we have the grounds for a kind of Special Report, which would be, not merely a compilation of some of the things that have been stated, but pretty clear, that, particularly from some of the state legislators who have spoken, that there’s a clarity that needs to be brought to the American people on the very nature of the constitutional process that they’re actually involved in here.
And regardless of the particulars of Jan. 6th, and what is said and isn’t said, or even what would happen around Jan. 20th, our task, it seems to me is to immediately, as in the next days or hours, to the degree we can, get this clarity to as many people as we can, about what the actual issues are, as opposed to the ones they’re being led to believe are the issues….
What we’re going to do now is to bring things to a close. As I said, I believe we probably have the basis, at least for some sort of Special Report, which would be video as well as any written report. There may also be more in what you all have had to say and may be the case that there are others that you know we should be speaking with; and if that’s the case, please make us aware of that, and make us aware, in what other ways we can help you.
I want to thank everybody that participated today: State Rep. Russ Diamond from Pennsylvania; Rep. William Ligon from Georgia; former State Sen. Patrick Colbeck from Michigan; Joe Hoft, journalist with Gateway Pundit; Bridget Thorne, Fulton County, Georgia; Martha Rollins, electoral observer, and Greg Stenstrom, from Pennsylvania; Leah Hoopes, who is an elector from Pennsylvania; Rolf Lingren from Wisconsin; and Diane Sare, and Harley Schlanger.
I’d like to just say a couple of words to everybody about this: When people think about the Declaration of Independence and July 4th of 1776, an old minister, who’s now deceased, named Rev. James Bevel, once described that gathering as group of people who showed up with a bottle of whiskey in one pocket and a gun in another, some tobacco, and they sat down and they argued. And they came up with a conception of a country, of a nation, that they were going to build. And they understood that one another were not perfect men—and not to mention the women who actually were largely behind them and pushing them to do this. And what came out of that was something called the United States of America. That the constitutional government that was then formed, after it was shown that the Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to make the changes that were required, that that constitutional government talked about “a more perfect Union,” recognizing that the people that comprised the republic were imperfect.
Perfection was not their requirement. It was the seeking of truth that was the requirement. And it didn’t matter from whom the truth was coming. It doesn’t matter what your party affiliation is, it doesn’t matter what your background is, and it also doesn’t matter what you did before that may have been wrong: If you’re standing for the truth, and the truth is clear, or could be made clear, then you have the constitutional not only right, but duty, to stand up and knock out the brains of falsehood with truth.
I think what we’re seeing, and what we’re about converge on in these next days, during the month of January, is a circumstance in which the American experiment will be tested in a fundamental way. And that the testing of the American experiment is a requirement for all those that would be citizens of the United States. It may be that many of our fellow countrymen don’t feel that way about it at the moment, but I think the process that we just carried out here is at least an approximation of what we should seek, as the standard of involvement from everybody, at this time, in our country.
Apart from the economic circumstances, apart from biological holocaust circumstances that could be surrounding us with this COVID and related circumstance; apart from the particulars of the stresses of everyday life, there is a set of principles that this country was founded on, and it had a purpose: As the poet Friedrich Schiller stated, in the course of his drama Don Carlos, “A purpose which higher reason hath conceived, that men’s afflictions urge, ten thousand times defeated, may never be abandoned.” The purpose of the United States and its Constitution was not to perfect a nation for just the people in that nation. It was to demonstrate that the experiment of human freedom was one that could be renewed continually by the deliberative process of people who were citizens, not because of rank, position, or birth, but because of their ability to get together and deliberate, even as a coincidence of opposites.
And so, we want to thank all of you for being part of what we did here, today, and we want to recommend that you all get in touch with us and work with us to the end of creating that “more perfect Union.”
So on behalf of The LaRouche Organization, we want to thank everybody today for being with us, we want to ask you to get active, and work to reform, if you will, to reconstitute this republic during the month of January 2021. Happy New Year.
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in withFacebook Twitter