Has a government ever been elected with the full 100% of the votes?

Has a government ever been elected with the full 100% of the votes?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In recent history, many Dictatorships have been elected with unbelievable results. For example Al Sisi in Egypt with 96,6 % of the votes, or Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi in Yemen with 99,8%.

I would like to know whether a government/president has ever been elected with 100% of the votes.

It doesn't matter whether the state is recognized or de facto exists. It doesn't need to be proven that the elections were rigged either, although information about this is welcome. I am looking for elections for the head, government or parliament of an independent state though, so not small political entities within countries where say all 15 inhabitants voted for the same guy.


  • 99.8 percent in Ethiopia.
  • 100 percent, with 99.97 percent turnout in North Korea. The article explains the purpose of the NK elections, which includes accounting for defectors.
  • Then there are cases where unopposed candidates run, even in generally democratic nations. Would you count that?

In any election that is described as "unanimous", the winner achieved 100% of the vote. George Washington was unanimously elected twice (by the electoral college), and remains the only US president to have achieved this.

In 2002, Saddam Hussein claimed to have achieved all 11 million votes in a single-candidate presidential election. Other examples can be found at the same link, which argues that the recent Falkland Islands referendum "would seem to stand as the only example of near national unanimity in a free and fair vote", but was not 100%.


François "Papa Doc" Duvalier was confirmed as president for a further 6 years in the 1961 Haitian presidential referendum with 100% of the vote. The result was largely seen as fraudulent, as was the result of the 1964 referendum that made him president for life in which he "only" got 99.9% of the vote.

In the 1994 Tunisian presidential election Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was elected unopposed with 100% of the valid votes, as was the case in the previous election in 1989. 0.1% of invalid votes were rejected. Similarly, Habib Bourguiba was elected unopposed as president with 100% of the vote in 1959, 1964, 1969 and 1974.


Yes, Saddam Hussein, previously had got circa 98 % of the votes, then in his last election he improved and got 100%. No surprise both elections were rigged.I remember debating that at university and people saying it was their Iraqi culture People can be so fool in the West. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2331951.stm


Kim Jong Un was elected to the legislature with not a single vote against, state media reported:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/10/north-korean-media-say-elections-completed-not-single-vote-cast-against-kim/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-elected-assembly-vote-against


How the U.S. Constitution Has Changed and Expanded Since 1787

The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified by nine of the original 13 states a year later, is the world’s longest-surviving written constitution. But that doesn’t mean it has stayed the same over time.

The Founding Fathers intended the document to be flexible in order to fit the changing needs and circumstances of the country. In the words of Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph, one of the five men tasked with drafting the Constitution, the goal was to “insert essential principles only, lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events.”

Since the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, Congress has passed just 23 additional amendments to the Constitution, and the states have ratified only 17 of them. Beyond that, many changes in the American political and legal system have come through judicial interpretation of existing laws, rather than the addition of new ones by the legislative branch.


How The Only Coup D'Etat In U.S. History Unfolded

A group of white men posed for a news photographer at the fire-damaged offices of a black newspaper in Wilmington, N.C.

Courtesy of the North Carolina Office of Archives & History

Col. Alfred Moore Waddell led the white supremacists who descended on Wilmington's City Hall on Nov. 10, 1898. Library of Congress hide caption

Col. Alfred Moore Waddell led the white supremacists who descended on Wilmington's City Hall on Nov. 10, 1898.

Think of a coup d'etat and images of a far-flung banana republic likely come to mind. So it might come as a surprise that it happened here in the United States — just once, in 1898.

A mob of white supremacists armed with rifles and pistols marched on City Hall in Wilmington, N.C., on Nov. 10 and overthrew the elected local government, forcing both black and white officials to resign and running many out of town. The coup was the culmination of a race riot in which whites torched the offices of a black newspaper and killed a number of black residents. No one is sure how many African-Americans died that day, but some estimates say as many as 90 were killed.

