Monday, November 23, 2020

Believe It or Not

When you don’t yet know the truth—or don’t yet know the future—what should you believe? I’ve tried to be mainly realistic, in my life. If I’m prepared for something close to accurate, I’m better off than when something horrible hits me unawares. Pollyanna isn’t really my role model.

That’s what I thought about myself. But I’m beginning to change that assessment. I think I’m actually more open to believe in a positive outcome than I realized. I may be more open to the positive than the average person, or maybe even than most people. (My 5-traits assessment puts me as more open than 96% of the population, actually.)

image from here

Pascal’s Wager Applied to the Election

There’s what is referred to as Pascal’s Wager, concerning belief in God. In short, if you believe in God without proof and you’re wrong, you haven’t lost much, and you might be living a better life than you would have otherwise. But if you’re right, you’ve gained heaven. If you choose not to believe in God without proof and you’re wrong, you lose heaven; if you’re right, you go ahead with a meaningless life, so no gain there.

Wikipedia provides this table

Pascal's Wager summary table from Wikipedia

I’m looking at our country’s current circumstances. Mostly I’m looking at the, hopefully temporary, separation between me and a number of Constitution-loving patriots I have enjoyed following and listening to. But right now I’m tuning them out. By choice.

They are on the side of, “Well, sure there was probably some fraud, but there’s not going to be enough proof to overcome the outcome, so we might as well gear up for a Biden presidency.”

I think the people in this category are more concerned about fear of being wrong, or duped, than they are about truth. (I have a theory that fear of being duped blocks a lot of people from belief in God, and the subsequent experiences with God that follow those who believe. That’s a topic for another day.)

I could be wrong about how things are going to turn out in the next couple of months. But what do I have to lose by continuing to believe what I do? (I laid out what I think is happening here, here, here, here, and here.)

If I’m wrong but I keep holding on until all legal challenges are complete, electoral votes are cast, and a new administration is sworn in, I have been hopeful and cheerful through the holiday season before having to face inevitable misery.

If I’m wrong, but I have been honest in presenting what I know and what I believe, does that ruin my reputation? I don’t think so. Being less than honest to protect a reputation doesn’t seem logical; that would put me out of integrity.

If I’m right, I’m on track to understand what’s happening, at least a bit better, when/if the corruption in our government is taken out. If I’m right and keep holding on, I witness a great miracle—the saving of our constitutional republic.

It seems to me, if I’m right, I’m on God’s side in the great war against evil. If I’m wrong, I’m still on God’s side in that great war, just sadly at the losing end of a key battle.


Occam’s Razor Applied to the Election

Occam's Razor illustration found here
There’s another traditional belief that I think backs me up in my current stance on the election. Occam’s razor. It’s a problem-solving tool, which essentially says, “The simplest explanation is usually the right one.”

We could do this exercise (and many have) concerning belief in God as an explanation of why we are here, on a planet that supports life, and that complex life exists, with us humans being the ultimate example. Is it more plausible to believe that we have a divine Creator than that all such things happened by chance?

But, related to the election question today, the simplest explanation is that Joe Biden did not win a majority of legal votes.

There’s a lot you’d have to take on faith, without a decent explanation, to believe that he won.


The Campaign

First, there’s Biden’s lack of draw as a candidate.

·         He was a deeply flawed candidate all the previous times he ran and failed—including the plagiarism that took him out the first time—and he did nothing in his years in the Senate or as VP to overcome or compensate for those flaws.

·         He was more deeply flawed this time:

o   He has difficulty putting together a coherent sentence, leading many to assume he is in cognitive decline, based on age or some other physical/mental malady. Many voters assume he could not last long as president and would need to be replaced by his VP, who was deeply disliked during the primaries, not even staying in the race until Iowa.

o   His years as VP tie him to policies the US has soundly rejected, because of their detriment to the economy and to our international standing, and because of their divisiveness among us.

o   He is tied to corruption in Ukraine and China that, barring the media outright lying for him, would have made him both unelectable and imprisoned. Would people have changed their vote from Biden if the news media hadn’t blocked the story? Likely yes.

o   Rumors and evidence from just creepiness to outright sexual assault continue to dog him.

o   Lies that he has told resurface repeatedly, such as his lie about the truck driver being drunk when his wife and child were killed in a car crash (not true, but he gratuitously maligns that man, who was neither drunk nor at fault in the accident), or the lie about when he met his current wife (in reality, she was married, and her affair with Biden broke up the marriage).

