Now We Know Why the Presidential Election Results in Romania Were Cancelled – The Winning Candidate Threatened US Weapons Pipeline to Ukraine

The Eastern European country of Romania was in shock after the first round of its Presidential elections in late November as independent, rightwing candidate, Călin Georgescu, a Euroskeptic who has called the United Nations ‘satanic’ came out as the big winner.

Almost as shocking was the fact that the Prime Minister, a leftist-globalist-euro-fanatic candidate, whom all opinion polls called the favorite, came in third and was out of the race.

The BBC reported:

“With more than 99% of votes counted, ultranationalist Calin Georgescu has an unassailable lead of nearly 350,000 votes over center-right candidate Elena Lasconi, with Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, the pre-election favorite, in third.

The strong showing of Georgescu, who has no party of his own and campaigned largely on the social media platform TikTok, came as the biggest surprise of the election.”

Following his surprising win on Sunday, Călin Georgescu went out and posted a video glorifying God and condemning the emptiness and godlessness of the globalist elites.

Well, Călin Georgescu’s celebrations did not last long.

Keep reading

Top Ohio Lawmaker Wants To Restrict Marijuana Homegrow Rights And Strengthen THC Potency Caps

Republican lawmakers in Ohio are once again aiming to scale back parts of the state’s voter-approved marijuana legalization law, looking to a proposal from last year that would have decreased allowable THC levels in state-legal cannabis products, reduced the number of plants that adults can grow at home and increased costs for consumers at dispensaries.

Those provisions, backed by Senate President Matt Huffman (R), were added to separate House legislation last year and passed by the Senate. House lawmakers ultimately blocked the Senate changes, however, with some members emphasizing the importance of protecting the will of voters, who passed the legalization law on a 53–47 margin in November 2023.

Come next month, however, Huffman will take over as speaker of the House, having won a seat in last month’s election and subsequently being chosen for the leadership role by colleagues. The move is widely expected to give Huffman new power to push his marijuana proposal forward.

“There were some fundamental flaws in the initiative that was introduced and passed by the voters, which you usually have when there’s not a vetting from all sides,” Huffman told reporters last week about the voter-approved marijuana law. “The bill that the Senate passed last December addresses many of those things.”

Initially, changes backed by Hoffman would have eliminated home cultivation rights entirely for Ohio adults and criminalized all cannabis obtained anywhere other than a state-licensed retailer. Those amendments would have also reduced the marijuana possession limit, raised sales tax on cannabis purchases and diverted funding away from social equity programs and toward law enforcement.

Keep reading

EU Pushes for TikTok Clampdown After Romanian Election Upset

When the EU doesn’t like the outcome of an election or a government in a member country, it alarmingly tends to look for explanations in almost every place, except the one that makes sense – the free, democratic will of the voters.

It’s Romania’s turn. Namely, ahead of the second round of presidential elections in that country, the European Parliament (EP) appears to be going the roundabout way in an attempt to delegitimize the first-round victory of independent candidate Calin Georgescu.

And the roundabout way is what looks like a frontal rhetorical assault on TikTok, which some EP members (MEPs) are accusing of failing to live up to the Digital Services Act (DSA) – EU’s censorship law. Specifically now, where it now concerns the Romanian vote and spread of “disinformation” on an alleged scale capable of influencing the result.

A hearing was organized on Tuesday to put pressure on the social platform’s executives, with corporate media describing the MEP’s behavior as “hostile” and “furious” – while Georgescu is casually referred to as an “ultranationalist.”

The Internal Market Committee hearing came after TikTok was blamed by the European Commission for running algorithms that supposedly “disproportionally” promoted content favorable to Georgescu.

TikTok’s representatives told the panel that they are in fact working hard to censor, aka, moderate content in Romania in particular, a market which is said to have the largest number of moderators.

And, in the run-up to elections, a number of “influence campaigns” had been removed from the platform, they told the MEPs. But that’s not what the MEPs wanted to hear.

Keep reading

Nebraska AG Prepares To Ask Supreme Court To Overturn Voter-Approved Medical Marijuana Measures

The Nebraska Attorney General’s Office filed a second “amended cross-claim” Friday on behalf of Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) in a lawsuit against two successful medical cannabis measures.

The brief formally adds allegations of circulator fraud and widespread malfeasance to Evnen’s complaint. However, Lancaster County District Judge Susan Strong anticipated those arguments already last Tuesday when she dismissed the case and ruled in favor of the ballot sponsors behind Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

The AG’s Office has not formally filed an appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, but Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) told the Nebraska Examiner on Monday that his office was “taking advantage” of court rules that allow a party to formally amend a cross-claim, even after a verdict, to conform to the evidence presented at trial.

“It’s just a post-trial motion,” Hilgers said Monday. “We want to make sure our case is fully prepared for an appeal.”

Keep reading

Why do we only support mob-rule when our mob wins?

The internet and the streets are awash with US Democrat voters moaning about the tyranny they fear will be imposed upon them by Republican voters. As recently highlighted by Larken Rose, their hypocrisy has reached the level of absurdity. If they don’t like mob-rule, why do they keep voting for it?

“Representative democracy” is not democracy. Demokratia is power exercised directly by the people, not a tiny gaggle of oligarch serving toadies who claim to represent the people. “Representative democracy” is just another term for oligarchy.

In a real democracy the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are exclusively formed from or controlled by a random, rotating sortition of the people. The people design legislation, the people enact legislation and, most importantly, the people judge the practical application of statute and precedent law in courts formed and led by randomly selected juries.

In a democracy, the jury is sovereign with the united and annexed power to annul any and all legislation or ruling wherever statute or precedent law is found wanting in a jury-led trials. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary are wholly subservient to the people through trial by jury.

The jury’s only concern is justice. It makes no difference to a democratic jury what the legislature seeks, what the executive deems necessary or what instructions the judiciary tries to assert. Wherever and whenever a human being breaks the written law, but the jury finds them not guilty of any injustice, then the failure lies with the law, as it is written, not with the innocent accused. In such circumstances, any democratic jury can overrule extant statute and precedent in the interest of justice—annulment.

Despite the existence of Common Law jurisdictions, which technically allow juries to annul, on neither side of the Atlantic does anyone live in a democracy. Democracy is not the model of government we allow to persist. Whether we call it a constitutional monarchy, a supranational political union or constitutional federal republic, democracy is exercised nowhere.

Democracy is governance by trial by jury and we don’t need any form of government to establish a democracy. Any other political system, no matter how vociferously its proponents demand we call it a democracy, is not democracy.

Instead of democracy, which demands that we each take full responsibility for every aspect of our society and serve justice, we prefer representative democracy—oligarchy. We take responsibility for nothing and are the willing slaves of oligarchs who we passively allow to rule us unjustly under the guise of government.

Every four of five years we participate in anointment ceremonies we call national elections. We reaffirm our slavery to the will of the oligarchs because we wrongly imagine, by choosing a different oligarch aligned mob, we are exercising some sort of sociopolitical choice. Assuming the election isn’t rigged—and they clearly are from time to time—the full scope of our so-called political choice is to determine which oligarch faction will rule us unjustly for the next few years.

While oligarch gangs vie for supremacy, they all agree on the policy trajectory they want to force us down. In our “representative democracies” we will all submit to Sustainable Development-based global governance—Technocracy; programmable digital currency, in one form or another, is inevitable; digital ID will be enforced somehow, whether we want it or not; the bio-security state and polycrisis state of exception are permanently fixed; construction of the digital gulag will be completed, either by deception or force; the new monetary system, that will be foisted upon us, will accelerate the transfer of wealth—of all kinds—from us to the oligarchs and terrorism, genocide, democide, war, propaganda and deception will remain the oligarch’s favoured tools to instill fear in us as they continue to rule us using the strategy of tension.

We can’t vote harder with any rational expectation of changing any of this. We have been comprehensively deceived and it is about time we recognised it.

None of us have the right to force anyone else to do anything. The only exception is our duty to ensure justice prevails when one among us causes harm or loss to others. While others live in peace and practice justice, our right to control others simply does not exist.

The oligarchs have convinced us we can elect their representative puppets to exercise authority, not just over ourselves, but over everyone else. The resultant governments claim they rule by consent, but it isn’t informed consent and therefore no consent at all. If it were, we would all realise that we cannot devolve to government authoritarian rule that none of us can exert in the first place. We cannot bestow upon government that which we do not possess.

The consent of the governed and the social contract are propagandist’s myths. We have never given our informed consent to be ruled and no one has even seen, let alone signed, any contract whereby they agreed to be ruled. The oligarchs deem that we have consented to their mythical authority and have agreed to their invisible social contract simply by virtue of the fact we were born or live in the jurisdictions they illegitimately claim for themselves.

The oligarch owned legacy media hammers home the illusion of the requisite choice in the run up to every anointment ceremony. They promote the fiction that it is our duty to impose the rule of our preferred mob on the people we don’t agree with.

Our only duty is to live in peace by safeguarding justice. The notion that we can do this by absolving ourselves of all responsibility and handing over all decision making power to a handful of corrupt, self-serving robber-baron sycophants is ludicrous. That, in any event, none of us has any right to do so only emphasises the insanity.

Having realised they have just lost the representative democracy game, what is most remarkable about the Democrat’s angst is their envisaged solution. They are determined to regain representative political power, despite recognising that losing power means they have to accept the diktats of what they consider a tyranny.

Keep reading

Zelensky AGAIN Refuses to Hold Elections as Most Ukrainians Oppose War

Ukrainian ruler Vladimir Zelensky, whose term has ended in May of this year, presented his Internal Resilience Plan in the country’s parliament Tuesday where he again ruled out holding elections. This comes as the wartime leader guides his country toward global nuclear armageddon with a people who largely wish the war to end.

“We all know that the Constitution of Ukraine and the law do not permit elections during wartime, and no one in the world has demanded and does demand this from Ukraine. However, there are some people in Ukraine who may be so ‘hungry’ for [elections] that they want to fight within our state more than for our state. They seek political disputes in the trenches, like in film studios. This is detrimental to Ukraine,” Zelensky said, according to RT on Tuesday. “First, Ukraine needs a just peace, and then Ukrainians will hold fair elections. We must prioritize the common interest over any personal desires.”

Interestingly, a recent poll revealed that a slim majority of Ukrainians wish for the war to end soon.

“A majority of Ukrainians now favor a rapid end to the ongoing conflict with Russia through peace negotiations, according to a recent survey conducted by Gallup,” RT said Tuesday. “In its latest report, on Tuesday, the American pollster reported that 52% of respondents believe Kiev should pursue peace talks to end the war as soon as possible. This marks a substantial rise from 27% in 2023 and just 22% in 2022.”

While the majority that want peace is slim, it still constitutes a major increase since the war began.

“Support for continuing military action until a decisive victory is achieved has been on the decline. In February 2022, 73% of Ukrainians backed continued hostilities. By 2023, that number had fallen to 63%, and it has dropped further, to 38% in 2024. The poll indicates that Ukrainians are reconsidering their positions as the conflict drags on, and their military continues to retreat,” RT said Tuesday.

Ukraine is under martial law until at least February 2025. This has allowed Zelensky to refuse to leave office, outlaw opposition parties, jail politicians and ‘purge’ people deemed disloyal, according to RT.

The highest seat in Ukraine, held by Zelensky, is not operating under its own power however. The West, which has green-lit heavy bombardment of Russia on Sunday, controls the strings of the proverbial marionette, Zelensky.

“Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, who has been described in Western media as “the real power broker” in Kiev, stated that presidential elections would be held immediately after the war ends. According to Verkhovna Rada Chairman Ruslan Stefanchuk, the next presidential elections would take place within 60 days after martial law is lifted,” RT said Tuesday.

Keep reading

Donald Trump Has A Mandate To Implement Nationwide Election Integrity Laws

Donald Trump’s resounding victory over Kamala Harris was historically consequential: it was the first time a Republican presidential candidate carried both the electoral college and popular vote in twenty years.

More than that, however, was the lasting, even generational, impact it will have on our politics for decades to come.

If Donald Trump, who had been target number one of weaponized lawfare like nothing seen in our history, had not won this race, America as we know it would have been destroyed for good.

Now there is at least a chance for restoration — if not a new golden age.

The restoration must begin with rigorous election integrity laws.  President Trump’s popular vote win affords him with a mandate that he did not have (at least officially) in his first term.

The feat is made even more impressive by the certainty that fraud and corruption still impacted the results of this race.

The idea that the President had to win over and above what should be the normal threshold to victory – hence, this year’s mantra, “too big to rig” – must be considered unacceptable moving forward.

It should be a top priority for any first world country, especially the United States, to have confidence in its election procedures.

It is inexcusable that in a democratic society, the people would even harbor the slightest doubt about the integrity of their election laws – and the legitimacy of the outcome.

Alas, the way America runs its elections has become a joke around the world.

The fact that we do not have a national standard to check for citizenship in the form of voter ID is a disgrace and embarrassment.

As many commentators, including Elon Musk, have noted on X and elsewhere, it’s striking that every state without voter ID laws voted for Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, this cycle.