"Some of the elderly African-Americans told my stepfather that the Cape Fear River was running red with blood," Bertha Todd, a teacher, recalls in producer Alan Lipke's documentary series, "Between Civil War and Civil Rights."

Especially chilling was the fact that the insurgency had been carefully planned — a conspiracy by powerful white Democrats.

Southern Democrats lost their grip on power in North Carolina in 1894 and plotted to wrest control from the biracial Republican Party in 1898 elections. They campaigned on a platform of white supremacy and protecting their women from black men.

As the Nov. 8, 1898, vote approached, whites in Wilmington mobilized. They held supremacist rallies and parades and organized militias of "Red Shirts" to intimidate blacks from voting. The statewide election restored Democrats to power, and two days later, the white supremacists descended on Wilmington's City Hall.

Their leader, Col. Alfred Moore Waddell, had publicly threatened in a pre-election speech to "choke the current of the Cape Fear River" with black bodies, according to a 2006 report chronicling the events by the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission. After the coup, Waddell was elected mayor of Wilmington.

North Carolina Democrats began passing a flurry of Jim Crow laws in 1899, and new voting restrictions further disenfranchised blacks through a poll tax and literacy test.

In "Between Civil War and Civil Rights," George Rountree III reads from the memoir of his grandfather, a white civic leader in Wilmington who feared competition from blacks:

"The obvious test for intelligence was reading and writing. It would exclude all those immigrants that were coming into our country, at the rate of a million a year, until they had qualified themselves, and it would exclude a large number of ignorant and stupid Negroes until they had qualified themselves."

But Southerners were careful to give the voting restrictions a veneer of legality, wrote William Everett Henderson, a Wilmington lawyer exiled by the coup. Henderson's great-granddaughter, Lisa Adams, also appears in the documentary series and reads from his papers:


Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Don't forget who you are talking to he is one of those people that believe the government can just print as much money as they want
and that there is no issue if we have a 1 trillion dollar deficit or 5 trillion dollar deficit the government can just print money so there is no issue.

he completely ignores the real life economic consequences of doing this. NO matter what example and economic resource you give him all he can do is repeat himself.

Radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

It doesn't matter, either. Deficits are not harmful to the economy, as long as we can pay the interest without losing the faith of the borrowers.

Besides, the last time we had a surplus, instead of using it to pay down that allegedly disastrous debt, an allegedly fiscal conservative President chose to give the taxpayers a refund. And yet, somehow that didn't destroy our economy. Huh.

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Not much of an issue, no. Depending on how big the actual bill is, it might spark some inflation, and creditors won't be happy. For the most part, it won't cause anywhere near as many problems as defaulting on our debts.

Plus, the size of the debt isn't actually the problem. It's whether we can raise enough money through tax revenues to cover our obligations, which basically means paying the interest and expiring bonds.

I mean, really. We've been hearing the mantra of "debt is bad" since the early 80s, mostly by people who find inventive excuses to cut taxes (mostly to the rich) which -- wait for it -- increases the debt. And yet, our economy hasn't melted down yet. Where's the national economic disaster y'all promised me 30 years ago.

Faithful_servant

You need to understand what a government surplus is it is when the govt. taxes away more money than it spends. And that's it - they don't do anything with that money - that's why it's a surplus. If they spent it all, it would be a balanced budget. The govt. doesn't earn interest on money it "saves." So let's take your claims point by point:

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People - no, higher taxes remove money from the people. A surplus doesn't lower your taxes, it raises them.

I didn't say that it would happen, I said that it would allow it to happen. The logical path to follow would be for a reasonable surplus to be accumulated against future needs and tehn start cutting taxes.

The gov't isn't the only spender in this game.

The economy wouldn't be damaged, it would helped. Your wrong assumption.