·         He practically didn’t campaign. He rarely left his room at home and spoke words prepared for him on teleprompter, badly.

o   There was no excitement for him as a candidate. The few rallies he held were sparsely attended, without fanfare, or even people standing in excitement.

o   It’s hard to find a Biden voter who voted for Biden, rather than against President Trump. Interviews with Biden voters, before and after, show an inability to articulate a pro-Biden reason for their vote.

o   He frequently showed a lack of knowledge about where he was or what was going on in a given appearance.

o   The few media appearances were carefully controlled, giving him no challenging or voter-enlightening questions. This tactic may have been designed to avoid showing obvious flaws, but it also prevented voters from connecting with him or his message, whatever that may have been.

Meanwhile, President Trump drew tremendous, excited crowds of people. His love of America was reflected in the crowds. His record of successes in his first term converted many who didn’t support him in his first campaign (including me). His record on economics, foreign relations, and the judiciary were exemplary. Could his handling of the pandemic have been better? Maybe. But Biden’s only difference would have been more lockdowns and more mask wearing.

So you would have to believe that campaigns don’t matter.


The Down Ballot

There’s the down ballot. You’d have to believe that a complete sweep of contested House races, plus extras (an increase of 12 seats at this writing) meant voters went more Republican but less Trump than in 2016.

And you’d have to believe that it makes perfect sense for Biden to have earned 36% more votes than either Obama or Hillary Clinton in already highly Democrat areas. There was also evidence that blacks and Hispanics moved toward Trump in record numbers, so where did those historic numbers for Biden come from?


The Fraud

You’d have to believe there was no fraud even though:

·         Observers were prevented from observing the count.

·         Potentially thousands of dead people voted.

·         Thousands of ineligible voters voted.

·         In multiple states where there are questions about the counts, changes in voter rules were put in place to get more mail-in ballots while handling them less securely.

·         Mail-in ballots, which don’t have a chain of custody, which are usually rejected at a rate of 2-4% were about 25 times less likely to be rejected this year, despite their much greater prevalence.

·         Several states, and counties within states, refused to check ballot signatures on mail-in ballots.

·         Multiple swing states where Trump was leading almost simultaneously paused vote counting for hours, and when they came back online, leads shifted dramatically—mathematically impossibly—to Biden, in all of them.

·         Batches of ballots were counted multiple times, according to eyewitnesses.

·         After it was announced that all votes had arrived for counting, trucks arrived with boxes of additional ballots in the middle of the night.

·         In multiple counties in swing states, more votes were counted than there were registered voters.

·         On-screen live news broadcasts showed vote counts for Trump going down from one update to another.

·          One county found that vote switching had happened and performed a hand recount, giving back 6,000 votes to Trump that had been wrongly given to Biden. It was called a software “glitch.”

·         Some vote totals include partial votes, counts with decimals, indicating that some votes were allotted more or less than 1 vote per vote.

Rudy Giuliani has said all along that, just dealing with known voter fraud and changing of laws without legislatures is enough to change the outcome of the election.

Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis of the President's legal team
screenshot from Nov. 19, 2020, press conference

Attorney Lin Wood has a lawsuit in Georgia, where he resides and has standing, that he believes will throw out the election there. Mail-in ballots did not require proof of ID, as in-person voters were required to provide; that is a constitutional issue. And laws were changed there without the legislature, which is also unconstitutional. He also says that any in-person voter in Georgia can file a similar suit.

Attorney Sidney Powell was not fired from the Trump legal team; she was separate all along (see near the beginning of this Crossroads episode).  The team distanced itself from her, creating a larger separation between the “traditional” voter fraud issues and the technical issues related to Dominion, Scytl, and whatever other companies come up in those issues. Some people say it’s because they don’t think she can provide the proof she has said she has. I don’t have any inside information, but I think the fact that the servers were actually seized in Frankfurt, Germany, says it’s more likely that she has it than that she doesn’t.


My Conclusions

I find believing that voter fraud will be proven and that Donald Trump will remain as President for a second term is both logical and better on the psyche than believing otherwise.

