Sidney Powell: A Welcomed Showdown with Dominion Voting Systems - Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

Sidney Powell: A Welcomed Showdown with Dominion Voting Systems

Sidney Powell will present a thorough legal case and, just maybe, the stolen election will become obvious.

Published

on

Bombshell statements made in November by attorney Sidney Powell rocked conservatives’ views about what occurred in the 2020 election. Then, suddenly, the Trump legal team seemingly distanced itself from her.

Powell claimed to have had evidence about certain governors who have engaged with China in pay-for-play schemes. These governors, some of them Republican, are well aware that significant election fraud occurred in their respective states. They didn’t wish to have Biden’s ‘election’ overturned, knowing that as the truth emerged, a GOP attorney general would indict them, whereas the new Democrat attorney general will bury the issues.

So Young, So Talented

Sidney Powell was accepted into University of North Carolina School of Law at only age 19. She earned a Juris Doctor degree and then became the youngest Assistant United States Attorney. She’s had a distinguished legal career and currently represents General Mike Flynn.

I learned about her in 2014. Quail Ridge Books in Raleigh, North Carolina offered many guest lectures by authors. On June 16th, the guest lecturer that evening was Sidney Powell. She was to discuss her newly published book, Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.

Not familiar with the book? It has received 89% five-star ratings, and another 7% four-star ratings on Amazon.com, which is darn near impossible to do for a political book. No matter how accurate and meticulously researched, such books invariably attract numerous naysayers.

Here was an attorney with a sterling reputation, who had delineated the gross and voluminous crimes of Obama and Holder. Plus, she had an eye for detail befitting of an American bald eagle. The effects of Barack Obama’s vast measures to weaponize federal agencies are still being felt today.

On Target

Sidney Powell began her lecture, in her composed and stately way, with her deep North Carolina accent. And we were in for a revelation. An obvious introvert, she had no problem eloquently stating the facts, and she had startling facts, by the boatload. Licensed to Lie was rich in detail, pinpointing exactly how and where Obama’s Department of Justice had gone rogue.

She discussed with precision how the Department of Justice persecuted and prosecuted Americans, time after time. The agency’s conviction rate was on the order of 93%, or 14 out of 15 cases. In countless instances, DoJ lawyers pursuing cases did not have sufficient evidence or even legal grounds.

Repeatedly, these government attorneys intimidated defendants to the point where they confessed to ‘process’ crimes, much like what the special prosecutors under Robert Mueller did to many of Donald Trump’s associates. If no real crimes existed, DoJ attorneys pushed for prosecution in one way or another, HUNDREDS of times. Conviction represents career bonus points for eager DoJ attorneys.

Aha, the Word is Out

Somebody in the audience asked her if she had been concerned for her safety while writing this book, and having it published. She said the greatest risk was before it was published. That’s when the Department of Justice jackals would have stopped her if they were going to do so. Once Licensed to Lie was published, well… the word is out.

One couldn’t help but admire her resolve. You could tell that she was a scholar, a researcher, and a writer, who was dedicated to the truth. Since advocating for Trump’s re-election, predictably, the panoply of Leftist media did all that they could do to tarnish her reputation, destroy her credibility, and besmirch her character.

The media machine stalwarts from The New York Times on down portrayed Sidney Powell’s assertions as ‘unsubstantiated’ claims about election fraud. They even accused her of intentionally spreading conspiracy theories. Alas, she had the goods but no court would take the case. Among other things, she likely is now preparing to engage in the lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems.

“During a Washington, D.C. press conference, a Georgia political rally, and a media blitz, Powell falsely claimed that Dominion had rigged the election, that Dominion was created in Venezuela to rig elections for Hugo Chávez, and that Dominion bribed Georgia officials for a no-bid contract,” the company said.

Staying on Course

Personally, I trust her insights and her capabilities. When ready, she will present a thorough legal case. The Left will be up in arms. What’s new? Maybe, just maybe, the stolen election will become more obvious to more people.