All of your arguments are predicated on the idea that gov't spending is the engine for our economy. Currently it has far too much control and that control needs to be broken. We need to move a lot of gov't funded jobs back into the private sector and let it do what it does best. But as most liberals do, you probably think that the private sector is incapable of being an economy's engine and think that the gov't should have that role (your assumptions show pretty clear evidence of that).

It doesn't matter, either. Deficits are not harmful to the economy, as long as we can pay the interest without losing the faith of the borrowers.

JohnfrmClevelan

I didn't say that it would happen, I said that it would allow it to happen. The logical path to follow would be for a reasonable surplus to be accumulated against future needs and tehn start cutting taxes.

The gov't isn't the only spender in this game.

The economy wouldn't be damaged, it would helped. Your wrong assumption.

All of your arguments are predicated on the idea that gov't spending is the engine for our economy. Currently it has far too much control and that control needs to be broken. We need to move a lot of gov't funded jobs back into the private sector and let it do what it does best. But as most liberals do, you probably think that the private sector is incapable of being an economy's engine and think that the gov't should have that role (your assumptions show pretty clear evidence of that).[/QUOTE]

No, my arguments are not predicated on big government spending, although they are a very large and important employer and customer. My arguments are based on the simple truth that government surpluses remove money from the private sector, while government deficits add money to the private sector. It is a simple truth that, I think, people simply miss when they hear the term "surplus." "Surplus" sounds like a good thing, until you stop to think about what it actually means.

And like I said before, the government cannot "save" dollars. A surplus in 2016 does not make them more able to spend in 2017.


3. Dwight Eisenhower’s 𠇊toms for Peace” Speech to the United Nations

President Eisenhower addressing the United Nations concerning the Atom Bomb Plan, 1953. (Credit: Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

What Eisenhower Said: “I feel impelled to speak today in a language that, in a sense, is new. One which I, who have spent so much of my life in the military profession, would have preferred never to use: That new language is the language is the language of atomic warfare𠉪gainst the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace. To the makers of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you, and therefore before the world, its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma. To devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”

Why It Was Important: Eisenhower believed in the political power of nuclear weapons, but in this speech he talks about their dangers. He speaks about the importance of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and proposes that the U.S. and Soviet Union cooperate to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Keep in mind that there were just 1,300 nuclear weapons in the world in 1953 compared with more than seven times that number today.਋ut Eisenhower is also a realist. He understands the importance of nuclear deterrence and he reminds his audience that his proposal comes from a position of American strength, not weakness.

— Todd Sechser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia and Senior Fellow, Miller Center


Sources

DeWitt, Larry, "FAQs Debunking Some Internet Myths MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY" Social Security Administration undated Web page accessed 24 March 2009.

DeWitt, Larry, "Agency History Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office /research Note #12: Taxation of Social Security Benefits" Social Security Administration Web page dated Feb 2001, accessed 24 March 2009.

Jackson, Brooks "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2" FactCheck.org Special Report 14 April 2004.

Jefferson Encyclopedia "Government big enough to supply you . . . (Quotation)" Web site article dated 6 March 2009, accessed 24 March 2009.

Q: Can employers, colleges and universities require COVID-19 vaccinations?


Biden’s Electric Car Delusion

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s election promise to vastly increase electric cars in America makes no sense. It would leave people with unreliable vehicles, huge transportation costs and do nothing to protect the environment.
Beside aiming to ensure “100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified,” The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice makes the following commitments:

    • Biden will work with our nation’s governors and mayors to support the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030.
    • Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles.
    • Biden will work to develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama-Biden Administration put in place.

    A Canadian engineer recently ran the numbers involved in the switchover to electric vehicles (EVs) and concluded that, in order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, the filling station would require six hundred, 50-kilowatt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million. The station would require a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid which would be enough to power 20,000 homes. Unlike home recharging stations, these would be operating at peak usage hours where the rates are the highest.
    Where would all that power come from? As quoted on The Heartland Institute’s Web site, Dr. David Wojick, director of the Climate Change Debate Education Project said,

    “There is almost no excess generating, distribution, or transmission capacity in the United States, or globally for that matter, so a lot of new, expensive power plants and power lines will be needed if EVs are ever to become popular. The EV grid simply does not exist.”

    This means that, without the construction of vast new multi-billion-dollar electrical grids, Biden’s plan is simply a recipe for nationwide brownouts and blackouts and a lot of stranded motorists. No wonder one of the main worries car owners have with respect to EVs is ‘range anxiety.’ You need to plan any EV trip very carefully or you will be calling your friends who still own gasoline-powered cars to pick you up in the middle of nowhere.

    Biden also seems to be ignoring the fact that it can take between 30 minutes and 8 hours to recharge a vehicle, depending on it being empty or just topping off. Charging stations will need lounge areas, holding areas for vehicles completed but waiting for owners to return from shopping or dining and so on. The scope of the plan is staggering.

    As time goes by more owners will also come to understand the problems in charging and recharging EVs in very cold weather. All batteries use electrolytes which are liquids such as acids, bases and salts that conduct electricity by the movement of ions. Hence, battery performance worsens as it gets colder. A typical electrolyte conducts a fourth as much at minus 5 degrees C as it does at 55 C. Little by little EVs, in normal to cold climates, will experience this problem.
    California plans to have over 25 million such vehicles in the not too distant future. In fact, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plans to ban sales of new, gas-powered passenger cars and trucks in California by 2035.
    The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections or the certain increased rates that will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it, of course. Biden’s idea that they can is just another of his politically-correct illusions.
    Also ignored is the direct cost to the consumer of buying EVs. A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative concluded that it will probably be more than a decade before EVs will be price-competitive with fossil fuel-powered cars.
    The main reason for this is the lithium-ion batteries used in EVs, which account for about one-third of the cost of the vehicle, according to the MIT study. Just do the math: lithium-ion battery packs used in EVs cost anywhere from $175 to $300 per kilowatt-hour (KWh). A midrange EV typically has a 60 KWh battery pack. So, taking, say, a battery at the average cost per KWh ($237.5 per KWh), that would cost $14,250 just for the car’s batteries.
    The hope is to get the battery price down to $100 per KWh by 2025. But the MIT study explains that even meeting that price target by 2030 would require material costs to remain constant for the next 10 years while global demand for these batteries is expected to skyrocket. How likely is that, Joe?
    And talk about heavy! Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The lithium-ion battery in your cell phones weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds.
    Biden is apparently also unconcerned that China controls most of the lithium and cobalt needed to produce batteries and they are often produced with child labor and near-slave labor, and with practically no health, safety or environmental safeguards. But then, the Biden family has been heavily invested in China, so perhaps they have a financial stake in this too.
    Joe tells us that he will work to develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama/Biden administration put in place. But the fuel economy standards brought on by the Obama led to lighter weight and less safe vehicles. As we explained in our April 7 th America Out Loud article, “Trump Administration Overturns Unsafe Obama Automobile Standards:”

    “The Obama administration was effectively in partnership with overzealous environmental groups who never cared about public safety or economics. The long-term goal was simply to eliminate the use of fossil fuels at all costs.”

    And Biden says he will go beyond the dangerous Obama-Biden standard.
    And finally, Joe is either naïve or ignorant when it comes to electric vehicle tax credits. As we explained in our America Out Loud January 1, 2020 article, “A Rough Road Ahead For Electric Cars,”

    “Up until now, the EV tax credit was granted on an honor system with no required affidavits to prove the credit was actually earned. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) recently reported that of 239,422 EV tax credits claimed between 2014 and 2018, it identified 16,510 as potentially erroneous. Some are outright frauds others are to second owners who do not qualify or those leasing vehicles who also do not qualify. Worse yet a Congressional Research Service study showed that 80% of all EV tax credits go to households with incomes exceeding $100,000. Truly a wealth redistribution in the wrong direction that liberals should not like.”

    Note: Dr. Lehr, the senior author of this article, discussed how Joe Biden’s energy and climate plan is “sheer insanity” on the Lars Larsen Show on October 23, 2020. You can listen to the 7-minute interview here.


    “The greatest fraud in Israeli history,” Bibi Netanyahu

    The new government has been sworn in with a vote on Sunday 13th June 2021 with the anticipated 61-strong support from the coalition’s eight parties — Yamina (Rightist), New Hope, Yisrael Beytenu, Blue and White, Yesh Atid, Labor, Meretz (Leftist) and Ra’am (Arab).

    The government’s 28 ministers will have the authority to enter their offices and immediately begin working.

    This is the most cobbled Israeli government ever in the last 73 years, whose primary purpose is to remove Bibi Netanyahu from office with the governance of the state being second because its members are comprised from the extreme Right to the extreme Left with Arabs, whose loyalty is for the Muslim Brotherhood, not Israel.

    Netanyahu himself has called the assembling of Bennett’s government “The greatest fraud in Israeli history.”

    Even before the new government has yet to be sworn in, the chief architect of the new coalition, Yair Lapid, has already admitted a massive failure, because the new government will be just as bloated as the old one, and no one laments this fact more than he. “I have failed there,” Lapid said bluntly at a recent meeting. “I can’t defend it. I wanted a small government with a small number of ministers. This is not a good thing.”

    The sheer size and swell of the new unity government — 28 cabinet ministers and six deputy ministers — will make it the third-largest in Israel’s history. Since 2016, Lapid excoriated Bibi for exactly the massive size of government that he will be leading soon.

    As Israel’s governments have grown steadily in size for years, they have become less efficient and more dysfunctional. As the cabinets grew, the number of working parliamentarians left to do the Knesset’s daily work shriveled, rendering Israel’s parliament one of the least effective bodies in the public service.

    It is a proven fact that governments with a large number of ministries function far worse than governments with only a few. The more bloated a government, the more expensive and prone to errors it becomes.

    For years, Israeli leaders started creating ministries for political expediency rather than policy efficiency so that they can get members of the Knesset to join them to keep their government in power. Since each new minister demands that a ministry be established to justify his/her appointment, more and more aimless, needless and costlier ones were created, thus increasing the bureaucracy and reducing efficiency.

    Although Lapid knows all the above – as he has spoken about the dangers of overly large cabinets and overworked MKs often and with passion – he is now discovering to his annoyance and puzzlement, that he has been confusing the cause and the effect because there are researches that actually prove the following paradox: Smaller parliaments require larger governments.

    When comparing Israel’s population (9 million) with similar ones such as Austria (9 million), Switzerland (8.5 million) shows that it has one of the smallest parliaments in the democratic world of (120) seats compared with Austria (244) and Switzerland (246). Therefore, Israel should have at least 200 seats to function efficiently.

    Because of such a small number of parliamentarians, Israeli members of the Knesset must do the impossible while serving in four or more committees simultaneously. It is physically and mentally unrealistic to keep track of multiple issues and cast numerous votes in a parliamentary workday on bills and regulatory decisions they scarcely have time to absorb as well as meet with constituents.

    The last 73 years have repeatedly proven that Israel’s parliament is too small, thus making each MK very powerful its cabinets are too large and unwieldy, thus making its public service too reliant on politically undesirable pressure groups.

    Another lesson from history is: “When there is a Will There is a Way.”

    There is a very obvious solution to all the above intricacies: The decision by the Israeli politicians to increase the Knesset membership to at least 200 or even more, thus reducing the workload of parliamentarians by half while doubling efficiency.

    Before such a cosmic event happens, how long will the new government – whose publicly declared sole purpose has been, to remove one of the most talented and successful Prime Ministers in Israel’s history – be able to function, considering how divergent the points of view of the eight parties holding it together with cello-tape?