There are people who believe there was voter fraud, maybe even in significant amounts, as I do, but they still don’t believe Donald Trump will remain as President. It’s because they have seen so much corruption go unpunished for so long, they can’t muster what it takes to get over the cynicism. I understand that. These people are not our enemies. They are just making a different belief choice than I am at this time while the future is unknown. The only way to resolve differences in belief about the near future is to wait and see how things play out.

But, in the meantime, I’m tuning them out. I don’t have energy to expend on a possible near-term future that includes evil winning out over good.

In this week’s reading for Church, we read these verses, aimed at our day, from Ether chapter 8:

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination [collusion and corruption] which shall be among you….

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies….

This warning from centuries ago certainly appears to be aimed at our time. But, if we were not going to have a chance to root it out, why warn us?

My theory is that this election was evidence that people chose good instead of evil—and evil, in a last-ditch effort to keep their plans from being thwarted, pulled out all the stops to place their puppet in the seat of power over us. I think the win for Donald Trump was so decisive that they had to take desperate measures that were bound to be discovered.

There are people with more elaborate theories. I’ve been exposed to them. I don’t yet know what to think about them. Some seem far-fetched. And yet, look at the corruption we know about already. Practically anything seems in the realm of possibility this year. So I’ll link a few of those for you at the bottom. Maybe with your sense of discernment, you’ll find what is true and what is not.

As we watch what plays out, during our upcoming holiday season, I continue to trust that, whatever happens, God is in heaven and is aware of our plight. I have prayed that the truth will be known. That every incidence of voter fraud will become visible. And, further, that all the secret combinations—all the corruption, in government, in media, in large corporations—will be revealed and rooted out, that we may return to the freedom, prosperity, and civilization this blessed nation was set up to provide as a refuge to the world.

Some Sources I Believed

·         John Zmirak Shares His Personal Knowledge of the ‘Authenticity’ Of Sidney Powell's Investigation,” Erik Metaxas Show, Nov. 20, 2020. 

·         I Know Sidney Powell. She Is Telling the Truth” by John Zmirak for The Stream, Nov 19, 2020. 

·         Follow the Money: Attorney Lin Wood Explains His Lawsuit Against Georgia’s Secretary of State” by Julie Carr for The Tennessee Star, Nov. 17, 2020.  

·         Lin Wood Outlines Case for Rampant Voter Fraud, GA Vote Corruption; GA Election will Be NullifiedJohn Fredericks Show, Nov. 16, 2020. 

·         Gohmert Talks to Charlie Kirk about Voter Fraud IssuesGohmertTX01 channel, Nov. 16, 2020. 

·         Live Q&A: Sidney Powell Removed; Trump Legal Team Prepares EvidenceCrossroads with Joshua Philipp, Nov. 22, 2020. 


The Possible Rabbit Holes

Some of the, um, more sensational resources I’ve encountered, that, if true, will one day make a great movie:

·         Scott McKay: Military 2020 Election Sting Leading to Trump 2nd Term LandslideForbidden Knowledge TV

·         Post Election Update #4: US Military 2020 Election Sting Operation Leading 2 Trump 2nd Term Landslide” Scott McKay for Tipping Point Radio, Nov. 19, 2020. 

·         Sidney Powell’s ‘Kraken’ Is DOD Cyber Warfare Program! We Are at War!” by Dianne Marshall, The Marshall Report, Nov. 22, 2020.  

·         Army Releases The Kraken To Protect Foreign Fire Bases; ‘I’d Like To See The Taliban Try To Attack This Place’” by David Axe for Breaking Defense, April 29, 2013. 

·         Huge Breaking News!!!! Federal Circuit Courts Have Been Reassigned Today” Jeremy Herrell, Hip Hop Patriot Here We Go Facebook Live, Nov. 21, 2020  

·         Breaking! Live From America! Trump Team WINS 3 times today!” Jeremy Herrell, Hip Hop Patriot Here We Go Facebook Live, Nov. 23, 2020. 



