Wednesday, December 30, 2020
ANOTHER HOLE PLUGGED BY TRUMP
TRUMP PLUGS ANOTHER (CLICK HERE >>>) HOLE ... COULD IT BE HE HAS PISSED OFF A LOT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS USING SIMILAR METHODS FOR PAYMENTS FROM FOREIGN POWERS
Tuesday, December 29, 2020
EXCUSE ME WHILE I THROW UP ... ANOTHER CITY OFF THE LIST!!!
Boston Removes Statue of Lincoln That Celebrated Emancipating Slaves — Because He Was White
Boston has removed a statue of Abraham Lincoln that celebrated the emancipation of slaves — simply because he was white.
The statue, called The Emancipation Memorial, featured a freed slave kneeling before Lincoln. It is a copy of the statue in Washington, DC, which Frederick Douglass spoke at the dedication of in 1876.
The bronze statue features an inscription that reads, “a race set free and the country at peace. Lincoln rests from his labors.”
The Boston Arts Commission voted to remove the statue in July, because people are offended that a black man would kneel before a white man. It was removed on Tuesday morning.
“After engaging in a public process, it’s clear that residents and visitors to Boston have been uncomfortable with this statue, and its reductive representation of the Black man’s role in the abolitionist movement,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said in the statement at the time.
Democrats have been attempting to have the statue in DC removed as well.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a nonvoting member who represents DC, introduced a bill to remove that one as well.
“The designers of the Emancipation Statue in Lincoln Park in DC didn’t take into account the views of African Americans. It shows,” Norton wrote. “Blacks too fought to end enslavement. That’s why I’m introducing a bill to move this statue to a museum.”
Idiotic Black Lives Matter goons tried to rip it down in July, but failed.
Monday, December 28, 2020
ALL GREAT THINGS ARE SIMPLE BUT NOT SIMPLE
Fitton: Hope for a Failed Election
Clear evidence is being exposed that the 2020 election was fatally compromised. The facts strongly suggest that Donald Trump won the election. But time is running out to set things right, and ensure it doesn’t happen again.
Major conservative and grassroots leaders stand behind a lawful election, I signed with them a statement that pushes back on the propaganda designed to make Americans accept failed elections:
The evidence overwhelmingly shows officials in key battleground states—as the result of a coordinated pressure campaign by Democrats and allied groups—violated the Constitution, state and federal law in changing mail-in voting rules that resulted in unlawful and invalid certifications of Biden victories.
There is no doubt President Donald J. Trump is the lawful winner of the presidential election.
This week the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee opened hearings on the tainted election, taking testimony from election security experts and first-hand witnesses to fraud from contested states. “The fraud happened,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said. “The election in many ways was stolen.”
Dirty voter rolls were and have been a major problem. A September Judicial Watch study revealed there are 1.8 million excess, or ‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states. In contested Fulton county Georgia, there was a voter 109% registration rate – that is, more names on the rolls than eligible voting age citizens. Similar problems were uncovered in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Michigan, among other states.
Rushed through mail-in voting rules negated almost every state voter ID law in which they were used. These rules – most court-ordered – violated the Constitution and allowed illicit votes to be counted, almost entirely to the benefit of Joe Biden. Such last-minute rule changes by courts and executive authorities were the substance of the challenge Texas brought to the Supreme Court, which refused to address the serious constitutional issues raised by Texas.
In fact, most courts, including the Supreme Court, have dodged the substantive matter of the failed elections. Of course, sometimes the mask slips a bit, such as when Wisconsin state Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky went on a rant about challenging 220,000 fraudulent votes being “racism” and “un-American” and how Republican attorneys were supposedly asking the court to “overturn this election so that your king can stay in power.” This is the type of anti-Trump bias that has resulted in courts sounding more like MSNBC pundits than jurists.
When it comes to voter fraud most liberals are simply in denial. Mainstream media outlets routinely call the fraud charges “baseless” regardless of the mountains of evidence. The left believes that they can gaslight Joe Biden into the White House, in the same way they conducted a four-year Russian-sourced disinformation campaign against President Trump. As attorney Jesse Binnall said about the 130,000 unique instances of voter fraud in Nevada, the evidence had “never been refuted, only ignored.”
