Possibly. I think that Kari Lake, if she beats the fraud and becomes governor, could be the first person to actually cause election fraud criminals to face justice. If that happens, it could cause a domino effect, with Republican politicians in other states finally stepping up to do something (due to a combination of pressure from their constituents and a newfound bravery due to the precedent having been set).
Allegedly. I have long suspected that she possibly didn't really have an abortion but wanted people to think that she did. I explained why in more detail here:
It's a reference to Michelle Williams' 2020 Golden Globes speech. Here's more detail:
I'm skeptical that Michelle Williams actually had an abortion. She actually didn't go so far as to actually admit to having had one. The wording of her speech was very odd, to the point of being suspicious. I'm wondering if she worded her speech carefully to give off the impression that she was admitting to an abortion when she really wasn't.
Here's part of her speech with two parts highlighted:
"I'm grateful for the acknowledgement of the choices I've made and I'm also grateful to have lived in a moment in our society where choice exists, because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice. I've tried my very best to live a life of my own making, not just a series of events that happened to me but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over, sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I carved with my own hand.
I wouldn't have been able to do this without employing a woman's right to choose. To choose when to have my children, and with whom. When I felt supported and able to balance our lives knowing as all mothers know that the scales must and will tip towards our children. Now, I know my choices might look different than yours" But thank God or whomever you pray to that we live in a country founded on the principle that I am free to live by my faith and you are free to live by yours.
Now, notice that she first said "I wouldn't have been able to do this without employing a woman's right to choose", then paused for a moment and qualified it by adding "To choose when to have my children, and with whom." Here, all she outright states is that she couldn't have made it to where she has in her career without "employing her right" to be able to choose when and with whom to have her children. She doesn't state how she "employed" her ability to make this choice. Contraception? Abortion? Both? She deliberately doesn't say. When she paused for a second after saying "a woman's right to choose" (a phrase obviously associated with abortion in most people's minds), then added the qualifier "To choose when to have my children, and with whom.", it felt almost as if she was saying "Psych!"
Then she stated "I know my choices might look different than yours". So they "might" look different. So maybe they also might not? And who are the "you" she is referring to? "Might" her choices look different from those of women who chose not to have abortions? Or to those who choose to have them? Again, her wording is deliberately vague. Vague enough that I'm too suspicious to take the speech at face value.
Also keep in mind that at the time she made that speech, she had signed onto the Amazon movie "This is Jane", which was about the real life group the Jane Collective, who illegally helped women access abortions in the 1960s. Her speech may have been connected to the movie. (As far as I can tell, the movie got scrapped later on.)
If one is wondering why she would imply that she had an abortion if she really didn't, there is historical precedent. In 1971, 343 French women (including celebrities like Catherine Deneuve) signed a manifesto stating that they had obtained illegal abortions. This manifesto was intended to sway public opinion in favor of abortion and lead to its legalization in France. It worked. Years later, some of the women admitted that they had lied when signing the paper because they thought it was the noble thing to do, and had in fact never had any abortions.
Also, as explained in the video linked below, it appears that Chrissy Teigen recently falsely claimed to have had an abortion in order to gain clout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-3xco_3qdU
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Michelle Williams did more or less the same, but a little more cleverly by wording her statement carefully to avoid truly admitting to having had an abortion in order to technically avoid lying.
Katie Hobbs' twin sister spilled the reason for that to a project Veritas reporter.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6godloo/project-veritas-katie-hobbs-twin/c/
When I saw that they were pausing the counting for the night with Katie Hobbs in the lead, the thought crossed my mind that Kari Lake's actual lead might be too big for them to steal away with fake ballots, so they want to make everyone go to bed thinking Hobbs is the winner, then wake up to find that Lake "stole" the election. Basically, subject their Democrat voter base to the shock that we all felt when President Trump's lead was stolen away in the middle of the night.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Kanye West/Harley Pasternak/Kyrie Irving situation is a psyop in order to cause "The Noticing" to trend on Twitter (conveniently right after Elon Musk took it over) to paint us all as anti-Semitic and free speech on Twitter as dangerous.
It doesn't work like that. A lunar calendar doesn't mean that every major lunar event is a holiday; just that time is calculated according to the Moon rather than the Sun. The last one of the Fall Hebrew Holidays of this year (Sukkot) has already happened, and Hanukkah isn't until December.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators"
That quote is frequently passed around, but has never been successfully traced back to anything that Solzhenitsyn is documented to have written. It's almost certainly fake. On the other hand, he verifiably did write the following in chapter 14 of his book "200 Years Together":
"The closer it got to to October coup and the more apparent the Bolshevik threat, the wider this realization spread among Jews, leading them to oppose Bolshevism. It was taking root even among socialist parties and during the October coup many Jewish socialists were actively against it. Yet they were debilitated by their socialist views and their opposition was limited by negotiations and newspaper articles – until the Bolsheviks shut down those newspapers.