Thursday, November 19, 2020

Just Some Personal Stories

Today’s post is mainly about a couple of personal experiences. Both relate to the difficulty of getting truth and expressing truth. The first story relates to COVID-19. The second story relates to election integrity. I’d like to write an entire post on either, or both. There’s so much to say about either. But mainly today I’m concerned about being able to tell something related to these topics in a world that censors. 

image found here


The COVID-19 Related Censorship Story

We have an extended family member who went through a struggle with COVID-19 last month. Several people in his family—including wife and grown children went through it. I’m going to use mainly his words, removing identifiers for privacy. This family member is about 5 years younger than I am, so, mid-50s.

He wrote this to us on Friday, October 2nd. It is the same date that President Trump announced he was fighting it. The President was treated over the weekend and felt practically recovered the following Monday. Here’s our family member’s story:


I’ve been ill for several days and still getting worse and not better. Yesterday I got my test results showing POSITIVE for active Covid 19.  It’s just barely moving into my lungs and, so far, has been like a bad flu.

It seems our big family and risky travels has caught up with us! While we do take general precautions, we’ve also been very active with multiple travels. A couple weeks ago Daughter and Wife flew to Tampa to play with Other Daughter. One of their activities was a day at Universal Studios Harry Potter World (their FIFTH theme park day since Covid began!). All three of them got sick shortly thereafter. Daughter and Wife brought it back to AZ and I soon got ill. So far the grandkids are unaffected or simply headaches and very low fever.

I thought I was improving yesterday, but my symptoms are worse today than yesterday.  My doctor won’t prescribe anything.....said to take Advil and cough syrup!

The only good news is that if I successfully beat this, then I’ll be immune for our cruise through the Panama Canal next month!!!  They still have not canceled that cruise(??? Not sure why it’s not canceled as I don’t know if the various ports are open along the route).

I’ll keep you posted.  Hope you are all doing well.


John Locher/AP Photo found here

I emailed him, that same day, my little bit of advice:

Praying you get through this quickly and completely. In early stages, hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc and an antibiotic such as Zithromax has been shown effective all over the world. Also, I understand there's a steroid nasal spray that has been effective. I don't understand why a doctor would prescribe nothing when you're at an early stage when these things work best. Find a doctor who does those sensible things. My opinion.

Another family member sent similar, but more detailed advice, explaining why some of these supplements work, and linking to some online sources. One paragraph he added was this:

I am not a doctor. I am not able to guarantee the effectiveness of these products. However, physicians, most with foreign experience in places like Africa and Asia, claim good success in treating COVID-19 patients using these supplements (which aren't regulated). Successful treatments have included oxygen plus budesonide (or another anti-inflammatory) in a nebulizer to reduce the cytokine storm, which is often what really kills the COVID-19 sufferer. The budesonide does require a prescription.


In phonecalls, he offered thanks for the concern and assured us his son-in-law, studying to be a nurse practitioner, was keeping him apprised of the protocol he was instructed to use, which was essentially what his doctor was doing.

On October 7, about 5 days later, the ill family member emailed this:

My condition kept getting worse and worse, however, yesterday I had my first day of improvement.  Today is "Ok" as well.  This has been quite horrible.

I believe I'm on the mend, but it is not a FAST recovery at all.  My oximeter still shows my blood oxygen levels are consistently LOW, but better than they were.  I will likely have a long road back.

Even Wife has relapses whenever she exerts herself—and she was very strong when she first got sick as she has been on a formal exercise program for many months (her best friend is a physical trainer).

I'll keep you posted.


Then we got a follow-up on October 12, which he posted on Facebook.

Covid-19 Follow-up. I'm pleased to report I am MUCH better. HOWEVER—the government constrains on doctors is A SCAM. I suffered very badly for many days. My primary doctor with Named Health Care (who was amazing), quit practicing in the middle of Covid. I don't know if it was fear of infecting her family, or if she was not allowed to treat patients properly. I was assigned a new doctor. I WAS NOT ALLOWED ACCESS TO HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE and other helpful products. I WAS TOLD TO TAKE ADVIL MORNING AND NIGHT AND USE DELSYM COUGH MEDICINE. I did this for two weeks and got more and more sick each day to the point my lungs were not processing oxygen well [I have a pulse-oximeter to measure blood oxygen]. FINALLY—I FIRED MY DOCTOR and switched to a local family practice with more proactive treatment. They assessed me for possible contradictions to the treatment and then prescribed a simple 'cocktail' of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc Sulfate, Azithromycin, and Prednisone. All in relatively low doses for 7 days.