What next? The Electoral College vote can be challenged under federal law and the United States Constitution. Republican electors in seven contested states cast alternate votes for Donald Trump to keep their legal options open. State legislatures retain their constitutional authority to offer alternative slates of electors. And Congress is the ultimate arbiter of the race since the ballot count can be contested during the joint session on January 6.
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama has pledged to challenge the electors, and must be joined by at least one senator. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly signaled to his caucus not to challenge election results. But Congress should not act as a rubber-stamp to a compromised presidential election.
If Brooks and one Senator object to certain state elector slates, then all bets are off. On January 6, Republicans may control the Senate and have strength in the House. I’ve reviewed the law and political precedent closely and found that the law is confusing and precedent shaky. Combine this uncertainty with the intense outrage of tens of millions of voters who feel disenfranchised and one has the making for a less than certain affirmation of Biden’s “win” by Congress.
Again, just one Senator could step up and begin to change the course of history – and give us a second Trump term.
Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, a nonprofit educational organization and a national leader in the effort to ensure fair and clean elections.
DID TRUMP RAISE OR LOWER THE BARR
How The Barr DOJ Failed
“They’ve been protecting Hillary Clinton, they’ve been protecting Obama, they’ve been protecting the Deep State,” Fitton stated last Friday.
Attorney General Barr’s resignation amidst a contested presidential election dominated last week’s political airwaves. On Friday, Fitton reminded viewers that “AG Barr or at least the Justice Department under AG Barr has been a black hole in terms of responding to Judicial Watch.” As Fitton reported, “they recently went to court to shut down all of our Clinton email investigations, discovery, and FOIA lawsuits – they don’t want us to do anything.”
Fitton believes that the Justice Department has turned a blind eye to scandals surrounding VP Joe Biden, especially material evidence discovered on Hunter Biden’s laptop last year. The scandals, which he has described as “obvious criminal conduct,” were largely set aside by the Department of Justice, according to Fitton. “They [the DOJ] protected Joe Biden and interfered in the election by doing nothing about the Joe Biden scandals.”
Those defending the DOJ’s decision to not investigate the Bidens are, in Fitton’s estimation, misunderstanding the role the Agency plays in investigating corruption surrounding presidential candidates. While it is correct that the DOJ should not investigate candidates in a bid to influence the outcome of an election, Fitton believes that the Agency is doing just that – but in a different way: “this person is running for office and they get a get of jail free card.” Likening the policy to a game of Monopoly, Fitton contrasts this approach with that employed by the DOJ against President Trump, when “they specifically targeted Trump because he was running for office.”
As Fitton concluded, “it doesn’t matter who the next AG is, I don’t expect any difference coming January. We just have to keep doing the work we’re doing. We can’t trust them to investigate Biden, so we’ll do it instead.”
FAUX FOX A CARCUS GIVING WAY TO SOCIAL ENTROPY
TALKING HEADS, SCRIPT READERS, SMARTPHONES AND SMART SPEAKERS AND JEFFERY TOOBINS... NOTHING OF THE SORT - MERE ECHOES OF EMPTINESS IN A DESERT OF MIS-INFORMATION AND QUASI-KNOWLEDGE AS IT BECOMES A PAINTED DESERT OF COMMERICALISM DEVOID OF LIFE!
CAN YOU ID THOSE INVOLVED IN VOTER FRAUD
Georgia Secretary of State Goes After Signature Audit in Every Single County
The drive to coverup the fraud of the 2020 election is still underway in every state and county. The contested states that took the light over the past several weeks are all wishing it would go away.
But the push for the truth continues because people want to know that the election process is fair and secure. And now that there is one state left in the front of everyone’s mind, there is deep concern that the Democrats will try again to prove that they can manipulate elections.
The threat of fraud in the Georgia run-off election is real. Ample warnings have been issued to people trying to vote out of state to influence the outcome. The Democrats miscalculated their totals in Georgia, and now they need to cheat again to control the Senate. But they are being watched to the point that they cannot get their act together.
Secretary of State Brand Raffensperger of Georgia is taking the matter seriously. He first ordered a signature review audit of ballots in Cobb County to ascertain if the allegations floating around were true. And now that the audit is over, he wants to see the entire state audited.
He has ordered the audit of every county in the state of Georgia. Something has gotten Raffensperger’s attention. He maintains that the audit ensures that future elections are secure, but the country helps but sees how it will affect the 2020 election.
The press notification that was released stated that “Secretary Raffensperger has asked researchers at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs to conduct research, including a randomized signature match study of election materials handled at the county level in the November 3 Presidential contest. This work will also include research on processes used at the county level to perform signature-matching.”
The media has played their cards and stated that signature matching could not be done because nothing compares to the signatures. Supposing that to be true, then Georgia has nothing to compare signatures with. The fact is that there are signatures available to be audited, and the media has been lying through its teeth the entire time.
Raffensperger and the Georgia governor have long tried to keep this kind of an audit from taking place. The president urged them weeks ago to get it done, but they dragged their feet until now. Something is eating at their conscience, knowing that evil took them by surprise, and they do not want to admit that they failed to take adequate precautions to protect the Georgian voter.
Now Raffensperger saved face when he mentioned that the election process in Georgia is secure. He stated that he is very “confident that elections in Georgia are secure, reliable, and effective. Despite endless lawsuits and wild allegations from Washington, D.C. pundits, we have seen no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud, though we are investigating all credible reports.”
Raffensperger still has a closed mind about the possibility that, under his watch, massive amounts of fraud took place. He is more concerned about his position and job than doing the right thing.
Something has happened in America that is precisely what the liberals want to see happen. They do not want patriots to stand up and fight for what is right like President Trump has done for the past four years. Because they know that the minute it happens on a large scale that their plans for destroying America are going to fall apart. And they will be branded as traitors.
Rocky Raffensperger stated that the audit will be done by the University of Georgia and will involve “a sample of signed envelopes in each county from the presidential election.” And it “is intended to be forward-looking, helping to inform and optimize election administration for future electoral contests in the State of Georgia.”
Raffensperger knows full well that the only way to prove that the election is secure and safe for future elections is to audit every signature. But he knows that the fraud would be exposed, and he cannot take the risk of losing his job. He is not is willing to do what is right and protect freedom. He is more concerned with his state of affairs.
Sunday, December 27, 2020
PELOSI'S LITTLE RED BOOK HAS ALL THE NAMES
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Thursday, December 10, 2020
SUPREME COURT IS THE LAST STOP ON THE HIGHWAY TO SECESSION
WHOA! WASN'T THIS TRIED ONCE BEFORE ... YUP!!! IT WAS AND OVER 600,000 THOUSAND DIED AND SECESSION FAILED ... OR DID IT?
THAT WAS THEN THIS IS NOW ... WHAT'S DIFFERENT? THERE ARE 74,000,000 MILLION THAT'S WHATS DIFFERENT!
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
NOTHIN' TO SEE HERE MOVE ON ...
Pollster Lists 18 Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling
2020 election is deeply puzzling Are you still scratching your head on the 2020 election results? You’re not alone. Patrick Basham, a pollster with the Democracy Institute, wrote an article for The Spectator U.S., citing some deeply puzzling things about the 2020 presidential election.
Here are a few of the things that Basham found strange. None of these questions prove anything. They don’t mean President Trump won the election, but they don’t mean he didn’t. We also don’t know if these strange facts were purposely created or were a result of the actual vote. What we do know is these questions need answers, and the sources need to be identified.
- President Trump gained 11 million votes in 2020. This was the third-largest rise in support for an incumbent in American history. The left’s Messiah, Barack Obama, was comfortably re-elected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.
- To the chagrin of the NeverTrumpers, Trump received 95% of the GOP vote.
- Trump also did well with Catholics, who cast their ballots for the man with the golden comb-over at a higher rate than they did in 2020.
- Trump did extremely well with White, blue-collar male voters.
- Trump expanded his support among minority voters. He grew his support among Black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Biden’s support dropped below “well below 90 percent” among Black voters, which is normally the threshold for a Democratic candidate to win.
- Trump saw his support in the Hispanic community grow by two-thirds to more than four-in-ten.
- Democrats’ lack of down-ballot support. Victorious presidential challengers, especially challengers, usually have votes supporting down-ballot candidates, but Joe did not.
- The inconsistency in polls and non-polling metrics before the election. Polls have been wrong in recent years, but, despite that, they have an 80 percent accuracy rate. Non-polling metrics include: party registrations, considering the candidates’ primary vote share, candidate enthusiasm, social media following, online searches, number of donors, and the number of people betting on candidates, and those have been 100 percent accurate. But not in this election. They were all wrong.
Also, in his article, Basham cited these 10 things that don’t have a satisfactory explanation.
- Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.
- Statistically, abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
- Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates, and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions.
- The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures.
- Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, “If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election.”
- Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing.
- Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes.
- “Overvotes.” Pennsylvania mailed out 1.8 million ballots, but 2.5 million ballots were returned. In 10 Pennsylvania counties, Biden secured more votes than there were registered Democratic voters. In Nevada, there are 77,982 more votes in the presidential election than total ballots cast; Biden’s current margin is 33,596. Ballots exceeded the number of residents by 2.5 times in some Georgia precincts.
- Serious “chain of custody” breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.
- Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simply a human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
Friday, November 13, 2020
BREAKUP BIG TECH ...
What Is Section 230—And Why Does Trump Want To Change It?
Section 230 is a part of federal legislation passed more than 20 years ago. It runs only 26-words long—short and to the point. But it has had an outsize affect on life as we know it.
They are the “26 words that created the Internet,” says Jeff Kossett, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S Naval Academy and one of the foremost experts on Section 230.
Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter
“Section 230 set the legal framework for the internet that we know today that relies heavily on user content rather than content that companies create. Without Section 230, companies would not be willing to take so many risks,” Kosset says.
President Trump now wants to change Section 230. He signed a new executive order on Thursday that will try to curb how social media sites use the legislation to prevent legal action. “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers it has faced in American history,” he said in the Oval Office.
Here’s what Section 230 is and why Trump’s proposal matters to anyone like you—someone reading these words online.
What does Section 230 say exactly?
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
What does this mean in practice?
It offers a broad shield to tech companies, protecting them from lawsuits over content generated by users on their sites. It gives Twitter and Facebook the right to moderate content but does not give them the responsibility to do so. “Because content is posted on their platforms so rapidly there’s just no way they can possibly police everything,” says Sen. Ron Wyden, who helped create Section 230.
Tech companies are not absolved from everything. They’re still required to police some types of unlawful content, such as child pornography or bootleg movies.
Why was it created?
In the 1990s, Stratton Oakmont, the brokerage founded by Jordan Belfort—yes, the guy who Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed in Wolf of Wall Street—sued an internet service provider, Prodigy Services, for defamation. Someone on a Prodigy-run message board had accused Stratton Oakmont of fraud. The New York State Supreme Court ruled that Prodigy had acted as a publisher and thus was liable for defamation.
This case caught the attention of Wyden, then a Congressman for Oregon, who worked with California Rep. Chris Cox to include Section 230 as a protection for other internet businesses from lawsuits like Stratton Oakmont’s in their Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 was only a small portion of that broader legislation. The Communications Decency Act’s broader purpose was to slow the spread of child pornography on the web.
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision struck down most of the act the following year, ruling it that too greatly restricted free speech. But the court kept Section 230.
“A lot of people will say…that without Section 230, you wouldn’t have had the rise of social media because they would have been sued to oblivion,” says tech ethicist David Ryan Polgar, a Forbes.com contributor.
In essence, the act treats internet businesses “very similar to how we treat the Post Office,” Polgar explains. “There’s misinformation all the time that people are sending through letters, but you don’t blame the Post Office. They’re merely the conduit.”
Is Section 230 only relevant for social media sites?
No. It’s almost impossible to overstate how wide the legislation’s reach is. Twitter and Facebook rely on it. So does Google
Why does Trump want to change Section 230?
Trump and other Republican politicians, including Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley, believe social media sites like Twitter are unfairly biased against conservative speech. Twitter earlier this week appended fact-check warnings to several of the president’s tweets that sought to discredit mail-in ballots. This angered Trump, and he quickly vowed to apply greater regulation to social media sites.
While Trump and conservatives are the law’s loudest critics, it has some liberal detractors too. Its very creator, Wyden, a Democrat who is now a senator, has had some harsh words for tech companies. He envisioned Section 230 as not only a shield but also a sword, empowering them to actively curtail bad content on their sites. He has been disappointed with tech’s lack of interest in moderating itself, warning that if “you don’t use the sword, there are going to be people coming for your shield.”
How does Trump want to change Section 230?
Like many Trump Administration proposals, his idea for altering Section 230 is somewhat unclear. His executive order asks the FTC to step up regulation of social media sites and reconsider whether they should be allowed to broadly protect themselves under Section 230. These are tasks that the FTC seems uneager to do.
Any changes to Section 230 that force sites like Twitter to more actively moderate content could lead them to be more forceful in taking down content and labeling it as inaccurate.
Ironically, this could hurt Trump, who has come to rely on social media to spread his ideas, many of which are either partially or wholly untrue or inaccurate.
In the end, Trump forcing Twitter to change and get tougher on content could lead the platform to impose greater restrictions on the president’s tweets than the ones he complained about in the first place.
“Donald Trump is a big beneficiary of Section 230. If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trump’s lies, defamation and threats,” says Kate Ruane, the ACLU’s senior legislative counsel.
What’s been Twitter’s and Facebook’s response to the president’s actions?
Twitter has declined to comment, though it continued to apply fact check warnings to tweets on Wednesday (none of those messages were from Trump). Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have taken a different tack, continuing to argue that social media shouldn’t offer to fact check at all, an effort to avoid the conservative criticism that could lead to changes to Section 230. Companies like Facebook shouldn’t be expected to act as “arbiter of truth” Zuckerberg told CNBC.
What happens next?
Any Trump executive order will almost certainly face a legal challenge. Regulators, meanwhile, seem unenthused about taking on greater regulation. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel sent this tweet Wednesday morning:
BASEMENT STRATEGY ... FOCUS WAS ALWAYS ON VOTER FRAUD
"It Defies Logic": Scientist Finds Telltale Signs Of Election Fraud After Analyzing Mail-In Ballot Data ... Basement strategy was focused on voter fraud ... keep him sequestered to minimize damage.
A most interesting thread popped up on Twitter Sunday from a data scientist who wishes to remain anonymous, regarding mail-in ballot data which strongly suggests fraud occurred in the wee hours of election night, when several swing states inexplicably stopped reporting vote counts while President Trump maintained a healthy lead over Joe Biden.
Using time series data 'scraped' from the New York Times website, the data - comparing several states (swing and non-swing) - clearly illustrates what fraud does and does not look like, and how several anomalies in swing states left 'fingerprints of fraud' as Biden pulled ahead of President Trump.
Presented below via @APhilosophae:
The following information is provided via an anonymous data scientist and another anonymous individual who wrote a script to scrape the national ballot counting time series data of off the @nytimes website.
— CulturalHusbandry (@APhilosophae) November 9, 2020
Continued...
This is based on their proprietary "Edison" data source which would ordinarily be impossible to access for people outside the press. The CSV is available here. And the script to generate it is here. I suggest that everyone back up both of these files, because this is an extremely important data source, and we can't risk anyone taking it down.
What we are looking at will be time series analysis and you will see that it is extremely difficult to create convincing synthetic times series data. By looking at the times series logs of the ballot counting process for the entire country, we can very easily spot fraud.
One of the first things noticed while exploring the dataset is that there seems to be an obvious pattern in the ratio of new #Biden ballots to new #Trump ballots.
As we can see on this log-log plot, for many of the counting progress updates, we see an almost constant ratio of #Biden to #Trump. It's such a regular pattern that we can actually fit a linear regression model to it with near-perfect accuracy, barring some outliers. How could this be possible? Is this a telltale sign of fraud? Surprisingly, as it will be shown, the answer is no! This is actually expected behavior. Also, we can use this weird pattern in the ballot counting to spot fraud!
