Sunday, November 22, 2020

                                                      November 22, 2020


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey


“A Conspiracy so Immense….?” The Election of 2020


This past Friday morning, November 20, I altered my television news viewing preferences: now if I watch news programs, it is to Newsmax TV that I go. Not Fox.  No way. Yes, I will drop in to Tucker Carlson on occasion during prime time, and maybe a few minutes of Laura Ingraham or Hannity, or the Fox “All-Stars”—although seeing the nauseously loathsome Jonah Goldberg there the other night spout a stream of unadulterated venom against President Trump literally caused me to lose my supper (Jonah’s unrestrained hatred for Trump has never been that well-hidden, nor his fealty to the Deep State; his brand of “kept whorish (neo)conservatism” is one of the major defects of what my friend Paul Gottfried calls establishment “conservatism Inc.” It now seems to increasingly dominate at Fox).

I’m not going to rehash the bizarre spat that has erupted between the Carlson program and Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell. Except to comment that I found Tucker’s insistence that Powell provide all her evidence of election fraud to his program only a week after the Trump Campaign team began their investigations to be somewhat incongruous, given his past history of continuous reporting as events develop. It seemed so out of character for Carlson to say what he did; whereas I found Powell’s response (on the Maria Bartiromo program) to be quite believable and rational: “Apparently Mr. Carlson missed the news conference today. I would continue to encourage him and all journalists to review all the materials we have provided so far and conduct their own investigations. Evidence continues to pour in, but a 5 minute television hit is not my focus now. Collecting evidence and preparing the case are my top priorities.” She added that she did not get angry as Carlson stated (it is apparent that it was not Carlson personally who contacted her, but rather a lower-level Fox staffer, who in turn reported the “anger” incident back to Carlson).

For a nation that has been forced to experience the fabricated Steele Dossier, the Russia Hoax, the Impeachment Charade, the Ukrainian Caper, the political use of our Intel agencies, not to mention all the other blatant (and not so blatant) attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election (which the Deep State apparatchiks consider to have been a fluke—they didn’t do enough to prevent outsider Trump from winning)—and each time with only partial data developing over time, why this insistence that everything be laid out on the table only a few days after the election?

Powell made it explicit in her detailed news conference this past Thursday, November 19, that she and the other Trump attorneys, including Jenna Ellis, Lin Wood, and Rudy Giuliani, were constrained by an incredibly immense and constantly mounting amount of evidence, and that they were attempting to piece it all together in coherent form to present judicially in a matter of only a couple of weeks (due to various certification deadlines)—a task that under the most favorable conditions would probably take many months. That’s not the kind of presentation that can be made easily, even on the Tucker Carlson Program.

Let me add: I watched the Powell-Ellis-Giuliani presser. Indeed, they did promise a lot…a very high bar to meet legally and in the courtroom of public opinion. And even with what they might gather in the few weeks or days they have, it still might not meet judicial muster, not in so short a space of time, not without a numerous investigative staff doing full-time research and sleuthing. After all, the Mueller Investigation (which spent tens of millions of dollars of tax payer dollars) took from May 2017 until March 2019 and came up with up with literally nothing despite the best efforts of thirty Democrat attorneys and their staffs laboring like worker ants.

There is incredible pressure, not just from the Left and the Democrats, but now from Republicans “to be done with this” (e.g, Marc Thiessen on Fox) to get on to a “peaceful” transition back into the arms of the Deep State…for “the sake of our democracy.”

But unlike some—think here of the recently-installed Biden-is-president-you-can’t-dissent template at Fox—I don’t have faith in the American election process, I don’t have that unquestioning faith that this election was just hunky-dory. Maybe fifty years ago, maybe when I was a boy growing up in old-fashioned North Carolina, maybe in the small town where I spent my youth. But not now…too much has happened.

And what has come out thus far…the data that I have seen…the brief outline and analyses…all of that, again, all of that, points in one direction. Yes, Sidney Powell isn’t going to get on the boob tube and reveal her entire case—no self-respecting attorney would do that in a similar situation. Indeed, Trump attorneys have already been physically threatened by Deep State agents, to the point that police protection has been granted. Given the momentous nature of this process, is that any wonder? If the managerial elites are capable of what they have consistently done (just the portion we know about) during the past few years, are they not equally capable of far more if they understand their potential return to power thwarted by some dedicated investigative attorneys who haven’t “gotten the memo” and “drunk the cool aid”?

Think about it.