    Personally, I dare to forecast two to six months, if not less. If and when this will happen, Israel will have to go for another election, and most probably, Bibi will again be elected Prime Minister with a good majority.


    The 'Most Transparent Administration In History' Sets New Record In Denying Freedom Of Information Requests

    The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

    All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

    The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

    In a year of intense public interest over the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, the government cited national security to withhold information a record 8,496 times — a 57 percent increase over a year earlier and more than double Obama's first year, when it cited that reason 3,658 times. The Defense Department, including the NSA, and the CIA accounted for nearly all those. The Agriculture Department's Farm Service Agency cited national security six times, the Environmental Protection Agency did twice and the National Park Service once.

    And five years after Obama directed agencies to less frequently invoke a "deliberative process" exception to withhold materials describing decision-making behind the scenes, the government did it anyway, a record 81,752 times.

    Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

    Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites &mdash especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

    While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise &mdash and every little bit helps. Thank you.


    The American People Will Cancel the Democrats in 2022

    If the Democrats actually try to do all the nonsensical and, indeed, dangerous things they appear committed to doing, like country-wide mask enforcement and COVID shutdowns, bowing to the wishes of the Communist Party of China, trillions of taxpayer dollars wasted on climate change and so-called green energy, killing fossil fuels, open borders, amnesty for millions of illegals, etc.—then there will be little the Republicans need do to bring about the Dems’ complete collapse in the 2022 midterm elections. The American people will do it for them, leaving Biden/Harris unable to continue their radical agenda until 2024 when they will be canceled themselves.

    It is also entirely possible that Biden/Harris will do little of what they promised the extreme elements of the party and those entities will, of course, go berserk, with their allies launching another ‘summer of love’ in which leftists burn down neighborhoods across America. Indeed, the Squad plus newcomers, Ocasio-Cortez et al, could very well be Joe Biden’s worst nightmare when they realize how little of their radical agenda will actually be enabled.

    In “America Today & The Light At The End Of The Tunnel,” our column last week on America Out Loud, we explained that there is a silver lining to the dark storm cloud that is the Democrat takeover of Congress and the presidency. Indeed, there is reason to believe that in their first two years they will do far more damage to their own party and its followers than they could actually accomplish against the entire country. The expression, in use since at least 15th century England, is:

    “Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.”

    Witness what is happened to the Liberals in Canada. While railing against former conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper for what the Liberals regarded as inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets, after finally winning the government, now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals have exactly the same targets, to the disgust of climate activists. Also, despite Trudeau’s virtue signaling on climate change, he now supports the Keystone XL pipeline. Indeed, in his post-election phone call with Biden, the first foreign leader to speak with the president-elect after Nov 3rd, the importance of having energy cooperation between our two countries was emphasized. Keystone XL is, of course, an extremely important part of that cooperation. Canceling it will, according to Gregory R. Wrightstone, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition:

    • halt 830,000 bbls/day of crude from Alberta to Nebraska
    • require about 4,500 tanker trucks per day to replace
    • kill jobs on both sides of the border (it is a $9 billion project led by TC Energy (old TransCanada))
    • harm Canadian/US relations
    • harm US energy security which could lead to more “Wars for Oil”
    • do virtually nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2.

    On Monday, Alberta Premier Jason Kenny explained the implications further at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-HVVpE1u1g&feature=emb_logo. Here is an excerpt:

    “We cannot imagine the circumstance where the United States would effectively choose to benefit OPEC dictatorships that have spread conflict undermining global security rather than partnering with its closest democratic-ally, Canada. Now the government of Canada has said that the top priority in the bilateral relationship is Keystone XL and I understand Prime Minister Trudeau expressed that to President-elect Biden on their call on November 9th of last year in which the statement was issued indicating that they agreed to engage on issues such as energy environment including Keystone XL. It is our fervent hope that the incoming U.S. Administration will keep that commitment to engage with the top ally of the United States, with Canada.”