Jeff Davidson is "The Work-Life Balance Expert®" and the premier thought leader on work-life balance, integration, and harmony. Jeff speaks to organizations that seek to enhance their overall productivity by improving the effectiveness of their people. Visit www.BreathingSpace.com



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



News

How To Win The Minimum Wage Argument

Published

on

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC) has been a strong advocate for an increase in the federal minimum wage. In 2019, while referencing the minimum wage for tipped workers, she was quoted as saying “Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job, it’s indentured servitude.” In so much as indentured servitude is a contract between two individuals, she may be right. In her apples to oranges comparison, she leaves out that fact that a skilled server or a bartender can easily walk down the street and look for an opportunity to earn a wage increase. Your average indentured servant was far more reliant on their landowner / “employer” for many of the necessities of life and often would have to travel hundreds of miles by foot to find a better opportunity. So, while AOC’s rhetoric may make for a catchy quote, her comparison is completely wrong.

Free market advocates and conservatives may find themselves in a tough political position in addressing the minimum wage argument. Who wants to be the person who is against giving the struggling server and single parent a “minimum wage increase?” Typical arguments against a minimum wage have been all rooted in facts and logic and the data is clear: after decades upon decades of implementation, minimum wage laws are a price floor that create unemployment. Further, these laws put people (particularly the young and minorities) at a serious disadvantage usually delaying their entry into the work force where they could be learning new skills and climbing the economic ladder.

Unfortunately, these traditional, fact- based arguments based on free market principles have not had the results that free market proponents would hope for. In fact, a 2019 Pew Research poll showed that 67% of Americans support an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. AOC’s catchy rhetoric, while devoid of economic logic, appears to be winning the day.

So how can we, as free market advocates, change the narrative and win this argument? We must change our approach and go on the offensive. The very term “increase the minimum wage” is a statement of strategic offense. As proponents of not having a minimum wage we often too quickly take the bait and reply with what I will call a “defensive statement” such as “but is creates unemployment” or “small businesses can’t afford that.” Any fan of sports knows that, while defense is crucial, you must have some offense to win.

When we find ourselves in a position to argue “against the minimum wage” we must think offensively and argue for freedom. One tactic is to use what is called the Ransberger Pivot technique. Invented in 1982 by a man named Ray Ransberger, it is a communication technique that we can use to disarm our intellectual opponent. It would go something like this:
“I agree with you, that servers in the food industry should be making a lot more money. In fact, I think you will agree with me, that even more people at this skill level should have opportunities to get jobs in this industry. If the government requires employers to pay $15.00 an hour, what happens to the person who really, really wants a job and they are willing to do the job for $14.00 an hour? What if this person watched the movie Cocktail with Tom Cruise and it has always been her dream to be a bartender, and no one is hiring because $15.00 is just too high a price to be able to afford to bring on another bartender? What if this person says, “I just want to get my foot in the door, I just want a chance, I will for work $13.00 an hour, I will do it for $10.00 an hour, please!” Shouldn’t this person be free to offer their labor at this price without interference from the government?”

Let us break down this hypothetical passage above: In using the Ransberger pivot we are first seeking to let our friend on the left know that we might just have the same goal by saying right away: “I agree with you” next we insert a small hypnotic suggestion “I think you will agree with me…” again we are telling this person it is time to “agree.” From here, we will gently change the trajectory and the frame of the conversation and pivot to our own strategic offense. Now it is time for our opponent to go on the defensive. Make them defend keeping a young and eager person out of the work force. Make them defend the idea of government restrictions preventing someone from pursuing their dream of becoming the next “Cocktail superstar.” Keep using the same pattern and formula throughout the conversation: Agree, pivot to offense, insert new fact and logic, put them on the defensive.

