---

U.S. ELECTION: So-Called "Voice of America" Apparently Is Not Anything of the Sort, As Inflammatory "VOA" News Subverts Efforts to Assure Integrity of Troubled Election; "VOA" Screaming Headline False Pro-Biden Propaganda Declaring GSA "Ascertains" Biden the Winner

(Steve Welsh - SCW 11.23.20) With a screaming giant headline, so-called "Voice of America," which appears not to be any such thing, declared falsely that a U.S. agency "ascertains" that extreme leftist challenger Joe Biden is the "winner" of the troubled 2020 Presidential Election.

The reality was that, apparently acting upon broader direction from President Donald Trump, the General Services Administration, an entity largely focused on nonpartisan, administrative, logistical matters, decided that it would be cooperative with a hypothetical transition on a somwhat contingent basis. Even the inflammatory article, in its content, merely tried to cherry-pick a quote where a GSA figure indicated that Biden was an "apparent winner," qualifying the statement to make it sound more contingent or pending.

Even worse, "VOA's" reposting of the somewhat anti-American, propagandistic article by the left-leaning so-called "Associated Press" uses the inflammatory term "subvert" to describe U.S. legal processes, and U.S. electoral processes, undertaken by, or urged by, the campaign of the incumbent President of the United States to ensure that election processes are more lawful and accurate. Said the AP article reused by "VOA:"

"An official said [GSA] administrator Emily Murphy made the determination after Trump’s efforts to subvert the vote failed across battleground states, most recently in Michigan, which certified Biden's victory Monday."

Now, what is the likelihood that a U.S. government official would have referred to efforts by a President of the United States to verify, audit or recount election numbers as an effort to "subvert the vote." What is the likelihood that a U.S. government official paid to uphold and defend the Constitution would refer to lawful U.S. government legal procedures as something that subverts a democratic process.

The AP article, reused by "VOA" goes on to devote a substantial portion of the inflammatory article to citing, or repeating rhetoric from, third-party attacks on the President of the United States, some of them insulting, coming the President "anti-democratic" for making efforts to safeguard and enhance the fairness and accuracy of an election.

To make matters worse, "VOA" adds a sidebar where they declare themselves to be a "news organization" (on the taxpayer's "dime," of course) and to cast themselves in the voice of a patronizing schoolteacher instructing the reader on what it means to "call" an election, in the process of promoting leftist Joe Biden as the would-be "winner."

Even Trump opponents seem forced to admit that Trump got more votes than any candidate prior to 2020, approaching 74 million, compared with less than 66 million for Hillary Rodham Clinton, and roughly 63 million for Trump himself, in 2016. The only way that Biden numbers could be hyperinflated to surpass Trump, and also Biden a cushion, was to imply a total number of votes in 2020, adding in alternative candidates, representing more than 100% of total registered voters from just two years ago in 2018. The overall numbers themselves are so cartoonish as to imply presumed fraud, on their face, regardless of whether immediately available evidence would suffice to specifically prosecute, and criminally convict, any particular individual.

The world already knows that AP has been a troubled organization that, at one time, adopted pro-abortion rhetorical jargon in its grammar manual. So the world already knows that AP has lacked integrity and has been anti-American, just from their abuse of the abortion issue alone. What could be more anti-American than trying to sugar-coat, and implicitly play down or condone, something that kills millions of Americans? At one time, an AP article even tried to refer to a baby as a "fetus outside the womb."

Yet if "VOA" personnel themselves are going to undertake such subversive efforts to subvert the fulfillment of Voice of America's actual mission, what does that say about their integrity and usefulness, and what should it say about their future employment status?

If some VOA personnel think that American legal procedures are subversive, or that a President of the United States seeking to restore integrity to an election is subversive, clearly they are a "voice" for "America." Also clear, they are less than competent as purveyors of information and less than professional, or even less than adult, as would-be journalists or editors, as the case may be. It even might be argued that any such personnel acted fraudulently when they agreed to take money and serve as a pro-American information service for the people of the United States.

This kind of offensive, public embarrassment undoubtedly would have a "chilling effect" on whether professionals and other loyal Americans of high quality would be willing to immerse themselves in the apparently troubled "VOA" environment, or to remain there. Unless the problems can be sorted out and remedied, with some kind of clarity, the best course likely would be for the public to avoid and deprecate so-called "VOA," start cutting their funding, and avoid hiring their personnel unless there is a way to sort out the problem personnel from others.

Key Words: Voice of America, 2020 Election, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Election Fraud, Rigged Elections, GSA, Emily Murphy