It is necessary to state explicitly that the October coup was not carried by Jews (though it was under the general command of Trotsky and with energetic actions of young Grigory Chudnovsky during the arrest of Provisional Government and the massacre of the defenders of the Winter Palace). Broadly speaking, the common rebuke, that the 170-million-people could not be pushed into Bolshevism by a small Jewish minority, is justified. Indeed, we had ourselves sealed our fate in 1917, through our foolishness from February to October-December.
The October coup proved a devastating lot for Russia. Yet the state of affairs even before it promised little good to the people. We had already lost responsible statesmanship and the events of 1917 had proved it in excess. The best Russia could expect was an inept, feeble, and disorderly pseudo-democracy, unable to rely on enough citizens with developed legal consciousness and economic independence.
After October fights in Moscow, representatives of the Bund and Poale-Zion had taken part in the peace negotiations – not in alliance with the Junkers or the Bolsheviks — but as a third independent party. There were many Jews among Junkers of the Engineers School who defended the Winter Palace on October 25: in the memoirs of Sinegub, a palace defender, Jewish names appear regularly; I personally knew one such engineer from my prison experience. And during the Odessa City Duma elections the Jewish block had opposed the Bolsheviks and won, though only marginally."
In chapter 15, he downright criticized attempts to absolve Russians of all blame for the October Revolution and to put the blame solely on Jews. In fact, the dubious "you must understand..." quote reads an awful lot like someone took some of his words from the portion of chapter 15 quoted below and twisted his words to mean the opposite of what he intended:
"This theme—the Jews alongside the Bolsheviks—is not new, far from it. How many pages already written on the subject! The one who wants to demonstrate that the revolution was “anything but Russian”, “foreign by nature”, invokes Jewish surnames and pseudonyms, thus claiming to exonerate the Russians from all responsibility in the revolution of seventeen. As for the Jewish authors, those who denied the Jews’ share in the revolution as well as those who have always recognised it, all agree that these Jews were not Jews by spirit, they were renegades.
We also agree on that. We must judge people for their spirit. Yes, they were renegades.
But the Russian leaders of the Bolshevik Party were also not Russians by the spirit; they were very anti‐Russian, and certainly anti‐Orthodox. With them, the great Russian culture, reduced to a doctrine and to political calculations, was distorted.
The question should be asked in another way, namely: how many scattered renegades should be brought together to form a homogeneous political current? What proportion of nationals? As far as the Russian renegades are concerned, the answer is known: alongside the Bolsheviks there were enormous numbers, an unforgivable number. But for the Jewish renegades, what was, by the enrolment and by the energy deployed, their share in the establishment of Bolshevik power?
Another question concerns the attitude of the nation towards its own renegades. However, the latter was contrasted, ranging from abomination to admiration, from mistrust to adherence. It has manifested itself in the very reactions of the popular masses, whether Russian, Jewish, or Lithuanian, in life itself much more than in the briefings of historians.
And finally: can nations deny their renegades? Is there any sense in this denial? Should a nation remember or not remember them? Can it forget the monster they have begotten? To this question the answer is no doubt: it is necessary to remember. Every people must remember its own renegades, remember them as their own—to that, there is no escape.
And then, deep down, is there an example of renegade more striking than Lenin himself? However, Lenin was Russian, there is no point in denying it. Yes, he loathed, he detested everything that had to do with ancient Russia, all Russian history and a fortiori Orthodoxy. From Russian literature he had retained only Chernyshevsky and Saltykov‐Shchedrin; Turgenev, with his liberal spirit, amused him, and Tolstoy the accuser, too. He never showed the least feeling of affection for anything, not even for the river, the Volga, on whose banks his childhood took place (and did he not instigate a lawsuit against his peasants for damage to his lands?). Moreover: it was he who pitilessly delivered the whole region to the appalling famine of 1921. Yes, all this is true. But it was we, the Russians, who created the climate in which Lenin grew up and filled him with hatred. It is in us that the Orthodox faith has lost its vigour, this faith in which he could have grown instead of declaring it a merciless war. How can one not see in him a renegade? And yet, he is Russian, and we Russians, we answer for him. His ethnic origins are sometimes invoked. Lenin was a mestizo issued from different races: his paternal grandfather, Nikolai Vasilyevich, was of Kalmyk and Chuvash blood, his grandmother, Anna Aleksievna Smirnova, was a Kalmyk, his other grandfather, Israel (Alexander of his name of baptism) Davidovitch Blank, was a Jew, his other grandmother, Anna Iohannovna (Ivanovna) Groschopf, was the daughter of a German and a Swede, Anna Beata Estedt. But that does not change the case. For nothing of this makes it possible to exclude him from the Russian people: we must recognise in him a Russian phenomenon on the one hand, for all the ethnic groups which gave him birth have been implicated in the history of the Russian Empire, and, on the other hand, a Russian phenomenon, the fruit of the country we have built, we Russians, and its social climate—even if he appears to us, because of his spirit always indifferent to Russia, or even completely anti‐Russian, as a phenomenon completely foreign to us. We cannot, in spite of everything, disown him.