    Even uber-liberal Trudeau seems to finally understand at least some of all this. Ocasio-Cortez et al are unlikely to ever fully appreciate the implications of their proposals, but, assuming Biden actually survives very far into his four-year term, he is likely to also realize the impracticality of canceling such important energy projects with free nations.

    It was reported that Biden will indeed cancel XL because he thinks he needs an early win on climate to assuage the environmentalist on his team.

    Yet Whitestone explained that a reduction of 100% of America’s emissions would only reduce 0.04 degree C by 2050. Even John Kerry admitted in 2016 that anything the U.S. does will have essentially no effect on the climate because China, India, and Africa will offset whatever we do.

    We will now use public feedback from last week’s article to expand on our premise that America faces only a temporary setback due to the election steal by Biden’s bunch.

    President Donald Trump will be sorely missed by many patriotic Americans, of course, but other conservatives will be ready to fill his shoes provided we can get the election frauds corrected in time for the next elections. We hope that this perspective will help lift the pessimism felt right now by conservatives across the land and to rejuvenate the optimism needed to continue to fight more effectively on behalf of our country.

    One reader suggested that this election does not mean the Democrats will have it all their way to conduct a full trial of their terrible socialist ideas. The House and Senate are in fact in a near state of deadlock and one or both may begin to slide right as the 2022 mid-term elections approach, even before draconian legislative action can be enabled. Many readers believed that Biden will be unable to hold his position for more than two years, at which point he will be 80, leaving vice-president-elect Kamala Harris to replace him. Harris will likely be completely ineffective for the final 24 months of their term, having zero experience, public support, or leadership skills, accelerating the party’s collapse.

    We wrote last week that the nation was split down the middle politically and was taken to task on that view. Critics felt strongly that no more than 15% of the country were “woke” liberals trying to take down the country established by our founders. More believed that as many as 70% of us are broadly supportive of a populist/libertarian brand of politics which Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, has long called “center-right”.

    President Trump was cruising to an easy re-election victory before the China virus derailed our country with a fake pandemic, fake race riots, and then rampant election fraud ending his ability to win four more years. A fair election should have found that Trump won a majority of the popular vote by a few percentage points.

    We were also fairly criticized for saying that Trump may have deepened the political divide in the nation when in fact he was healing old wounds that Obama had reopened. Fixing the judiciary, ending foreign entanglements, confronting political correctness and social media censorship, expanding school choice, and trying to end global warming hysteria all worked to help alleviate, rather than deepen, divisions among Americans.

    The appearance of ‘deep division,’ we were told, was and clearly is because Trump isolated and ridiculed the radical left and they fought back by weaponizing every situation they had captured in the past three decades. This included public schools, colleges, and the many unelected government officials working against him.

    Our biggest and most pressing obstacle is fixing the election laws that made possible vote harvesting, no-excuse absentee voting, no signature checks, and unsecured election computers. That is admittedly a big ‘ask’ but is what all fair-minded citizens from across the political spectrum should focus on right now. Indeed, if Biden is really serious about healing the deep rift between left and right in America, then he must appoint a neutral commission to properly study the claims of election fraud. Only if it is demonstrated in an open and transparent fashion that the election was not rigged for Joe, is there any chance that the 40% of Americans who think the election was dishonest will be satisfied. Alternatively, if the claims of election fraud are shown to be justified, which we believe would be the case, then Biden must lead the process of bulletproofing our election process against future fraud.

    24 months, even 48, with a gridlocked House and Senate are not really enough time to descend into the pessimistic political chaos we warned of last week. Most of us will not notice a big change in our taxes or the regulations that protect our communities. In the short term, our critics feel it will mostly be just political theater. They are probably right, and this has made us even more optimistic than we were last week.

    So, we now even more firmly predict that the blazes that marked the trail for our ancestors will shine brightly to lead us back. America will get through these latest challenges and continue to be the land of the free and home of the brave.