WITHIN 24 HOURS THE MAJOR SYMPTOMS HAD DEPARTED. Within 48 hours I was about 80% recovered and up and about doing chores and projects. Now, at 4 days and am very strong and simply hoping my lungs can recover from the damage.

Oh...and the medications only cost $40. If I had been quickly evaluated and prescribed these simple medications on the day I tested positive for Covid, I could have avoided a huge amount of suffering and possibly permanent damage to my lungs.

I will NEVER TRUST the big government control of healthcare again. They tried to kill me!

I’ve written multiple times (see here, here, and here) about the treatment that finally worked for him. It has been known to work during most of the pandemic. But doctors have been forbidden to use it in many places, and if you bring it up on social media, you can be censored. I'd like to know why?

This is just one more personal anecdotal story. It just happens to be the closest relative I have had suffering from a serious, identified case of COVID-19. So my personal experience is, it works 100% of the time, just like the censored doctors have said.

If I were doing a full post on COVID-19 today, I’d add the following.

·         “FDA OKs first rapid home test” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 19, 2020, p. A9.

·         “UT Analysis: 1 in 6 Texans, or 4.75M estimated to be infected already” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 18, 2020, p. A1. Note that this is intended to alarm us. But in the story it says, this is how many total have caught it, knowingly or not, in the 8 months we have had known cases in Texas. It’s four times previous estimates. That means the lethality is much lower than previous estimates, and current immunity among the population, most of whom have already recovered, is now much higher. And see the next story.

·         “Data: COVID Immunity Could Last for Years” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 18, 2020, p. A6.

·         Multiple vaccines are expected to be made available in the near future, with 95% efficacy rates.

·         Other treatments are being found effective, and are being made available. Governor Abbott has approved dispensing of one. See this story: “Gov. Abbott says COVID-19 antibody therapy drug to becomeavailable for eligible Texans” WFAA News, Nov. 19, 2020. 


·         There’s a rise in cases being called a surge, and many areas are calling for more or extended lockdowns, with warnings against Thanksgiving family gatherings. County Judge Hidalgo sent out a warning to all residents, on our phones, on Tuesday.

·         Looking at the county health data shows almost no surge.

Here’s the latest charts, made myself using Harris County and Texas data that I look up daily. This first one is the 7-day rolling average of deaths in Texas.

data from Texas DSHS, which I've gathered daily


You can see that Texas has had some recent increase, but is still well under half of when we had a surge in late July—which did not overwhelm the healthcare system. Much of the Texas problem lately has been related to El Paso, with cases crossing into Texas from over the border.

Here in Harris County, it’s hard to detect anything you could call a surge. Maybe a slight bump.

data from Harris County Public Health, which I've gathered daily


I’m not graphing cases; I’m looking at deaths, which is a lagging indicator. But they started saying there was a surge three or four weeks ago, so the deaths would show up by now. There was a slight uptick, maybe already over. Enough to give up seeing your family when you’ve all been safe and well—or maybe have developed immunity? It doesn’t appear from the data that there’s anything to panic over.

I do look at case data for my zip code, where it’s a little more manageable, and maybe believable. The daily chart has been showing fewer active cases each day for some time. On average, we have 6-8 fewer active cases per day. We have a total of 11 deaths, which is about low-mid-range for Harris County. But we haven’t had a new death in this zip code since October 26. The one previous to that was September 27.

Here’s the Epi-Curve of cases for the county, as charted by the county.

graph from Harris County Public Health


In sum, the data shows no need to panic. We should not be Code Red; we should be Code Orange or maybe Code Yellow. The fact that the code meter has never moved is odd, if you’re looking at the county’s actual data. Maybe somebody ought to “follow the science.”

My recommendation, which I’m daring enough to say: As long as you know your relatives are currently well, and you know you are, go ahead and enjoy Thanksgiving together.


The Election Integrity Related Censorship Story

On November 4, the day after the election, this same AZ relative posted some information about their voting experience in AZ. I reported it at the time. He had taken his marked absentee ballot to the polling place and turned in his vote, and it counted. His wife went to the same polling place and used the Sharpie marker provided by poll workers to vote in person. A later check online showed her ballot had been rejected. Multiple relatives around the state had similar issues. By the time I wrote, she had been able to get her vote counted, but at least three other relatives, all from Republican areas, had not. It made them suspicious.