Among other things, Democrats have long opposed voter ID laws for winning elections; in a few cases, they have even advocated for permitting illegal aliens and other undocumented persons to vote in local and state elections.

Keep reading

National Elections Expose the Sham That Is Centralized “Democracy”

The 2024 election is over, and in some states, big majorities voted for the winner Donald Trump. In Wyoming, Trump won 72 percent of the vote. In fact, more than 60 percent of the voting population went for Trump in 13 states.

Fortunately for the majorities in those states, they’ll get the president they voted for.

However, the outcome would have been different if fewer than a million people—in a nation of 330 million—had changed their votes in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan. Then, Kamala Harris would now be the president-elect.

She would have won even though the voters of more than a dozen states had lopsided majorities in favor of Trump.

Moreover, Kamala could have won even though there was far less enthusiasm on her side. That is, only a single state, Massachusetts, had a voting majority of more than 60 percent for Kamala Harris.

Even If You Win, You Lose

We could come up with many similar examples in the past 24 years. In 2012, for example, Mitt Romney won 60 percent or more of the vote in nine states. 72 percent of the voters went for Romney in Utah. But, in the end, those supermajorities meant nothing, and the people of Utah, Oklahoma, Alabama, and several others—who had voted nearly 2 to 1 for Romney—got Barack Obama as president. In 2020, by the way, more than 60 percent of the voters in ten states voted against Joe Biden.

These facts should be remembered the next time that some pundit or politician tries to tell us that democracy is “the voice of the people” or “the will of the majority.” The question that has to be asked is “which majority?” and “which people?”

Indeed, for the people of Utah in 2012 or Massachusetts in 2024, the president that rules over those states was chosen by people who don’t live in those states. Even if 100 percent of the voters in a state vote against a certain candidate, they could still end up with that candidate as president based on the votes of people living somewhere else. Moreover, given that many states don’t have voter ID, it stands to reason that even if a large majority of your state votes for a certain candidate, foreign nationals in some other state may ultimately make the decision for you.

It’s difficult to see how such a method expresses “the will of the majority” when a tiny majority or plurality nationwide so often nullifies overwhelming majorities in a multitude of US states.

Keep reading

No Matter Who Wins, Half the Country Won’t Believe in the Election

Today, in theory, will conclude the 2024 presidential election, one of the most bizarre in American political history. From inner-party coups to assassination attempts, Kamala’s Brat summer social media trend to Trump’s courting of comedian podcasts, the campaign cycle has been saturated with the unconventional. It has, of course, also seen its expected share of shallow, political, rhetorical rhetoric and general economic illiteracy, which are the cornerstones of modern democracy.

The general superficial nature of mainstream political discourse, though, should not distract us from recognizing foundational truths about the state of modern American politics. No matter the outcome, the legitimacy of American democracy is broken.

In 2020, this was in full display, as was the response from Donald Trump and his supporters. Fueled by the unprecedented changes to the election under the shadow of covid, President Trump refused to concede the election. Polls showed the majority of his supporters agreed with him, and from that seed of distrust grew renewed concerns over illegal voters, manipulable voting machines, and rising awareness over the security of vote-by-mail ballots. To this day, large portions of the country continue to believe the Biden administration was illegitimate.

How would Democrats have reacted in the face of a similarly close race resulting in a Trump victory last election? While the counterfactual is impossible to consider in practice, hints were already publicly available before election day 2020. In Biden campaign war games, John Podesta, a long-time Democrat operative, outlined a strategy quite similar to the one Trump embarked on. As reported at the time, this included Democrat-swing state governors being pressured into promoting friendly alternative electors to vote in the electoral college under the guise of reversing Republican “voter suppression” efforts. Unlike the Republican response in 2020, this appeal would have been strengthened by blue-state secession threats should Trump have been inaugurated.

Would Joe Biden have followed through with this strategy if this alternative timeline had played out? We will never know. Nor can we know the potential effectiveness of this strategy, though it is likely such efforts would have been treated quite differently than Trump’s response.

Still, as we look forward, what is clear here is that the willingness for either side to accept, without question, the basic machinery of American politics has broken down significantly. The centralization of power within Washington, which consistently elevates the stakes of national politics, coupled with significant ideological shifts (particularly on the left), and the perceived danger Trump represents to American political institutions, regardless of his demonstrated ability to follow through after 2016, has created a dynamic where the incentives to concede power for the alleged “national good” have all but broken down.

Each side is motivated by a spirit of self-preservation, not politics.

Keep reading