If we can suffer through what has occurred over the past four years and the growing realization that there is in fact an immense Deep State with its tentacles stretching out everywhere, that our nation is, in spite of what happened in November 2016 and the popular MAGA rebellion against the advancing control of every aspect of our lives: if we can experience that and the realization of what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once wrote (in his novel, Coningsby, 1844)—“For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”—if we have begun to actually comprehend that, then the position of Powell, Ellis, Lin Wood, and Rudy Giuliani is entirely reasonable and extremely urgent.

Certainly, absolutely, what the Trump attorneys are saying is earth-shaking, perhaps the most significant event of modern American history. But given our recent history, all the accumulated and unimaginable skullduggery, and the obvious collapse of anything resembling “democracy,” why is it not something we can legitimately envision?

Of course, like Tucker Carlson—and millions of Trump supporters and deeply troubled Americans—I want to know more, I want to see all the damning evidence. I believe in my heart-of-hearts that indeed there is that evidence and that, if ever revealed, it might change the election result and the direction of this country. But the nature of this situation, of this crisis, requires of us some patience; time and deadlines are not on our side.

Well-known cultural critic and author Roger Kimball sums up what many of us feel these days, using an illustration from Roman history. Like us all he is impatient, but also cognizant that so much is at stake and that Powell and company have their very livelihoods and reputations in the history books riding on what they produce:  “I really do not know what is going to happen,” he writes. “The clock is ticking, loudly. Sometimes it seems that Trump would need a miracle akin to the ‘miracle of the lightning’ or the ‘miracle of the rain’ that saved Marcus Aurelius and his generals in their battles against revolting German tribes in the early 170s AD…they were about to succumb when [they were] snatched…from ignominious defeat. Those dei ex machina were stunning, unpredictable, salvific.  Can Donald Trump count on something similar? No. Could it nonetheless happen? You betcha.”  


I’ve collected literally dozens of articles and items on this election, too many to send out all at once…including several concerning the very strange and highly suspicious actions of the disappearing executives of Dominion Voting Systems, whose machines were used in as many as thirty states and are easily programmable and hackable. But I’ve selected three today, which I urge you to read and ponder. They address the sheer improbability, given what we know, of a Biden victory.

First, I pass on a short analytical piece by Nick Chase in The American Thinker (November 12). Once again I quote Disraeli, who once said (also attributed to Mark Twain), “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Chase’s article is just one of many delving into the stupefying statistical improbability of what happened on November 3 and subsequently.

Examining the code, internet geeks conclude 'Trump's win was yuuuge'   November 12, 2020

By Nick Chase

Around 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 4, when I went to bed, Trump was leading in the vote count in two Midwest swing states I was closely watching, Wisconsin — about 2%, and Michigan — about 3%, well on his way to an "unexpected" election victory nationwide.

Around 4:30 A.M., I woke early and decided to catch up on the election results on my iPhone, being careful not to wake my wife.  Imagine my surprise to see that, overnight, Trump's lead had shrunk to less than 1% in Wisconsin and about 1.5% in Michigan.  But what really startled me was that Biden's raw vote total had increased substantially in both states, and Trump's raw vote total had not changed at all!

That is an enormous red flag for fraud being committed, and I knew right away that the Democrats, who had failed at dislodging Trump from office by impeachment, were now going to deny him victory by stealing the election.  Further confirmation came when I saw the pictures and video of mystery bags and boxes being dragged into Detroit's TCF Center at 4 A.M., followed by the windows in the room being boarded up and by the ejection of Republican poll-watchers.

Well, the election theft appears to be complete, with the corrupt media declaring Biden president-elect, and lefties dancing in the streets (unmasked!) with joy.

So I asked myself, by how much did Trump actually win this election if the fraudulent votes are not included?

Fortunately, the internet geeks have been busy massaging the election data for statistical anomalies, and today (Nov. 11), I got my answer (partly) from information posted via The Gateway Pundit by blogger "PedeInspector" (whom I will refer to as "Pede").

Perhaps you saw the video of a network Election Night broadcast made by a person (not identified), also posted on The Gateway Pundit, which showed a sudden switch of votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania the night of Nov. 3.  I took two screen shots from that video.  Before the switch: [access the above link to see these screen shots]

After: [access the link]

You can see that, almost instantly, 19,958 votes were stolen from Trump, and 19,958 votes were added to Biden's total.  The timestamp on the video (not shown in my pictures) is 10:23 P.M. (CST).