We might next say: “Did you know that when someone is mandated to pay $15.00 an hour that they also have to pay additional legally mandated fringe benefits like Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance? This can add up to 30 percent. So really, the employer is required to pay over $20 an hour and our aspiring bartender, she is willing to do the job for $14. The employer is impressed with this young person and sees her passion and enthusiasm and he really would like to mentor her and have her on his team. Unfortunately, he just cannot afford over $20.00 an hour because he recently used his profits and upgraded all his light bulbs to LED to help fight climate change. How is it fair that he cannot give this person an opportunity because of the government?

In these two short examples, we are taking the traditional, fact based, and logical arguments against the minimum wage and we are re-framing them into an emotional story and we are asking our opponent to defend the idea of keeping this enthusiastic young person out of the work force. From here, our battle is only half finished. Getting our opponent on the defensive is a key first step, but now we should offer solutions to the original problem: the idea that servers and bartenders do not make enough money. At this point we can point out the research showing that most people in the work force already make more than the minimum wage. We might share facts that show that in a free market meritocracy, very productive people will either earn a raise or take the skills they have learned to a new employer who will pay them more or they will take their skills, start a new business, and employ others. The sky is truly the limit for everyone so long as the government is not overly regulatory.

In an age of hyper partisanship and at a time when free-market principals seem to be rarely if ever defended by most of our politicians, we need to have strategies that can effectively articulate the benefits of freedom. With soaring federal deficits, runaway spending, and a feeling that an economic crisis is lying in wait we would be wise to remember Ronald Reagan’s famous words: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” We need to take every opportunity to craft our arguments for freedom in that spirit.

 

Continue Reading

Business

Former RNC Digital Director Talks How to Fight Back Against Online Assault on Democracy

Cyrus Krohn is the Author of Bombarded! How to Fight Back Against Online Assault on Democracy

Published

on

Cyrus Krohn has been a cutting-edge communicator, digital innovator and new media executive for over 20 years. Krohn is currently Senior Vice President of Business Development at Civic Science, Inc. He advises businesses including Democracy Live, a voting technology company and Element Data, Inc., focused on decision intelligence software. He managed acquisition of the Cheezburger Network, one of the world’s largest digital media companies focused on humor and entertainment, to Literally Media. Prior to Cheezburger, Krohn co-founded Crowdverb and sold the start-up to WPP, the world’s largest communication services group. Krohn has worked as a senior director and executive producer at technology companies including Microsoft and Yahoo. Watch as Cyrus discusses his new book, Bombarded!, with PolitiCrossing Founder, Chris Widener.

In 2013, Krohn was named one of the Top 50 digital political strategists in the United States. Krohn served as director of digital strategy for the Republican National Committee’s eCampaign Division. He joined the RNC following two years at Yahoo! as director of content production and election strategy. Krohn worked under well-known Hollywood media executive Lloyd Braun at Yahoo! Media Group in Santa Monica, California, creating original programming.

Prior to Yahoo!, Krohn spent ten years at Microsoft. He was Slate Magazine’s first employee and then publisher while the webzine was owned by Microsoft. While publisher, Slate reached profitability and won a National Magazine Award for General Excellence Online. He is editor of the Slate Diaries, published by Public Affairs Books. Krohn also managed the political advertising effort for MSN.com, the Microsoft Network and was executive producer at MSN Video.

Krohn worked in CNN’s Washington, D.C. bureau producing Larry King Live and Crossfire and served as an intern in the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB) and White House for Vice President Dan Quayle. Krohn served as president of the Washington State News Council, an independent, nonprofit, statewide organization whose members share a common belief that fair, accurate and balanced news media are vital to our democracy.

Krohn graduated from Lynchburg College and served on the Board of Advisors of the George Washington University Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet and the E-Voter Institute. He has lectured on the impact the Internet is having on the political process at the 2013 Personal Democracy Forum, University of Michigan Knight-Wallace Fellows, Johns Hopkins University, American University, George Washington University, Georgetown University, University of Pennsylvania, The Aspen Institute, Harvard and MIT.

Continue Reading

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend