Mark Issler Will Not Call Biden “President”

(I added an article to my recommended articles below — Originally published January 20th)

Rumble — Mark Issler fills in for Dennis Prager and I thought his rant was note worthy. I add some video and a caller. My son is military… Biden is his commander-n-Chief. I am not in the military. I would still take a bullet for Biden because he holds an office and American tradition that needs protection. But my respect. Nope. I am in the Issler corner.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO CONVINCE YOU THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED? (STREAM)

Would Any of This Be Right?

Now, for those fair-minded people who support Biden, may I ask a few questions? Do you believe

  1. It would be wrong for election supervisors to coach workers to correct mail-in ballots for Biden, but not for Trump?
  2. That it would also be wrong for election workers to coach voters to vote for Biden and Democrats, and follow them to the ballot station?
  3. It would be wrong for poll workers to go out to a Biden-Harris van in the middle of the night and fill out ballots?
  4. That it would be likewise wrong for poll workers to fill in the names of people who hadn’t yet voted when a “voter” comes in who is not on the voter rolls?
  5. It’s wrong for poll workers to ignore matching signature requirements?
  6. That it’s wrong for counting centers to keep Republican poll watchers from observing hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots?
  7. It was wrong for Philadelphia Democrats to ignore a court order that demanded poll watchers have their rightful access?
  8. That it’s wrong for a Democratic- controlled ballot-counting center Fulton County, Georgia to tell GOP observers they were done counting for the night … then resume counting the minute the observers left?
  9. It was wrong for Nevada voting officials to fabricate proof of residence data for non-eligible voters?
  10. That it was likewise wrong for postal supervisors in several states to order workers to pre-date late arriving ballots, so it would falsely appear they arrived on time?
  11. It is wrong to cast ballots using the dead?
  12. That it is wrong to count ballots from people ineligible to vote in a particular state?
  13. It is wrong for a state supreme court to ignore state law and the U.S. constitution to change the voting rules right before an election? Rules guaranteed to make the process more susceptible to fraud?

Each of those statements is asserted in 131 sworn affidavits from poll workers, poll watchers and whistleblowers or happened in broad daylight.

So please answer me honestly: How many of these wrongs laid out in lawsuits are you willing to outright dismiss? Doesn’t fairness dictate you at least listen to what these people have to say? How many people must swear under penalty of imprisonment for perjury before you acknowledge the vote tallies are horribly tarnished?

Would Any of This Be Suspicious?

Now, my Biden-supporting (or Trump-hating) friends, can we do a little gut check? Aren’t you a little bit queasy about

  1. Tens of thousands of ballots suddenly appearing from out-of-state with only the presidential race filled out and all filled out for Joe Biden?
  2. Hundreds of thousands of votes popping up overnight election night after the inexplicable halt in counting in some places, 100% for Joe Biden?
  3. Philadelphia, a city notorious for election fraud, absolutely refusing to let Republican observers anywhere near the people handling mail-in ballots?
  4. In several states, piles of Trump votes suddenly getting taken from him, then the same exact number suddenly popping up for Biden?
  5. Dominion, the company behind the election system used in these states, being connected to the Clinton Foundation and George Soros?
  6. Dozens of states accepting Dominion’s system, despite its security weaknesses being so evident that Texas rejected it three times?
  7. The Associated Press reporting just last year that Dominion and its sister companies “had long skimped on security in favor of convenience and operated under a shroud of financial and operational secrecy despite their critical role in elections.”
  8. Lindsay Graham’s report on evidence of a ballot harvesting operation at Pennsylvania nursing homes which could have netted Biden 25,000 votes? (Ballot harvesting is illegal in Pennsylvania.)
  9. Biden vote totals in specific swing cities and nowhere else exceeding Obama’s by up to 40%?
  10. Vote tallies for Biden in Milwaukee exceeding Obama’s 2008 landslide despite Milwaukee having fewer people than it did in 2008? (And despite Donald Trump greatly increasing his share of the minority vote.) 
  11. Joe Biden underperforming Hillary Clinton almost everywhere except in a couple crucial swing state cities and only after counting in those states was halted?
  12. Joe Biden handily losing bell-weather states Florida and Ohio, but somehow defying history and won? This despite very little campaigning, a non-existent ground game, and a campaign message that ran counter to the economic interests of the American people.

(READ IT ALL)

MORE ARTICLES I RECOMMEND

  • Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
  • 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
  • T H E  I M M A C U L A T E D E C E P T I O N (LARRY ELDER, or, PDF, or, PETER NAVARRO AUDIO)
  • EXCLUSIVE: Peter Navarro Expands Election Fraud Memo, Number Of Illegal Ballots Dwarf Biden Victory Margin By Over Two (Peter Navarro released an exclusive update to his “Immaculate Deception” – NATIONAL PULSE)
  • A Simple Test for the extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. (Revised December 21, 2020) (SCRIBD)
  • [NEW] Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement? (AMERICAN GREATNESS)

Katy Tur’s Tweet About Democrat Violence and Insurrection

I thought this Twitter response[s] tp Katy Tur was excellent (TWITCHY)… and it seems like people forget the past easily (when Democrats are involved):

RESPONSES


FLASHBACKS


Just a reminder of past events where Democrats praised offices being taken over.

A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage.

This video is from Larry’s YouTube Channel. At the end of his small montage I add video of a larger call to violence by [hypocritical] Democrats.

Democrats for 4-years say Trump is illegitimated.

I use an excerpt of Matt Gaetz floor speech from the 6th (January 2021), and combine it with Dinesh D’Souza’s RUMBLE upload

Make Orwell Fiction Again (Hunter Biden Edition)

A family member commented on a sticker on the back-window of my van by affirming the idea of “Make Orwell Fiction Again.” (Click to Enlarge) [This will be a continuing series to address this idea]

However,  knowing that his only form of news is essentially late-night [political] comics, CNN, and NPR… he meant it in a differing way than both the novel, and I meant it. So, below will be the beginning of a series of articles with small excerpts that I will continually add to in other posts. And note as well that what we have is a marriage of Orwell as well as Huxley as expressed in the quote from Joshua Charles’ book, Liberty’s Secrets: The Lost Wisdom of America’s Founders, found here: Orwell vs. Huxley (Big Tech Update)

MOST MEDIA EXCLUDES CONSERVATIVE IDEAS

Only a society that can effectively block and censor news, and shut down free expression is the kind the sticker refers to. Non-conservative ideas and news stories can be found readily in the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, San Francisco Chronicle, ABC, NPR, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.

In fact, almost every newspaper WITH THE EXCEPTION of the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and the New York Post, and at times FOX NEWS, have a more conservative leaning bias and news stories to be considered.

One example is that years ago the L.A. Times carried columns by Dennis Prager (and other conservative voices). Today they carry zero.

TWITTER/FACEBOOK CENSOR MAJOR NEWS STORY

THE NEW YORK POST was censored for many weeks… scrubbed from Twitter as well as Facebook. Here is what my past Twitter looked liked when trying to share the story:

This was all common knowledge [for the most part] because of Peter Schweizer’s March 2019 book, “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends“. And the NEW YORK POST had a wonderful article that Facebook, Twitter, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, NYT, WaPo — essentially ignored or censored.

EVEN LEFTIE GLENN GREENWALD CENSORED

Armstrong and Getty cover Glenn Greenwald resigning from the “free speech” news outlet he founded. The article mentioned them of Glenn’s is this one: “Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept”. [As an aside, I added MUCH MORE of the Tucker interview.]:

In Glenn’s article, this stood out (SUBSTACK):

….The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”…

50 FORMER SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS WERE WRONG

The NEW YORK POST opines on the recent “discovering” of an old story: “Liberal media ‘snuffed out’ Hunter Biden coverage until after election to help defeat Trump: critics” . But a must read article is this one over at RED STATE: “Ric Grenell Blows Up, Big Time, the Group That Should Be Most Ashamed of What They Did on the Hunter Biden Story

So we’ve all been talking a lot about the investigation into Hunter Biden and how the mainstream media seems to have finally caught up to the fact that yes, it’s real and it’s Russian disinformation as some tried to claim before the election.

Now that they think Joe Biden won, they’re free to just say “oh, well, here’s this thing.”

Never mind that they consciously suppressed it from the American people and completely failed in their supposed job prior to the election.

We saw a lot of conservatives chastising the media today for what they did.

But I wanted to talk about another group.

We expect the Democrats to cover for Biden. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told CNN it was a “smear” straight from the Kremlin. CNN’s Jeff Zucker said in his morning conference call to impress upon people this stuff about Hunter was just more “Russian disinformation.” A lot of mainstream media has become little more than Democratic operatives at this point.

There’s a group that we don’t expect and for sure shouldn’t be playing this game and that’s the intelligence community.

But they have and they did in this instance as well.

There were 50 former senior intelligence officers who signed a letter saying that Hunter Biden’s emails had all the signs of a Russian disinformation campaign……

MEDIA “DISCOVERED” STORY AFTER BIDEN ELECTED

Except the story was [and still is] 100% true. It was Russian disinformation UNTIL BIDEN WON, then the media discovered it’s veracity.

After the New York Post’s reporting was dismissed and characterized by members of the media as a “baseless conspiracy theory,” a “smear campaign,” and “Russian disinformation,” Wednesday’s announcement from Hunter Biden was ultimately too much for the media to ignore.

All three major networks’ evening newscasts addressed the controversy, with “NBC Nightly News” spending the most time on the subject, clocking in at roughly one minute and 16 seconds of coverage while “CBS Evening News” came in a distant second, with roughly 45 seconds of coverage, followed by ABC’s “World News Tonight” with roughly just 30 seconds. 

CNN anchor Jake Tapper reported the breaking news as it happened during his program, which was quite the opposite tone that he took during the election when he dismissed the allegations against Hunter Biden as “too disgusting” to repeat on-air.

Tapper’s colleagues Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper also mentioned the explosive development on their shows, while CNN anchors Erin Burnett, Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon avoided the subject….

(FOX)

  • Jake Tapper declares Hunter Biden claims ‘too disgusting’ to repeat on CNN: ‘The rightwing is going crazy’ — CNN is among other major news outlets that continue to downplay the growing Biden controversy (FOX)
  • CNN boss, political director spiked Hunter Biden controversy, audiotapes reveal: ‘We’re not going with’ story — Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe vowed he will release ‘raw recordings’ of the over 50 conference calls every day until Christmas. (FOX)
  • Ric Grenell calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for belatedly covering Hunter Biden story — ‘This story broke in October. You didn’t do it then,’ former acting DNI scolded the CNN anchor (FOX)

1984 JUMPS TO #1 ON AMAZON AMID EXPANDED CENSORSHIP

JUST THE NEWS notes the jump to #1 of 1984 on Amazon

As “big tech” companies have moved to silence conservative voices on the Internet, mega-marketer Amazon reports on Sunday that its overall top-selling book is 1984, a decades old novel that portrays a society completely controlled by government “Thought Police.”

The spike in sales comes amid a rush of shutdowns in which these moves occurred in rapid succession:

  • Twitter on Friday booted Donald Trump from its platform and erased the entire history of his tweets;
  • Facebook deleted a grassroots organization for disenchanted Democrats, WalkAway;
  • Apple and Google banned the messaging platform Parler from its app stores;
  • and Amazon said it imminently will ban Parler, which is used by many conservatives, from company servers.

As of Sunday morning, Amazon book sales showed that the top-selling book is the dystopian novel published by George Orwell more than 70 years ago. The classic novel, published in 1949, depicts how government Thought Police eavesdrop on citizens in their own homes, searching for heresy of any kind. Anyone whose beliefs deviate from the official norm are declared “unpersons” who never existed.

Reviewers on Amazon drew parallels between the book’s plot and current events in the United States.

“Born and living in communist Romania I went through the same ordeal described in 1987,” wrote Constantin Turculet, who is listed as making a verified purchase. “After 40 years I managed to escape to America, only to find after 35 years of living in freedom that this country is pushed toward the same horror scenario I thought mankind will never forget.”

CLICK TO ENLARGE

  • Later ages are always surprised by the casual brutality of totalitarian regimes. What those innocent ages neglect is the unshakeable (though misguided) conviction of virtue that animates the totalitarians. The historian John Kekes, writing about Robespierre in City Journal some years ago, touched on the essential point. If we understand Robespierre, “we understand that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with ideologues. For they are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and that their enemies are irrational and immoral simply because they are enemies.” That is the position of conservatives in American culture today. (AMERICAN GREATNESS)

WARNINGS YEARS AGO

Tammy Bruce’s book, “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds,” was an important salvo in all this. Not the first book, but one of the most relevant for it’s day. Tammy has noted for years the censorship of the Left, one example is an older post:

Well, this explains why I never got a response to my #AskPOTUS questions, “What’s wrong with you?” and “What meds are you on?”

Via Washington Examiner.

A former Twitter CEO took measures to ensure messages critical of President Obama wouldn’t circulate too widely on the platform during a 2015 question-and-answer session, according to a new report.

The incident allegedly occurred during a May 2015 “#AskPOTUS” event on the platform, when former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo purportedly ordered the creation of an algorithm to suppress the messages and used employees to manually scrub any critical content missed by the software.

Costolo kept the decision secret from company executives for fear that someone might object, several sources told Buzzfeed….

Related: NY Observer: Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google, and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump

The tech companies are just emboldened now. That’s all.

TONY BOBULINSKI AND LEFTIE LEGAL SCHOLAR, JONATHAN TURLEY

Yep, there were MANY disgusting videos on Hunter Biden’s laptop: him sexually abusing underage girls, including a family member, smoking crack, etc. But what was more disgusting was covering up a real news story [evidence of pay to play in the Ukraine and China] by almost all news outlets (print or media), as well as the censoring of it on social media. However, as Jonathan Turley notes wisely about NPR….. the designation as “a distraction” shows a bias rather than a news outfit, video precedes Turley’s article for context:

Tony Bobulinski will attend Thursday night’s debate as guest of President Trump.

JONATHAN TURLEY [Lefty Legal Scholar] notes this about Tony Bobulinski giving AMPLE evidence of who “the big guy” is:

A former business partner to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, has made a bombshell statement that not only are the emails on the Biden laptop authentic but the reference to giving a cut to “the big guy” was indeed a reference to former Vice President Joe Biden. More emails are emerging that show Hunter Biden referring to his family as his asset in these dealings.

The emails that have attracted the most attention refer to an actual meeting of Joe  Biden with these foreign figures and one referring to a proposed equity split of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Bobulinski confirms that “H” was used for Hunter Biden and that his father was routinely called “the big guy” in these discussions.

Another email Bobulinski being instructed by James Gilliar not to make any mention of the former veep’s involvement: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”

 Bobulinski said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar and stated that he believes Joe Biden was lying in denying any knowledge of these dealings, stating Hunter “frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals.”  He added that “The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.”

His statement reads in part:

I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.

Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.

I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

This is obviously just one side and the documents do not show a direct role or benefit for Joe Biden. However, it would seem that between the FBI statement and this witness statement, there is ample foundation for media scrutiny.  Yet, organizations like NPR has dismissed the story on Thursday as a “distraction.”

[….]

I have written for years that Hunter Biden was clearly influence peddling and he contradicted his father’s denial of any knowledge of his dealings.  The media can continue to hold its breath for weeks to try to avoid the obvious in this story.  That could well guarantee Biden the presidency but it will destroy the media’s credibility for years.

THIS CENSORSHIP PUSHED BIDEN INTO THE “WIN” COLUMN

It did guarantee a Biden victory BTW:


OMISSION


Click to enlarge:

(CNS NEWS)


…For the post-election surveyThe Polling Company interviewed 1,750 Biden voters in seven swing states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, six of which (excluding North Carolina) were called for Biden. The voters were asked about their knowledge of eight news stories, all of which the liberal media had downplayed or censored.

The survey showed “a huge majority (82%) of Biden voters were unaware of at least one of these key items, with five percent saying they were unaware of all eight of the issues we tested,” reported the MRC.

For instance, despite the #MeToo movement and the media coverage it garnered, the survey found that 35.4% of Biden voters were unaware of the serious allegations of sexual assault made by Tara Reade against Joe Biden. Reade had worked for Biden in the 1990s.

“If they had known about Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations, 8.9% told us they would have changed their vote — either switching to Trump or a 3rd party candidate, not voting for any presidential candidate, or not voting at all,” said the MRC.

“By itself, this would have flipped all six of the swing states won by Biden (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), giving the president a win with 311 electoral college votes,” said the organization.

Another important story buried by the major media was the Hunter Biden laptop story, which showed that Joe Biden was aware of his son’s business dealings in the Ukraine and in Communist China.

Yet 45.1% of Biden voters said they were unaware of the laptop story.

“According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes,” reported the MRC.

Similar results were found when Biden voters were asked about the other six censored stories – Kamala Harris’s radical left-wing policies; positive economic and job reports; Middle East peace deals brokered by Trump; energy independence; and the swift vaccine production as a result of Trump’s Operation Warp Speed.

“Looking at all eight of these issues together, our poll found that a total of 17% of Biden’s voters told us they would have changed their vote if they had been aware of one or more of these important stories,” reported the MRC.

“This would have moved every one of the swing states into Trump’s column, some by a huge margin,” said the MRC. “The President would have trounced Biden in the electoral college, 311 to 227.”

The MRC noted that the Biden voters who said they would have voted differently had they been properly informed by the media, did not have to vote for Trump for the president to have won a second term.

“Just by choosing to abandon Biden, these voters would have handed all six of these states, and a second term, to the President — if the news media had properly informed them about the two candidates,” said the MRC. (Emphasis added.)

(SEE NEWSBUSTERS)

Trump Lost By 42,918 Votes (Larry Elder & MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki)

I combine a couple segments of Larry Elder showing that to say this election was close and maybe it was so close that small court cases would have changed the outcome. Which is why I include Rand Paul mentioning the crazy amount of mail-in-ballots with only a name and no address. Wow! That alone would have almost turn Wisconsin red….


Arizona: 10,457 votes

+

Georgia: 11,779 votes

+

Wisconsin: 20,682 votes

=

Total margin: 42,918 votes

 

….Kornacki noted that last month’s election of Joe Biden over President Trump could have easily gone the other way, despite a 7 million vote margin for the Democratic ticket.

“If you flipped about 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, about 13,000 in Georgia and 10,000 in Arizona, that’s just over 40,000 votes collectively,” said Kornacki. “In those three states, the electoral vote count would have been 269 to 269 and it would have gone to the House of Representatives. Republicans would have been able to elect Trump.

“The way that I look at this election is, Donald Trump came within about 43,000 votes of getting re-elected. We came very close to one of the biggest disconnects we’ve ever seen in terms of the popular vote and the Electoral College,” he said….

(UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSSETES, LOWELL)


UPDATE: Conversation


I mentioned the following in a conversation with a friend, and he asked a question which I will respond to here. Enjoy. I said:

  • Sean Giordano — Biden won Wisconsin by just over 20,000 votes. There were 10s of thousands of ballots that only had a signature and no address, in all previous elections these were not accepted.

He asked simply,

  • B.A.M. — where did you get your info? I looked this up and couldn’t verify.

So, here are a few articles that build a related case that Senator Paul mentioned in the video above. First up is the earlier April election. Wisconsin Public Radio notes an issue that would have had consequences if the [illegal] change in laws hadn’t of happened before the November 4th election.

  • But an APM Reports analysis of voter data from Wisconsin’s April primary shows a far more measurable and consequential effect of mail-in voting — rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.

To wit, some counties changed ballots in 2020 to try and make them legal, but as retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman (who worked as a poll watcher in Milwaukee on Election Day), “The statute is very, very clear. If an absentee ballot does not have a witness address on it, it’s not valid. That ballot is not valid” (RED STATE).

Before going on to my next point — I want to drive home the issue made by the Public Radio in another article via REVEAL.

But an analysis of voter data from the April primary in the swing state of Wisconsin shows that mail-in voting may pose the opposite risk – rejected ballots. Slightly more than 23,000 ballots were thrown out in the primary, according to an analysis by APM Reports, mostly because those voters or their witnesses missed at least one line on a form.

That figure is nearly equivalent to Trump’s 2016 margin of victory in Wisconsin of 22,748 votes. And with Wisconsin voter turnout expected to double from April to more than 3 million in November, a proportionate volume of ballot rejections could be the difference in who wins the swing state and possibly the presidency…..

[….]

Taken together, the analysis serves as a case study of what may lie ahead for a presidential battleground state overwhelmed by applications and without the experience or systems to cope. Other battleground states such as Georgia and Pennsylvania saw increased by-mail voting in their primaries, as well as problems managing an increase in absentee ballots.

In the 2016 and 2018 Wisconsin general elections, by-mail absentee ballots made up no more than 6% of all ballots counted. In April, the portion jumped to more than 60%, the result of Gov. Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order because of the pandemic.

And while state officials stress the percentage of rejected ballots in the April primary is consistent with rejection rates in past elections, it’s little comfort to voters who learned that their ballots were rejected months after they thought their votes were counted.

More importantly, while the rate may be similar, raw numbers will make the difference when it comes to winning or losing an election.

One of the main issue I see is the equal protection of voters. There were not clerks fixing all the ballots evenly. It seems that this happened in more inner-city areas and not in the more conservative suburbs. RED STATE notes the last minute change to laws that also allowed more opportunity for fraud and ballots that have not been counted in the past.

In Wisconsin, a federal judge extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots during the primary election cycle by a period of six days.  No one objected to that extension in the early days of state “lockdown” orders to address the outbreak of the COVID 19 virus.  But, five days before the scheduled election, the same judge clarified the order to state that ballots postmarked on or before the extended day for receipt of ballots could be counted even though that violated Wisconsin election law which required that they be postmarked no later than Election Day, and no party in the case had asked for the Court to grant the additional relief.  The Supreme Court reversed that provision of the district court’s order, writing as follows:

Nonetheless, five days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters— for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election  This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election….  The District Court on its own ordered yet an additional extension, which would allow voters to mail their ballots after election day, which is extraordinary relief and would fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election.

The four liberals on the Court, including the late Justice Ginsburg, dissented from this order and would have allowed votes to be cast and counted after the deadline imposed by state law in Wisconsin, basing their judgment on the complications of the COVID 19 pandemic.  So, you can see where the lower court judges are finding their “justification for rewriting election rules more to the liking of plaintiffs who — in every case I’ve looked at — are Democrat party interest groups….

The WASHINGTON POST agrees with the above by pointing out that [in the April election in Wisconsin] “more than 30,000 votes arrived after voting day in 11 cities where that information was available, more than 10 percent of all votes cast in those cities. In Brookfield, a western suburb of Milwaukee in conservative Waukesha County, the figure was closer to 15 percent.”

So Wisconsin changed laws on the fly (against their state’s normal [legal] constitutional process), or improperly applied others.


MAIN POINT


As JUST THE NEWS noted, an order from the election commission (passed in 2016) that went out in this election “permits local county election clerks to cure spoiled ballots by filling in missing addresses for witnesses even though state law invalidates any ballot without a witness address.”

This is part of the reason that 3-of-the-4 justices in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court wanted to see the evidence, the three dissenting conservative justices, led by Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, said the court should have decided whether votes should have counted in each of the four categories, and clarified the law for future elections.

  • “A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted,” Roggensack wrote. “Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast.”

Because of the ruling, procedural wrongs:

  • absentee ballots filled in in one county to fix missing information by local county election clerks, and not in other counties (votes treated different) — probably 10’s of thousands via past numbers of ballots rejected and the increase of voting this time;
  • and the more than 28,000 votes counted from people who failed to provide identification by abusing the state’s ‘indefinitely confined status’

The liberal justices went on to say there was no evidence of fraud.

Dumb.

This is a red herring.

The above are not about fraud at all, but the invalidation of ballots because voters ballots were treated differently across the state, and, failure to follow the new regulation for voting from home by Wisconsin officials.

“Fraud,” it just sounds good and the press runs with the same narrative.

Joe Biden’s Executive Order Purge

Dennis Prager reads a portion of Kimberley Strassel’s WALL STREET JOURNAL article about the tyrannical purge of Hunter Biden’s father. The full article to follow the audio:

Via the WALL STREET JOURNAL:

The “unity” lasted all of a couple of minutes. Then, hours after President Biden pledged in his inaugural address to show “tolerance and humility,” the brass knuckles came out.

One duster was aimed at Peter Robb, general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Within minutes of Mr. Biden’s swearing-in, and as the new president told the nation it needed to “be better,” the new White House delivered Mr. Robb an ultimatum: resign by 5 p.m., or be fired.

The general-counsel position is a Senate-confirmed four-year appointment at an independent agency; Mr. Robb had 10 months left in his term. No NLRB general counsel had ever been fired, and the Biden White House provided no cause for the action. Mr. Robb pointed all this out in a return letter and respectfully declined to step down. So Mr. Biden (“we must end this uncivil war”) canned him.

For four years, the media and Democrats cast every action of the Trump administration as something law-breaking or verging on a constitutional crisis. This week’s headlines, by contrast, were a mass media celebration of the return to “normalcy.” Mr. Biden ran on, and won on, a promise to restore norms to Washington.

The Robb firing illustrates the falsehood of both those narratives. For all Mr. Trump’s bad manners, his administration’s actions were largely by the book. Mr. Trump never fired Richard Griffin, Barack Obama’s NLRB general counsel, who served nine months to the end of his term in 2017. For all the talk of Mr. Biden as the embodiment of gentlemanly politics, Democrats have no intention of playing by the rules. They intend to impose an agenda and won’t let a little thing like a 70-year-old precedent, or embarrassment over double standards, get in their way.

The Robb firing is an early indicator of Mr. Biden’s top priorities. Democrats rely on unions to get elected, and unions are therefore first in line to get rewarded. The most effective vehicle for that is the NLRB, which has sweeping power to enforce labor practices on companies across America. Mr. Obama used the NLRB to rig the rules so that unions could dominate workforces.

Mr. Biden nonetheless has a problem. The five-member NLRB currently has three Republicans and one Democrat. Even as Mr. Biden fills the empty position in coming weeks, he still won’t have control—and won’t likely get it until August of this year, when the term of GOP member William Emanuel expires. Mr. Biden is moving to install a powerful general counsel who will block, sabotage or undermine the board’s work until that time.

It is also an early indicator of Mr. Biden’s governing philosophy, which is straight out of the Obama playbook. The last Democratic president was so intent on rewarding labor bosses, he proved willing to break almost anything (including the Constitution) to do it. Mr. Obama was frustrated in 2012 that the Senate wouldn’t rubber-stamp his radical appointments to the NLRB. So in January he named three NLRB members as “recess” appointments. The problem? The Senate wasn’t in recess. The Supreme Court in 2014 unanimously declared those appointments void.

Then there was the Obama acting NLRB general counsel, Lafe Solomon. Even after a lower court in 2013 declared the Obama appointments illegitimate, the NLRB continued to pump out pro-labor decisions. Mr. Solomon explained that these rulings were valid because he held a powerful and “independent” position—“appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” That would be the same “independent” position that Mr. Biden just kneecapped in firing Mr. Robb. The new president can be forgiven for wanting his own people in office, but a little consistency would be nice.

It won’t be forthcoming, because the NLRB will be even more important to Mr. Biden than it was to Mr. Obama, given growing rifts in the labor community. The new president is under massive pressure from the progressive left, including many service unions, to act aggressively on climate. Yet his first-day executive action canceling the Keystone XL pipeline prompted a furious rebuke from blue-collar unions that are set to lose jobs. Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters scored Mr. Biden for listening to “the voices of fringe activists instead of union members.”

Control of the NLRB will allow Mr. Biden’ to soothe labor divisions by handing out sweeping rule changes that will benefit unions across the spectrum. Mr. Robb’s firing will likely be only the first of many exercises of raw power, many of which will likely make the Obama NLRB look tame.

The nation will soon be disillusioned. Mr. Biden is likely to continue speaking a lot of pretty words in coming months. What matters are his actions.

Impeachment #2 (RPT’s “notes”)

JUMP TO

(This post is a sister-post to this one.)

Firstly, much like with words like Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Uncle , He or She – and the like, or words like rape, unarmed

  • “The idea that instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there’s an unarmed person coming at ‘em with a knife or something, shoot ‘em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing. There’s a lot of different things that can change” — Joe Biden

…or that making burritos is racist… the Left changes the meaning of them for political gains or the racializes them to malign their opponents. If not that, they make up entirely new words from whole cloth or damage the grammar of the Romantic Languages or English itself.

Now…. “peaceful and Patriotic” is inciteful. That now means to pillage and destroy.

(YouTube Channel’s description) As a viewer from across the pond in the UK, I was amazed by the scenes at Capitol Hill and the media coverage. What confused me was why are none of the media organisations not showing this clip, but showing edited clips with the words PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY omitted… How are the words “PEACEFULLY & PATRIOTICALLY” an “INCITEMENT TO INSURRECTION”?

[ANSWER to my compatriot across the pond: Democrats]

Here I wish to reproduce in it’s entirety a letter to the editor of a small Indianola (Iowa) paper. I am doing so just in case it is removed to keep the paper’s server’s free of space.

The House of Representatives has, for a second time, engaged in a lawless and irrational impeachment of President Trump. This snap impeachment, after only two hours of debate, without any investigations, hearings or any due process, where the President’s counsel would be allowed to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, is as lawless as the invasion of the Capitol, albeit less violent.

It is based on the lie that President Trump incited the criminal invasion of the Capitol.

The Washington Post reported that the FBI was aware of plans to invade the Capitol before January 6th. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said the rioters, “came with riot helmets, gas masks, shields, pepper spray, fireworks, climbing gear — climbing gear! — explosives, metal pipes, baseball bats.”

Obviously, they planned an attack long before Trump spoke.

The rioters could not have been “incited” by the President because they probably heard little or none of his speech. The President’s speech lasted from 12:00 p.m. to 1:11 p.m. According to Chief Sund, the assault on Capitol police started at 12:40 p.m. According to Bing, under normal conditions, it takes 32 minutes to walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol. This means the rioters had to leave no later than 12:08 p.m. On January 6th, however, due to crowds, it took 45 minutes to make that walk. This means the rioters had to leave the Ellipse, if they were ever there, by 11:55 p.m, before the President’s speech started.

Even if they had heard the speech, President Trump never called for force, violence, or overthrow of government. He made only the following comments on the Capitol:

“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

To impeach a President based on his asking his supporters for a peaceful march to the Capitol in order to “make your voices heard,” violates the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

The President’s critics have ignored his call for peaceful demonstration. They have quoted, out of context, his statement made not two minutes before the end of his speech, when no rioters could have been there to hear them, that, “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country.”

In fact, just as Obama stated that Democrats should bring a gun to a knife fight, the President repeatedly used “fight” to refer to “fighting” in the legislatures, courts, elections and in the media. He referred to Jim Jordan fighting in Congress. Did he mean that Jordan was punching his colleagues? Did Obama mean that Democrats should engage in knife fights with Republicans but use a gun to win?

As for the President controlling the rioters, the Washington Post reported that, “’4:30: Outside the east side of the Capitol, a man with a megaphone announced to a crowd of hundreds: ‘Hey, everyone, Donald Trump says he wants everyone to go home.’ In response, some in the crowd booed loudly.

One man shouted back: ‘Shut the f— up! We’re not going to bend a knee, motherf—–!’”

The impeachment is a lawless and irrational abuse of power.

DONALD BOHLKEN

Which brings me to a REASON.ORG article that I read that was helpful…

….Citing unnamed “officials,” the Times reports that Trump “was initially pleased” when some of his supporters “stormed into the Capitol” and that he “disregarded aides pleading with him to intercede.” But about 20 minutes after the demonstration turned violent, Trump urged his supporters to “stay peaceful.” Half an hour later, he reiterated that message: “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order—respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue.” Later that day, he recorded a message urging the protesters to “go home now,” saying “we have to have peace,” even while continuing to insist that “we had an election that was stolen from us.”

Trump did not advocate violence, even in general terms. If his remarks qualify as incitement to riot, so would similarly fiery rhetoric at other protests that are marked by violence.

In 2016, a Baton Rouge police officer who was injured during a Black Lives Matter demonstration sued one of the movement’s leaders, DeRay Mckesson, saying he “incited the violence.” A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that Mckesson “solely engaged in protected speech” at the protest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later revived the lawsuit, but its decision focused on the allegation that Mckesson “directed the demonstrators to engage in [a] criminal act” by blocking a highway, which “quite consequentially provoked a confrontation between the Baton Rouge police and the protesters.”

Trump, by contrast, did not commit a crime or urge others to do so, even if the violence that followed his speech was predictable. His opponents may regret establishing a precedent that speakers who neither commit nor advocate violence can be prosecuted for the criminal conduct of people inspired by their words.

Yep.

Which leads me to have a heart of hope with the caliber of some of our Representatives in Congress, and some of their speeches I heard while driving yesterday:


SPEECHES


Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., argued against moving forward with a second impeachment against the president during House debate Jan. 13. Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting electoral votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety.

SUPPORT: FIERY SPEECHES

Rep. Louie Gohmert Uses Pelosi’s Own Words Against Her

TWITTER GOES NUTS! (Proving Gohmert’s Point)

THE FEDEERALIST and JUST THE NEWS notes the progressive Left and some media outlets thinking these are violent words. Correct:

Corporate media journalists and left-wing activists took to social media on Wednesday to spread claims that Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is in favor of inciting insurrection.

“Here’s a quote. ‘I just don’t even know why there aren’t more uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be,’” Gohmert said on the House floor during the impeachment debate. 

While Gohmert specified that what he was saying was a quote, taken directly from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s previous statements encouraging uprisings, journalists and activists quickly twisted his words, publicly speculating and claiming he was calling for increased political violence around the nation.

[….]

Democrats are pursuing a quick second impeachment a week after President Donald Trump gave a speech they say incited insurrection. On Jan. 6, while Congress was in the process of counting Electoral Votes and certifying President-elect Joe Biden’s win, a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, clashed with police, and forced lawmakers to pause their sessions and evacuate to safety. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Democrats are pursuing an impeachment because they want to “cancel” him. He said Republicans condemn all violence, and that Democrats hold Republicans to a double standard. Jordan said “cancel culture” is attacking the First Amendment, and warned if it doesn’t stop, “it will come for us all.” He touted Trump’s accomplishments but did not address the president’s rhetoric in his speech before the Capitol riot. He added that a second impeachment will further divide the nation.

SUPPORT: HEADLINES MENTIONED

Nancy Pelosi said in 2019 they have been trying to impeach Trump for 2-and-a-half-years.

She said it three separate times and so I take her at her word (RPT). Here are some of the article Rep. Jordan was making reference to:

  • There was this racy headline, from Vanity Fair on Nov. 14, 2016: “Will Trump Be Impeached?”
  • Then this, yet another Vanity Fair piece, on Dec. 15, 2016: “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.”
  • There was this, from The New York Times, in an opinion headline from Nov. 3, 2016: “Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat.”
  • Remember: Trump wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2017. He wasn’t even elected president until Nov. 8, 2016.

[Even a GOPer FOR impeachment makes some critically important points]

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said that President Donald Trump deserves “universal condemnation” for perpetuating the false claim that there was widespread fraud in the Nov. 6 election, and for pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his Constitutional duty to count Electoral College votes. While Roy said Trump’s efforts to interfere with the election results amount to what he believes are an impeachable offense, he called the articles drafted by House Democrats “flawed and unsupportable,” and expressed concern they would lead to the stifling of free expression by focusing on incitement and insurrection. “Let us condemn that which must be condemned, and let us do so loudly,” Roy said. “But let us do it the right way, with deliberation, and without disastrous side effects.”


MARK LEVIN


I added a couple videos (President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris) to enhance Levin’s audio. I think this is a must hear first hour of radio!

Democrats Were For Challenging Electors, Before Being Against It

UPDATED!

Over the past 20 years, Democrats have on three separate occasions objected to the validity of electoral votes on the floor of Congress. Wednesday, Jan. 6, will mark the first time Republicans choose do so in the past two decades.

(DAILY WIRE)

My sons and I have discussed the January 6th issues, and, some historical aspects as well. Firstly, people saying Trump should be impeached are just as radical as the people breaking into the Capital. The throwing around of the “sedition” label is funny, and shows how people are not aware of the recent history of the lawful process of debate in Congress about just such topic. Here is one blogger noting Chuck Todd’s biased lack of awareness:

NBC host Chuck Todd, who is always in the running to overtake CNN’s Brian Stelter as the dumbest newsman in the news media, had it out with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) over a number of Republican members of Congress who are planning to dispute the certification of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election due to questions of massive election fraud.

After being accused of trying to thwart the democratic process, Johnson hit back by telling sleepy eyes Todd that they are trying to protect it.

“We are not acting to thwart the democratic process, we are acting to protect it,” Johnson said to Todd.

[….]

Todd and others in the Fake News media are acting like the Republicans contesting the election results is an unprecedented affair.

Let me remind them that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won.

Lest they forget that the House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and President Trump’s win in 2016.

(DJ-MEDIA)

PJ-MEDIA however has an excellent notation of this history when they point out Democrats outrage that Republicans objected to the certification of electoral votes. “It’s ‘conspiracy and fantasy,’ says Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.” PJ further states,

“The effort by the sitting president of the United States to overturn the results is patently undemocratic,” the New York Democrat said. “The effort by others to amplify and burnish his ludicrous claims of fraud is equally revolting.”

“This is America. We have elections. We have results. We make arguments based on the fact and reason—not conspiracy and fantasy,” he added.

There’s only one problem with Chucky’s “argument based on fact and reason.” Democrats have been challenging the electoral vote certification for two decades.

The last three times a Republican has been elected president — Trump in 2016 and George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004 — Democrats in the House have brought objections to the electoral votes in states the GOP nominee won. In early 2005 specifically, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs, D-Ohio, objected to Bush’s 2004 electoral votes in Ohio.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin appears to be even more incensed at Senator Josh Hawley’s plan to object to the Electoral College vote.

Fox News:

“The political equivalent of barking at the moon,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said of Hawley joining the challenge to electoral slates. “This won’t be taken seriously, nor should it be. The American people made a decision on Nov. 3rd and that decision must and will be honored and protected by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.”

Brave Sir Dick seems to forget he was singing a different tune in 2005. Then, it was Democrats questioning the results of the Ohio vote, which went narrowly for George Bush.

Durbin had words of praise for Boxer then:

“Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this brief debate,” Durbin said on the Senate floor following Boxer’s objection, while noting that he would vote to certify the Ohio electoral votes for Bush. “I thank her for doing that because it gives members an opportunity once again on a bipartisan basis to look at a challenge that we face not just in the last election in one State but in many States.”

In fact, the Ohio electoral vote challenge was only the beginning. Rumors and conspiracy theories swirled around the outcome on election night that saw Bush winning Ohio by a close, but the surprisingly comfortable margin of  120,000 votes. So why are so many of these headlines familiar to us today?

(READ THE REST)

And THE BLAZE also referenced it’s readers to the same issues in their post (BTW, these are the two videos I used for my upload):

TheBlaze’s Chris Enloe noted this weekend that while Democrats are rebuking Republicans for planning Wednesday to oppose the Electoral College certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory due to fraud concerns, Democrats themselves have a robust history of doing that very thing.

And a damning, resurfaced video underscores what’s already on the public record.

The video is a compilation of clips from congressional sessions following the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, both won by Republican George W. Bush — and in the clips Democrats launched protests against Bush’s electoral votes.

[….]

That wasn’t all. The Washington Post reported that during the January 2001 session, words such as “fraud” and “disenfranchisement” were heard above Republicans calling for “regular order.”

More from the paper:

The Democratic protest was led by Black Caucus members who share the feeling among black leaders that votes in the largely African American precincts overwhelmingly carried by [then-Democratic presidential nominee Al] Gore were not counted because of faulty voting machines, illicit challenges to black voters and other factors.

“It’s a sad day in America,” Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said as he turned toward Gore. “The chair thanks the gentleman from Illinois, but . . . ” Gore replied.

At the end of their protest, about a dozen members of the Black Caucus walked out of the House chamber as the roll call of the states continued.

(THE BLAZE)

Rush Limbaugh Radio Gold (Day After Capitol Hill Incident)

Via RIGHT SCOOP

….Then Rush gets into the events of the day more specifically.

“Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of people — Americans who have gotten tired of being ignored, and lied about, and smeared as racists by these very Democrats in the media and the popular culture. Americans who have gotten fed up with having elections stolen from them by the Democrats, including the White House. Now they think two more Senate seats have been stolen, and they thought they were going to be stolen even before the election. And these people went to Washington. They weren’t protestors paid by George Soros or the Democrat party. The overwhelming majority of these Americans were well-behaved and respectful.”

He’s right. And he continued to be right all the way through this clip. THAT’S WHY they’re attacking him. Not because they’re outraged. Because he’s right and they know it.