This issue, experienced by many, was called “Sharpie-gate.” Was there an issue? Yes. Was he spreading rumors? No. He was telling his personal experience. There were plenty of other issues in AZ, which is still unable to get a certifiable count.

A few days later, November 9, this relative signed off Facebook with this:

My dear friends. This will be my last Facebook post as I will be deleting my account tonight. I have loved knowing more about your activities and your feelings these past years....but I have personally experienced the control and censorship of Facebook when I recently posted direct experiences at our precinct polling station (there has truly been corruption in the vote this year). Please feel free to reach out via email for new contact information.

I had signed up for a Parler account just a few days earlier. I haven’t yet left Facebook, which has a format I’m used to, and still many non-political friends I’d like to stay in touch with.

But here’s the issue I’m having. I think Facebook is keeping me from getting seen.

I write this blog, posting twice a week, generally. I write here on Mondays and Thursdays, sometimes not getting things posted until after midnight, so you’re more likely to see them on Tuesdays and Fridays.

I don’t advertise. I’m not a business entity; I’m just an individual writer. And I have things to say that I can more easily do in this format than either speaking or in a short tweet. Some friends find it valuable, and that is gratifying. And data shows I get found somehow by people around the world. I am, as I’ve said, obscure. I do not have a big enough following to make money at this. Maybe someday, if I complete a book I want to sell, I’ll do what it takes to actually market.

I spent several years writing without hardly mentioning it. A few years ago I started a pattern of linking my blog posts on Facebook. I try not to be overly political there, at least in what I offer. I do follow a number of political people and groups, where I react and occasionally comment. But on my wall, I’m pretty mild. When I post one of my blogs, I try to say just enough about it to pique interest, without being overtly political. Often you have to go to the blog itself to understand what the topic of the day is. I sacrifice clarity for the sake of avoiding conflict among my friends. Still, there are a number of friends who follow me because of my Facebook posts.

I’ve written four posts on election integrity since the election. It’s hard to concentrate on anything else. These are:

·         It’s Not Over, Nov. 6, 2020

·         Data Scientists Are the New Superheroes, Nov. 9, 2020

·         Evidence of Voter Fraud Is Mounting, Nov. 12, 2020

·         More Data Scientist Heroics to Save America, Nov. 16, 2020

The first one got more than my average views. The second one got much more. About my usual total views for three months for that single post. It was a bit surprising to me. But I go on about my business. My next one was still viewed, but more like the numbers of the first one.

Then I wrote the fourth one. And I got zero likes or reactions at all on Facebook. And, beyond my own views for when I go check my blog data, I got single digits of page views. I’m obscure. But not that obscure.

I checked with a friend that I know is a regular reader. Could she see it on Facebook? She could, by going to my wall, but it did not come up in her feed. Neither had the one previous.

So I did a little unscientific test. I wrote a post asking friends to let me know if they could see that post. Plenty of friends did that. (Thank you all. You made me feel loved. I love you too.)

So, OK, maybe it was a temporary thing. I wasn't in Facebook jail. I re-posted Monday’s blog, the one that got no reactions. This time I got two reactions on Facebook, from regular readers. (Thank you.) And a literal handful more on my data count on the blog.

What I think is, Facebook did not like my posts. Without some exploration, it’s hard to tell that they’re about the election, except that third one. I didn’t get a warning that my information wasn’t in harmony with their community standards or anything. I didn't see warnings come up about where to go for election information, which Facebook so "helpfully" provides.

I just got made actually obscure. My latest linked blog post, with no indicator that it was about voter fraud, does not go to anyone’s feed. Or almost no one’s, even on the second try.

So today I’m writing my own experience. Is it about censorship? I think so. I’ve been posting this way for years. Maybe they’ve been obscuring me off and on. How would I know? I don’t even know for certain that the subject matter that was interesting to a record number of readers a week ago is not worth reading this week. It couldn’t be a difference in writing quality, because people would have to actually read it to learn that, and that would show up as page views, so I’ll set aside that assumption for now.