Well, this video also intrigued "Pede," and he (or she) went to work.  Pennsylvania uses Dominion voting systems, which forward their data to Edison Research, which then Javascript-encodes it and sends it on to the New York Times and the networks.  So "Pede" downloaded the Edison data for Pennsylvania from the New York Times at this address and analyzed it to locate all similar vote switches, as well as for votes that just went missing.  (Although I've given you the link, I wouldn't bother opening it, because it's just a big pile of Javascript code that's incomprehensible to the naked eye unless you know your Javascript.)  In the Javascript code, "Pede" located the specific code that changed the voting percentages for Trump and Biden:

Even if you're not a computer programmer, you can still see that the code changed the percentages shown in my pictures from Trump 56.6%, Biden 42.0% to Trump 56.0%, Biden 42.6%.  (The code that caused the switch of 19,958 votes is buried elsewhere in the Javascript code.  The "votes" shown are total votes cast, including for minor parties, and are not useful information here.)  The timestamp on these events is Nov. 4, 4:07 A.M. GMT (10:07 P.M. CST Nov. 3) and Nov. 4, 4:08 A.M. GMT (10:08 P.M. CST Nov. 3).  The 15-minute gap before this switch showed up on the TV is likely due to a delay in updating the Pennsylvania info at the network.

Now, I know nothing about "Pede," but as you can see, the vote switch was shown on TV, and "Pede" located that percentage switch in the code, which means that "Pede" is working with real data and has the skills needed to identify the code and expose the anomalies.  My experience has been that geeky internet bloggers are a hell of a lot more honest than most any politician, and I think we can safely proceed on the assumption that the research "Pede" has done is offered in good faith.  (The only clue to "Pede's" identity is that "Pede" refers to the events as "Nr. 187" and "Nr. 188", using the European abbreviation for "number" instead of the American "No." which suggests that "Pede" was born or educated overseas.)

As "Pede" puts it, "I made a script to run through the data and gather all instances where votes switched from Trump to Biden.  'Lost Votes' means that the total amount of votes counted decreased by that amount throughout the counting."

Here are the results "Pede" found for the swing states:

Pennsylvania: Switched, 220,883; Lost Votes, 941,248

Florida: Switched, 21,422; Lost Votes, 456

Michigan: Switched, 20,213; Lost Votes, 21,882

Georgia: Switched, 17,407; Lost Votes, 33,574

Wisconsin: Switched, 2,078; Lost Votes, 3,408

North Carolina: Switched, 0; Lost Votes, 15


Arizona: Switched, 4,492; Lost Votes, 0

Minnesota: Switched, 2,766; Lost Votes, 195,650

Colorado: Switched, 1,809; Lost Votes, 0

Nevada: Switched, 0 Lost Votes, 0

Remember, these numbers are for electronic fraud, above and beyond the paper-ballot fraud also committed and which is slowly being uncovered and documented.

Here's what I think happened:

The crooked Democrats actually believed their own propaganda — that Biden would win easily or that, at worst, it would be a tight race.  So they created enough fraudulent paper ballots to be inserted into the counting to overcome any worst-case situation for them, which would be a "squeaker" Trump win.  But Trump still led in the upper Midwest, even with the paper-ballot fraud, so they had to switch or destroy enough votes electronically to give Biden a "squeaker" win.

But as the votes were being counted on Election Night, it was quickly clear that Trump had a blowout win in Pennsylvania, far more than could be fraudulently papered over, so electronic fraud there went into overdrive, allowing it to be easily detected.  (Although "lost votes" apply to the total vote count, forgive me if I suspect that most of them are Trump votes being thrown away.)

As of midnight on Nov. 11, the candidates' vote totals, corrected for "Pede"-detected vote switches, are as follows:

Pennsylvania: Trump 3,550,163; Biden 3,159,698.  Trump wins (55.5% to 44.5%).

Michigan: Trump 2,668,046; Biden 2,774,61.

Georgia: Trump 2,475,263; Biden 2,454,538.  Trump wins (50.5% to 49.5%).

Nick Chase is a retired but still very active writer, editor, and webmaster and records classical music concerts for radio broadcast.  You can read more of his work on the American Thinker website and at


A second example from probability and statistical analysis: On Newsmax TV noted pundit, journalist and author Steve Cortes offered the following analogy—It is highly improbable that a baseball pitcher will pitch a perfect game in the World Series. To achieve a perfect game, a team must not allow any opposing player to reach base by any means, including hitswalkshit batsmenuncaught third strikescatcher's or fielder's interference, or fielding errors; in short, "27 up, 27 down" (for a nine-inning game). There has been only one perfect game in World Series history (Don Larsen in 1956, New York Yankees over the Brooklyn Dodgers).  For Biden to have won the election would be like a team winning four straight perfect games in the World Series. That, is so many words, stretches all credulity.

STEVE CORTES: The Statistical Case Against Biden’s Win

Statistics continue to cast real doubt on the probability of a President Trump loss in the election. The statistical case is, admittedly, circumstantial rather than conclusive.  But the numbers also firmly point to the intense improbability of the accuracy of the present Biden lead. The statistical case provides more than enough reasonable suspicion to require hand recounts and immediate investigation into fraudulent activities, including the new damning revelations of on-the-record whistleblowers.

There are four key elements to the numerical thesis:


Clearly, high turnout was expected in an intensely political year with vastly expanded access to mail-in voting. But the kinds of numbers reported simply defy reasonable expectations.

For Wisconsin overall, the turnout was above 90% of registered voters. Even in a state with same-day registration, such a number seems implausible. After all, in Australia, a place where voting is mandatory, and failing to vote is punishable with stiff fines, the total turnout for the most recent election was still only 92%.

Even more importantly, looking within the Wisconsin vote, the decisive locale for Biden was, unsurprisingly, Milwaukee. Wisconsin’s largest city reported an 84% turnout to secure a 145,916 vote lead there for Biden.

Consider a comparison to another very similar Midwestern city, Cleveland, OH. Milwaukee has a population of 590,000, 67% of them minorities. Cleveland has 381,000 people with 60% of them minorities. But Milwaukee’s 84% turnout dwarfs Cleveland’s more believable 51% turnout rate. Like many of the suspect statistical trends evident from last Tuesday, the abnormal factors favoring Biden seem only present in the key swing states that Biden allegedly won.


The breakouts higher for Biden relative to Obama’s performances in key areas simply do not seem credible. Could a candidate as doddering and lazy as Biden really have massively outpaced the vote totals of a politician who boasted rock star appeal?

For example, consider that in key Pennsylvania counties of Chester, Cumberland, and Montgomery, Biden bested the Obama election performances by factors of 1.24-1.43 times. For Montgomery County, Obama won this swing county by 59,000 votes in his 2012 re-election.

But in 2020, Biden won Montgomery County by a whopping 131,000 votes, more than twice the prior Obama margin. Biden’s 2020 total vote in Montgomery is reported at 313,000, crushing Obama’s 233,000 take in 2012 – and population growth does not explain the gains, as the county only grew by 22,000 residents during those eight years.

Such eye-popping outperformance vs. Obama, in just the right places, naturally raises a lot of suspicion.  

3. Biden-Only Ballots

Trump campaign legal counsel Sidney Powell reports that, nationwide, over 450,000 Biden-only ballots were cast, meaning the voter allegedly selected Biden but then neglected down-ballot candidates, including closely-contested Senate and House races.

Again, this phenomenon appears far more prominently in battleground states, raising the alarm for manipulation.

Why would so many people vote Biden–only in battleground Georgia, but not in deeply-red Wyoming, for instance? In the Peach State, President Trump’s vote total almost exactly tracked the vote totals for the Republican senate candidates, separated by merely 818 votes out of 2.43 million votes Trump earned there. But, Joe Biden saw an astounding surplus of 95,801 votes over the Democratic Senate candidates.

By comparison, in Wyoming Biden only registered a surplus “Biden-only” take of just 725 votes over the Democratic Senate candidate there, or about 1/4th his take in in Georgia, on a percentage basis.

The Biden-only ballots do not conclusively prove fraud, but they sure reek of something very amiss.


Democratic governors clamored for massive amounts of mail-in voting, knowing full well that most states would become overwhelmed and wholly unable to establish the validity and legality of almost all the votes that poured in via mail.

In the case of Pennsylvania, Governor Wolf made such changes unilaterally, in stark violation of Pennsylvania law and in contradiction of the clear US Constitutional assignment of voting regulatory authority to state legislatures, not governors. Governor Wolf’s election boards clearly just accepted the ballots… en masse, without appropriate vetting. By their own admission, the scant 0.03% of rejected ballots represents a refusal rate that is just 1/30th the level of 2016 in Pennsylvania.

First-time mail-in voters typically see a rejection rate of about 3% historically, or 100 times the rejection rate of Pennsylvania in 2020.

When neighboring New York state moved to widespread mail-in voting this summer, their election officials rejected 21% of mailed ballots in June, representing a rate 700 times higher than Pennsylvania’s.

This total lack of filtering or controls raises enormous suspicion regarding a seriously-tainted ballot pool in the Keystone State.