What about the Jewish renegades? As we have seen, during the year 1917, there was no particular attraction for the Bolsheviks that manifested among the Jews. But their activism has played its part in the revolutionary upheavals. At the last Congress of the Russian Social‐Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) (London, 1907), which was, it is true, common with the Mensheviks, of 302‒305 delegates, 160 were Jews, more than half—it was promising. Then, after the April 1917 Conference, just after the announcement of the explosive April Theses of Lenin, among the nine members of the new Central Committee were G. Zinoviev, L. Kamenev, Ia. Sverdlov. At the VIth summer Congress of the RKP (b) (the Russian Communist Party of the Bolsheviks, the new name of the RSDLP), eleven members were elected to the Central Committee, including Zinoviev, Sverdlov, Trotsky, Uritsky.[1781] Then, at the “historic meeting” in Karpovka Street, in the apartment of Himmer and Flaksermann, on 10 October 1917, when the decision to launch the Bolshevik coup was taken, among the twelve participants were Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, Uritsky, Sokolnikov. It was there that was elected the first “Politburo” which was to have such a brilliant future, and among its seven members, always the same: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sokolnikov. Which is already a lot. D. S. Pasmanik clearly states: “There is no doubt that the Jewish renegades outnumbered the normal percentage…; they occupied too great a place among the Bolshevik commissioners.”
Of course, all this was happening in the governing spheres of Bolshevism and in no way foreshadowed a mass movement of Jews. Moreover, the Jewish members of the Politburo did not act as a constituted group. Thus Kamenev and Zinoviev were against a hasty coup. The only master of the work, the genius of October’s coup de force, was in fact Trotsky: he did not exaggerate his role in his Lessons of October. This cowardly Lenin, who, he, had been hiding out, made no substantial contribution to the putsch.
Basically, because of his internationalism and following his dispute with the Bund in 1903, Lenin adhered to the opinion that there was not and never would be such a thing as a “Jewish nationality”; that this was a reactionary action which disunited the revolutionary forces. (In agreement with him, Stalin held the Jews for a “paper nation”, and considered their assimilation inevitable.) Lenin therefore saw anti‐Semitism as a manœuvre of capitalism, an easy weapon in the hands of counter‐revolution, something that was not natural. He understood very well, however, what mobilising force the Jewish question represented in the ideological struggle in general. And to exploit, for the good of the revolution, the feeling of bitterness particularly prevalent among the Jews, Lenin was always ready to do so."
Quote from Project Veritas email:
"Project Veritas Action released a new video today exposing a paid staff member of Senator Mark Kelly’s re-election campaign, Evynn Bronson.
Bronson is recorded telling an undercover PVA journalist how to win over votes for Kelly by deceiving Arizona voters on policy issues.
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:
Evynn Bronson, Mark Kelly for Senate campaign, Mission for Arizona Field Organizer: “I would say [to pro-life voters that] Mark Kelly is pro-life, but also pro-keeping the government out of our healthcare. I don’t know, something stupid like that.”
Bronson: “I wouldn’t say [he is] pro-choice…even though he is.”
Bronson: “I’d go to something like, ‘You know, after his wife was in a shooting, he values life so much. It’s just a shame.’”
Bronson: “Absolutely he is not pro-life.”
Bronson: “He [Mark Kelly] has to play both sides. 40% of the people voting are undecided whether or not they’re going to vote Republican or Democrat.”
Bronson: “He [Mark Kelly] is not going to say anything outright about what he’s going to do unless it will garner support from independents and some of the moderate Republicans.”
Arizona voters will choose their next Senator in early November -- in the contest between the incumbent Democrat candidate, Mark Kelly, and Republican candidate, Blake Masters.
Abortion has been a top issue in this race and in several other key races across the country.
At the time of this publication, Project Veritas Action has not heard back from the Kelly campaign on a request for comment."
She seemed initially shocked, then seemed to grasp the reasoning behind it and to think that it was a good idea. While Hobbs' sister said that Democrats have a better chance of winning against the "extremist" candidates than against moderate Republicans, she nodded as if in agreement.
One theory is that they want to wait until the weekend to declare Kari Lake the winner so she can't have a primetime victory speech on television.