Here is the same pattern for Florida. We see this linear pattern again.
And again (Texas)
And again (South Dakota)
And again all over the country. What appears to be happening is that points on the straight line are actually mail-in votes. The reason they're so homogeneous across with respect to the ratio of #Biden vs #Trump votes is that they get randomly shuffled in the mail like a deck of cards. Since the ballots are randomly mixed together during transport, spanning areas occupied by multiple voting demographics, we can expect the ratio of mail-in #Biden ballots to mail-in #Trump ballots will remain relatively constant over time and across different reporting updates.
Let's dig a little deeper into this:
Here is a plot of the same Florida voting data, but this time it's the ratio of #Biden to #Trump ballots, versus time. What we see is that the initial ballot reportings are very noisy and "random".
The initial reporting represents in-person voting. These vote reports have such large variation bc in-person voting happens across different geographic areas that have different political alignments. We can see this same pattern of noisy in-person voting, followed by homogeneous mail-in reporting in almost all cases. What we see in almost all examples across the country is that the ratio of mail-in Dem to Rep ballots is very consistent across time, but with the notable drift from Dem to slightly more Rep.
This slight drift from D to R mail-ins occurs again and again, and is likely due to outlying rural areas having more R votes. These outlying areas take longer to ship their ballots to the polling centers.
Now we're getting into the really good stuff. When we see mail-in ballot counting where there isn't relatively stable ratios of D and R ballots that slightly drift R, we have an anomaly! Anomalies themselves are not necessarily fraud, but they can help us spot fraud more easily.
Now let's look at some anomalies:
This is the Wisconsin vote counting history log. Again, on the Y axis we have the ratio of D to R ballots in reporting batch, and on the X axis we have reporting time. Around 4am there, there is a marked shift in the ratio of D to R mail-in ballots. Based on other posts in this thread, this should not happen. This is an anomaly, and while anomalies are not always fraud, often they may point to fraud.
Around 3am Wisconsin time, a fresh batch of 169k new absentee ballots arrived. They were supposed to stop accepting new ballots, but eh, whatever I guess.
— CulturalHusbandry (@APhilosophae) November 9, 2020
By 4am the D to R ratio was all thrown out of whack. That is because these ballots were not sampled from the real Wisconsin voter population, and they were not randomized in the mail sorting system with the other ballots. They inherently have a different D to R signature than the rest of the ballots quite possibly bc additional ballots were added to the batch, either through backdating or ballot manufacturing or software tampering. This of this being kind of analogous to carbon-14 dating, but for ballot batch authenticity.
Lets look at another anomaly (Pennsylvania):
Here is Pennsylvania's vote counting history. For the first part of the vote counting process, we see the same pattern for mail-in ballots that we've seen in every other state in the country, which is relatively stable D to R ratio that gradually drifts R as more ballots. But then as counting continues, the D to R ratio in mail-in ballots inexplicably begin "increasing". Again, this should not happen, and it is observed almost nowhere else in the country, because all of the ballots are randomly shuffled in the mail system and should be homogeneous during counting. The only exceptions to this are other suspect states that also have anomalies.
Again, this is evidence of ballot backdating, manufacturing of software tampering.
Lets look at another anomaly:
In Georgia we see pretty much the same story as Pennsylvania: increasing fractions of mail-in D ballots over time even though it defies logic and we see this pattern no where else in the country.
In Michigan, we see a combination of Wisconsin strangeness, together with the GA/PA weirdness. We see both signs of contaminated ballot dumping, and ballot ratios drifting toward dems when they should not be.
Virginia:
Now in fairness, VA is the only state out of the 50 that has anomalies but has not had accusations of voter fraud, yet. I think this is the exception that proves the rule. Yet to figure out what causes this anomalous shift, but here it is so no one accuses me of holding it back.
Lets wrap this up: It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud. Bc all of the ballots go through the postal system, they get shuffled like a deck of cards, so we expect reported ballot return to be extremely UNIFORM in terms of D vs R ratio, but to drift slightly towards R over time bc some of those ballots travel farther.This pattern proves fraud and is a verifiable timestamp of when each fraudulent action occurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)