The statistical case, in isolation, does not prove fraud. But the confluence of highly unlikely results does, emphatically, paint of picture of utter improbability. Any one of these four factors alone would cast intense doubt upon election results. Put all four together, and the result is a seemingly impossible statistical perfect storm.

To use a sports analogy, it would be a team pitching a perfect game in the World Series. Not one game, nor two…but in all four games to “sweep” via pitching perfection.

Is it possible? Theoretically, sure. Is it probable?  Hell no – and so, we must commence with a vigorous audit as the future of our republic hangs in the balance.


Finally, even more convincingly, journalist and author Al Perrota sums up the actual improbability of a Biden victory. No, it’s not the actual “evidence” that some are demanding…but in every way it points to it and to a fraudulent and stolen election:

It’s Just Coincidence … The Miraculous Circumstances of Joe’s Alleged ‘Win’

By AL PERROTTA Published on November 16, 2020 

I love coincidences! And right now, we are surrounded by so many, we can pick ’em like daisies and make a lovely bouquet. If Joe Biden … the man who thought he was running for the Senate and couldn’t draw flies to a manure factory … actually won, it would be the result of the most amazing run of coincidences in modern world history. 

The Lucky Coincidences of Dominion and Friends

Sure, it is mere coincidence that the president of Smartmatic, the subsidiary of Dominion Voting Systems, the software and hardware responsible for tabulating ballots in swing states and beyond, is now part of the Biden transition team.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that Smartmatic’s chairman is a pal and business associate of George Soros.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that Smartmatic’s software has a long history of being used in dubious elections worldwide. 

Sure, it’s a coincidence the same media that used to report on the issues with Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems are suddenly silent about their own past reporting. 

Sure, it is a coincidence that the top security guy at Dominion is an Antifa guy who allegedly told an Antifa chat room in September, “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”

Sure, it is a coincidence that so many Democratic-controlled states choose Dominion Election Systems to tabulate their ballots despite security flaws so egregious the Associated Press and election security experts were shouting about it from the rooftops.

Sure, it is a coincidence that Dominion’s lobbyists include Pelosi’s former chief of staff and a top aide to Georgia’s Gov. Brian Kemp.

Sure, it is a coincidence that Georgia announced it was halting counting for four hours because of “a pipe burst” … when, in fact, they lied about a minor leak fixed in 90 minutes.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that Dominion has ties to the Clinton Foundation and George Soros.

Sure, it is a coincidence that the six states that suddenly and inexplicably stopped counting were the six swing states where Trump had built a massive lead. All about the same time.

Sure, it is a coincidence these six states all had the Dominion Voting System.

The Coincidence of Joe of Winning Big Exactly Where He Needed to Win

Sure, it’s a coincidence that Joe Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton in four and only four major cities … and all four just happened to be in four swing states that stopped the count and had masses of votes for Biden pop up out of nowhere, and saw Biden score numbers and percentages Obama and Clinton could only dream of. Indeed, the vote totals in these place often exceeded the number of registered voters.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that Donald Trump won 19 of the 20 counties that have picked the winner of every single presidential election since Reagan by an average of 16, but Biden pulled off the win.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that state races were quickly called for Biden and not called for Trump. 

Sure, it is a coincidence Biden managed to add countless votes overnight right after witnesses swear (under penalty of law) they saw wagons and coolers and crates of ballots role in ballot centers … in swing state cities where Biden was running further behind than expected.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that the rejection rate for mail-in ballots dropped by a factor of 30 in Pennsylvania

Sure, it’s a coincidence that, according to Sidney Powell, nearly half a million ballots were cast with only Joe Biden’s name marked and nothing down ballot. 

Other Glorious Coincidences

Sure, it’s just a coincidence USBs and election laptops were stolen in both Philadelphia and Georgia in the days before the election.

Sure, it is a coincidence that Pfizer waited until after the election to announce its vaccine success … and that the president of Joe Biden’s cancer charity is a former Pfizer executive.

Sure, it’s a coincidence that the only tweets that Twitter is blocking or flagging are ones that deviate from the “Biden Won” narrative. 

Sure, it’s a coincidence that analysts or websites that question the narrative are being kicked off social media and/or de-platformed.

What are the Odds?

What are the odds of all of these coincidences and oddities occurring in this election? All in Biden’s favor? What is more reasonable to believe? These are all amazing coincidences or not coincidence at all? What is the more reasonable explanation: 

Joe Biden won crucial swing states fair and square — despite getting blown away in bellweather Ohio and Florida, despite being down by hundreds of thousands of votes until the mysterious shutdowns in counting, despite Trump outperforming Biden campaign’s own expectations, despite underperforming Hillary Clinton everywhere else in the country, despite not campaigning, despite having no ground game, despite having zero enthusiasm, despite losing support among minorities, despite pushing policies at odds with the desires of the public, despite aligning himself with BLM and Antifa. And despite having trouble executing a coherent sentence.


Joe Biden was given a “victory” in those crucial swing cities — via the assistance of election hardware and software notoriously susceptible to fraud and manipulation, owned and operated by people with alliances to Biden and the Democrats and hell-bent on getting Trump out; via Democratic (and corrupt) machines in Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta hell-bent on winning, taking advantage of a dubious “mail-in ballot” scheme and last minute voting procedure changes via cities where workers were caught dragging crates of ballots, creating Biden votes out of thin air, and refused to allow Republicans to watch the counting of mail-in ballots; via postal workers told to backdate late ballots; via workers illegally tossed voting envelopes, where signature matching was greatly reduced or tossed out all-together. 

We are being ordered to ignore common sense, public data, election history, Biden’s history and our own eyes. Just concede defeat and accept the beating. (Literally, in the case of Trump supporters at the hands of Biden’s BLM and Antifa Brigades.) What are the odds of the American people letting that happen?

A Trip to Vegas

We leave you with this. If there is one city on the planet that knows odds and knows corruption it’s Las Vegas. Conservative commentator Wayne Root happens to be a former odds-maker and gaming expert. He notes some extremely peculiar betting behavior Election Night and into the next day. Read how he and fellow bookies smell a rat

Of course, maybe it’s all coincidence. But I’m not betting on it.  


And neither am I.

Sunday, November 15, 2020


November 15, 2020


MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey


The Future of Fox News and the Future of America


It happened on Saturday morning, November 14, 2020, at around 8:15 EST. I had switched over to briefly catch some national news on the Fox News Channel. All of a sudden I heard—and saw—Pete Hegseth stop in the middle of the sentence he was reading from his teleprompter: “…there weren’t any substantiated cases of voter fraud in the swing states….” And there, as he spoke that line, he interjected: “I’m not sure I agree with that script on the teleprompter.”

Think of it: a major newscaster on a major television news network all of a sudden halting his narrative to publicly declare that he did not accept the party line—that he did not agree with what the news writers had set down authoritatively as gospel for him to say on camera.

And it was one more ominous piece of an unfolding drama—the evolving transformation of Fox—from the network that many conservatives and most Make America Great Again “deplorables” once may have thought was on their side, to something that seemed increasingly like only the slightly right wing of the Washington DC Establishment.

It has been that Establishment all along that many if not most viewers believed Fox was standing against, offering an alternate news and information source to almost complete media control by the Progressivist Left. 

Of course, there are other sources now, and they demand closer exploration. There is Newsmax, as well as One America News. But these televised media are not available everywhere, not like Fox. And until recently they did not command the same clout and widespread following as Fox News. Nor did they have—nor do they have—a fearless Tucker Carlson smashing all records for weekly prime time viewership.

So, settling back in their viewing habits cultivated for years, most MAGA folks watched Fox, even if certain doubts, both politically and culturally, arose over time, especially during the past several years.

There had been signals, alarms, along the way, especially since the later years of the Obama administration that Fox had acceded to a post-Christian morality as its operational model.

Although Fox heralded on camera any number of conservative and traditionalist religious leaders from time to time—a Reverend Franklin Graham, a Pastor Robert Jeffress (First Baptist Church, Dallas), and others—at the same time, since the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision (2015) essentially legislating that same sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and the growing acceptance of homosexuality as normative, Fox accepted that new template without demurrer.  True, there were those on the network who continued to profess traditional belief and standards, but their voices were modulated and not permitted to get out of hand.  

Over a year ago, June 30, 2019, I commented in a published essay: Consider the number of pundits who are involved in same sex unions who now appear regularly on the network and Fox’s apparent de facto acceptance of that assault on an essential belief of Western civilization.”  One can easily think of any number of “married” same sex personalities regularly highlighted by the network: a Guy Benson, for example, and former Director of National Intelligence Rick Grenell, and Tammy Bruce (for a time in such a relationship). And there are others. Not to mention Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA who has embraced (literally) transgendered “conservatives” and drag queens.

Such evolution has not gone unnoticed, nor has a comparison with the early days, pre-Obergefell, of Fox when its pundits seemed to uniformly defend traditional marriage and morality.  Those days are apparently gone, in the name of a new post-Christian template.

But it is not just the progressive acceptance of a new morality. Increasingly, the network seems bent on echoing a progressivist agenda politically and historically, if perhaps not as blatantly or ferociously as its lagging competitors on CNN or MSNBC. Again, in a previously published column I wrote:

“…consider Fox’s canonization of race hustler Martin Luther King Jr. and the disastrous civil rights revolution, and its eagerness to attack older traditions and figures of conservatism, in particular, of the Confederacy, as ‘racists,’ ‘segregationists,’ and ‘reactionaries’. (Remember Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s series on the ‘Civil War’ which could have been—and maybe was—taken right out of Marxist historian Eric Foner’s textbooks?) Or, consider the network’s nearly complete support for globalism and employing American arms (and the lives of American boys) to impose ‘democracy’ (and thus current ‘American values’) on every poor, benighted desert oasis or impenetrable jungle in every God-forsaken corner of the world. I would argue strenuously that this internationalism is, both historically and philosophically, a leftist position and that it stands in direct opposition to traditional American conservatism.”

Those examples can be multiplied exponentially. We need only cite perennial appearances on Fox by recovering Never Trumpers like Ben Shapiro or National Review editor Rich Lowry, not to mention Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes whose all-out globalism and disaccord with America First principles are openly expressed. They are heralded by the network as conservatives—but, in fact, they propound an elitist “(neo)conservatism” deeply infected with progressivist views on everything from America’s imperial destiny to force our form of egalitarian liberal democracy on the rest of the world to a firm adherence to a post-Christian (im)morality.

Even on the more Old Right Tucker Carlson Tonight (and on the Laura Ingraham program), the omnipresent Neoconservative Victor Davis Hanson (whose expertise is in ancient Hellenic  history) shows up with regularity as an expert witness on just about every topic which has anything to do with current politics.

Yes, he is supportive of President Trump, but let’s consider his broader views, his essential historical and philosophical foundation.

Pre-1861 America was “racist,” Hanson strongly implies, and noble figures like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are comparable to Nazis. He is quick to implicitly condemn the old Southern constitutionalists who actually created the American federative republic as slaveholding racists. As the Old South incarnated those principles, well, it is en dehors de civilization! That is, outside civilized society, at least to Neoconservatives such as Hanson, who, like Brian Kilmeade is held in awe by most everyone at Fox.

This same Victor Hanson glorifies General Sherman’s barbaric “March to the Sea” in 1864-1865 as both highly moral and a model of restraint (only a small handful of outrages against civilians, he asserts, and they were entirely justified). And he forcefully scorns and condemns Hollywood’s 1950s portrayal of the old South and Confederacy in film: “Shane,” “The Searchers,” “The Raid,” “Rio Grande,” and much if not all the John Wayne and Randolph Scott corpus is…racist.

How, we must ask, is this view any different substantively from the “woke” position of the revolutionaries and BLM/Antifa activists on the extreme Left? Yet, Hanson is Fox’s “go-to” authority.

The breaking point for many MAGA “deplorables” came with how Fox covered the 2020 presidential election. Not just the always-skewed pro-Biden polling results, but in a sense a realization that indeed something was happening, something disconcerting and very troubling at the network. And that, I suggest, has much to do with the Fox’s general  adherence (with a few notable exceptions) to a globalist Neoconservatism and an unwillingness to actually sever ties to the Washington Establishment, in this case, the Republican and “conservative” elites who have more or less dominated the acceptable “opposition” to the Deep State, but in fact, don’t really want to be left behind as its minions return to full power and march triumphantly and devastatingly through what remains of our inherited institutions.

Perhaps the first major public row or ruckus came with Fox News announcing early on election night, November 3, that with hundreds of thousands of votes outstanding and Trump leading, Joe Biden had carried Arizona. There were immediate protests from viewers and the Trump campaign: how could Fox make such a prediction based on fragmentary returns? How, indeed? For in North Carolina with about 117,000 votes potentially to be counted and Trump leading Biden by around 76,000, Fox and the other networks refused to call the Tar Heel State for Trump, even though Biden would have had to receive at least 97,000 of those remaining votes, more than 83% of the total (assuming all ballots came in and there were no election shenanigans). In the end, North Carolina did go for Trump, and the margin was maintained.

The outrage concerning Arizona was so intense that the network trotted out on election night for a short interview Arnon Mishkin, head of the team running Fox’s Decision Desk. Mishkin is a staunch registered Democrat who has worked as a campaign consultant for Democrats such as Ed Koch, Tom Bradley, and Mike Bloomberg.  As the Jewish Telegraph Agency detailed in its reporting: “Mishkin, 65, would seem an unlikely election analyst for the news network that is closely associated with the Republican Party….The [Arizona] call injected life back into the Biden campaign, which was reeling as it watched tallies in swing states such as Ohio and Florida grow insurmountable Trump leads.”

About Mishkin there is this from the Wikipedia:

“The New York Times published an article about Mishkin a month before the election entitled ‘Trump Wants to Discredit the Election. This Nerd Could Stop Him.’ In the lead up to the election, Mishkin and Dana Blanton were the main voices at Fox News doubting the chances of Trump being re-elected to the Presidency in his contest with Joe Biden. The two were involved in creating the new VoteCast alternative to exit polls, alongside the Associated Press. Mishkin's model has been supported by other pollsters such as Ariel Edwards-Levy of the [far Left] Huffington Post.”

This was the man directing polling at Fox and how it would call the election on November 3. It was not the first time during his tenure at Fox when he generated controversy and disturbing questions. From several years back, "Eric Bolling, former Fox Business host, claim[ed] that Mishkin and his team were highly dismissive of Donald Trump's chances to beat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 United States presidential election.”

Why is such a partisan Democrat like Mishkin in charge of Fox’s election and polling operation?

On November 9, Neil Cavuto interviewed on his program Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. Her appearance was intended to provide details on the ongoing election litigation taking place in Pennsylvania. But abruptly, as McEnany made the case that much of the voting in the Keystone State was illegal, Cavuto declared the interview ended and cut her off: “Whoa, whoa, whoa. I just think we have to be very clear,” Cavuto moaned. “She’s charging the other side as welcoming fraud and illegal voting, unless she has more details to back that up, I can’t in good countenance continue to show you this.” End of story, guillotine for Kayleigh.

Later that day Carlson, in a not-so-veiled response to Cavuto, as well as to the guiding lords at Fox, declared:

“You can’t just cut away from coverage you don’t like. You can’t simply tell people to accept an outcome… because force doesn’t work in a democracy. That’s a dictatorship, Carlson said. “In a free society you have to convince the public of your legitimacy. You have to win them over with reason. Democracy is always a voluntary arrangement. Telling voters to shut up is never enough.” 

Of course, there remain a few highly professional newscasters and pundits at Fox. Britt Hume, Fox’s senior political analyst, appears the most balanced (unlike Chris Wallace, securely tied to the Washington Deep State establishment). And Tucker Carlson continues with his highly rated prime time program.  Carlson, if not always free from network constraints (he still calls on Victor Davis Hanson for opinion), is usually fearless and informed, almost alone in willing to break through the media and tech authoritarian iron curtain which increasingly strangles America and shapes what we think and how we act…and how dodo-brained soccer moms vote.

The pressure on Fox pundits and reporters to accept without too much grumbling a Biden administration will only grow, and like at other supposedly conservative news outlets (e.g., The Wall Street Journal), the new Millennial hires and writers, educated at Leftist hothouses called colleges, may well finally vanquish any dissent.

The Neocons—the slightly more demure wing of Progressivism, broadcasting their message of liberal democratic globalism and post-Christian morality—dominate Fox and have paved the way for what is coming. They have successfully squelched Old Right traditionalist conservative voices, except occasionally on the Carlson program. (Remember his detailed coverage of our horrendous missteps in Syria, his dismantling of the “Russia Hoax,” and his incredible reporting on the Hunter Biden scandal?) But when was the last time you saw an intelligent defender of the Old South and its symbols on Fox (and there are many), or an internationally known Old Right conservative scholar like Dr. Paul Gottfried or Pat Buchanan on the network?

If his ratings were not so high, does anyone doubt that Carlson’s voice, too, would be exiled?

True, there has been a reaction, and it seems that other, smaller conservative media ventures, including online, are gaining. Newsmax TV surpassed Fox Business in viewership the day after the election. And Fox market shares have dipped. Yet, longstanding viewing habits are difficult to change, even if the general drift and flow seems to inevitably carry those glued to the network farther to the Left.

If the Deep State should finally complete its theft of the 2020 election, perhaps Donald Trump should invest his fortune in a genuinely populist traditionalist television network? Of course, he’d have to first divest himself of all of the various subversive Republican and establishment conservative apparatchiks who have surrounded him and undermined his presidency. And fight vigorously Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Government.

A capital idea? Yes; but is it already too late in a decadent and dying America? Is there life yet in the Framer’s dream?

                                                       November 22, 2020   MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey   “A Conspiracy so Immense….?” T...