LISTEN:

Larry Elder Covers The Capitol Incident

This is from yesterdays show (1/7/2021), and is a large sample of why The Sage is great at what he does. I add some video which radio only allows audio to play, as well as adding some of the video from  @The Larry Elder Show — HERE:  Enjoy, it is a stitching of large sections from all three hours.

Last segment of the above is a great shorter listen. This is the last portion of a larger audio, HERE. Larry Elder discusses new studies – but included one from the 1970s… this is the first time I have heard this particular study

Todd Hermann: “The Big Lies” (+ Voter Fraud | Videos Added)

JUMP TO EXAMPLES | JUMP TO TESTIMONY

Todd Hermann fills in for Rush Limbaugh and at the beginning of hour 3 he goes on a good rant about The Big Lies. (See Rush’s site about the show)

  • Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
  • 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
  • T H E  I M M A C U L A T E D E C E P T I O N (LARRY ELDER, or, PDF, or, PETER NAVARRO AUDIO)
  • EXCLUSIVE: Peter Navarro Expands Election Fraud Memo, Number Of Illegal Ballots Dwarf Biden Victory Margin By Over Two (Peter Navarro released an exclusive update to his “Immaculate Deception” – NATIONAL PULSE)
  • A Simple Test for the extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. (Revised December 21, 2020) (SCRIBD)

Rand Paul breaks down voter fraud step-by-step as dem senators scream internally. (Ken Starr)

Just a Few Examples of Voter Fraud

Ballots Counted Multiple Times

Vote Tally Centers Breaking Rules

Undercover Investigations

Testimony

MORE TESTIMONY!

LIBERTY PEN VIDEOS

I just wish to add context to the claims made in this first LIBERTY PEN video from a previous post of mine:

I included the excerpt of Larry O’Connor discussing just how many ballots were adjudicated of the absentee ballots — at the time of the audio 113,130 ballots were counted, and 106,000 were adjudicated. The percentage of guessing voter intent was 93.6% – wow. Here is the video:

In other words, a voter review panel interprets voter intent… at a 94% rate? This is illegal, and what’s worse, is that the re is no way to check these changes.

Also, watch Dr. Coomer explain how easy it is to change votes using Dominion systems “adjudication” part:

The WASHINGTON TIMES notes that in

The report authors said they “observed an error rate of 68.05%” with ballot counts — a “significant and fatal error in security and election integrity” that far surpasses the “allowable election error rate” of 0.0008%, or one-in-250,000 ballots, that’s been established by the Federal Election Commission.

What’s interesting, too, is that state and county officials didn’t want to release information on Antrim County’s voting equipment for analysts’ review.

A judge had to order its release.

From the Detroit Free Press: “Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court had ordered ‘forensic imaging’ of the Dominion Voting Systems voting tabulators and related software after Antrim County resident William Bailey filed a lawsuit that challenged the integrity of the election equipment, citing errors in how the county initially reported its unofficial results.”

Come on, now. Why the need to go to court to obtain access to data and information that should already be transparent and public?


COUNTIES w/DOMINION MACHINES


Rumble — An unbiased by-county analysis of 2020 general election results of over 3000 U.S. counties shows large-scale skewing of election results in favor of Joe Biden in counties using Dominion Voting Systems.

Analysis conducted by DataScience and released through BASEDmedia constructed a statistical model to predict relative performance for either candidate based upon U.S. Census county data to 90% accuracy.

This analysis revealed that counties that used Dominion and Hart InterCivic ballot counting devices and software consistently gave a 5% vote advantage to candidate Joe Biden over President Trump. This advantage was observed regardless of the county’s majority political party affiliation nor urban, suburban, or rural area demographics.

For further information, the full report is available online here: Evidence of Potential Fraud in Counties Using Dominion Voting Machines (PDF)

Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (Full Jovan Testimony Added)

THIS GUY — Like A Boss!

GATEWAY PUNDIT:

Inventor Jovan Hutton Pulitzer was in front of the Georgia Senate today and he totally destroyed Georgia’s 2020 election results.

Jovan Pulitzer on Wednesday told Georgia lawmakers he hacked into Dominion voting systems at a Georgia polling place.

Pulitzer confirmed that the Georgia runoff IS connected to the internet.

He established a two-way communication from a polling pad in a voting center.

“At this very moment at a polling location in the county, not only do we have access through the devices to the poll pad–the system, but WE ARE IN,” Pulitzer said.

He continued, “And it’s not supposed to have WiFi and that’s not supposed to be able to happen so we’ve documented now it’s communicating two ways in real time, meaning it’s receiving data and sending data — should never happen, shouldn’t be WiFi, we’ve now documented it in real time.

FULL TESTIMONY ADDED

What this shows is that the CEO of Dominion lied, and NTD’S report is correct:

Jovan Pulitzer is also the guy that DAVID HARRIS JR. notes got the entire Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to unanimously pass a motion to audit Fulton County’s absentee ballots using his method (I have been reading on Twitter they have to be in session for it to go anywhere… GRRRR):

I would love to see it but the Democrat’s puppets running the elections will probably find a way to stop it. But the plan is to let famous inventor, Jovan Pulitzer.

Pulitzer who has volunteered to do a count in Fulton County for free has pointed out that the ballot forms for Republicans are different in red counties and blue counties.

He found that the code for the ballots in red counties is right and will tally correctly but in blue counties, they use a different code that allows the machines to kick the vote where it can be changed from Trump to Biden. Pulitzer says he can prove fraud without examining the machines or the software. He just needs the votes themselves.

 
Pulitzer says it will only take him two hours to examine 500,000 votes. The plan is quick and cheap two things I always love. But those who perpetrated or abetted the fraud won’t like it and will try to subvert it or run the clock out if they can.

[….]

Mr. Pulitzer said he has “no regard for the smoke and mirrors of how the machines work.” – IT’S ALL ABOUT THE PAPER BALLOTS.

“I don’t care about the machine. I don’t even care about the code that was written in the machine. What I care about is that physical artifact [ballot] and that physical artifact has material differences district to district that should not be there.”

I hope he gets access!