I’ll be testing ways to get my rather quiet voice out there. And we’ll see what happens. But I hate to think what would happen if the censorship were to get governmental approval, as in a Biden presidency.

If I were writing about the election again today, I would include these four (and if I were really writing about it, probably a lot more).

One is today’s press conference with the President’s legal team—a must watch. 

Two is a video I listed at the end of my last post, but I didn’t get to talk about this part. The data analyst showed what happened in the 2018 Kentucky Governor’s race. The feed comes in live to the news centers, and he showed a split second, frame-by-frame, of an update in the count. It was a moment when a vote switch was caught live onscreen, on CNN.

I took a screenshot from this video,
and added the arrows and count comments

Three, a friend sent me this Wimkin video earlier today. It’s a phone video of a phone showing a video that had been made unavailable—a less than high resolution way to share it, but the info is there. I know nothing about either the originator of video or of the guy who was passing it along on this Wimkin video, but it does align with the video in Two, above, showing the same type of switch. The narrator says, if you happened to record one of the main news reports on election night, you can take note of each data update and see when vote switches happened. I think there may be other sources for the data updates as well. There are people who have listed the places and times vote switches happened. This screenshot is poor quality, but you can see someone has listed various cities where they identify switched votes and lost votes. They add up to a lot of stolen votes.

screenshot from here, listing votes switched and lost

This video also notes that, on election night, the President was in the command center, watching the feeds happen, and noting each data update. He has had the data showing the fraud all along.

Four, the President posted one of these Wednesday, one Thursday, using graphs provided by the New York Times. Those spikes that suddenly change the trajectory of the election—those aren’t possible in a natural world. They’re vote dumps for Biden, and they’re time stamped. The news media reported on this—without showing the NYT graph—claiming Trump made up stuff about voter theft. (I included Facebook’s “helpful” warning to me not to believe my lying eyes.)

The graphs are from the New York Times.
President Trump posted these separately on Facebook, here and here.

The more evidence that comes out, the more convinced I am that President Trump will remain in office in January.

Heaven help us all if the perpetrators of this crime of the century are given power instead of prison sentences.

Monday, November 16, 2020

More Data Scientist Heroics to Save America

It’s still not over, no matter what some “news” source is telling you about the media-announced president-elect and his plans to lock down America for another year or so.

In fact, several states are still counting, and recounting. And there may be more of that to come.

This post is long. I would break it up, but too much is happening too fast. So I piled it all in one post. After the lawsuit section comes the data scientist heroics.

More data scientists trying to save the country
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 12 video


Those Dismissed Lawsuits

If you’ve heard that the President’s lawsuits are being dismissed—or maybe you’re hearing it as “laughed out of court”—that would be yet another example of media disinformation. The only lawsuits of the President that have been dismissed were because the damage was already done, so relief in the manner requested in the lawsuit was no longer possible. That means there will be other lawsuits to address the damages, to replace the lawsuits intended to prevent further damage.

As for other, private citizen lawsuits, they’re not as hopeless as you’ve been told. There’s a lawsuit I covered in my last post, in Michigan,[i] asking for injunctive relief—that is, a specific request to stop something underway. To grant an injunction, a request must meet certain requirements, one of which is that there are no viable alternatives. In this case, the essence of the judge’s decision was to dismiss because there were alternatives available, which he actually listed for the plaintiffs, meaning the expectation is that the plaintiffs will indeed file another suit looking for those other remedies.

The judge in that case could have simply dismissed and said nothing more. Instead, he gave away his bias. He said he listened to the defendants’ explanations and liked them better. He said the issues brought up by the plaintiffs were simply misunderstandings about the process, which the plaintiffs could have avoided if they had attended the pre-counting walkthrough provided by the defendants. Except—they had not been invited to any such walkthrough; they had not been informed that any such walkthrough or instruction would take place. They were excluded from learning any such procedural details—but we’re not certain the excuses by the defendants were accurate anyway.

And the judge shrugged off the detail about a truck with out-of-state license bringing in box loads of ballots in the middle of the night. Because it was a rental truck; out-of-state licenses are common on rental trucks. The judge refused to see any reason for concern about a rental truck being used for the government purpose of ballot delivery—in the middle of the night, after counting had been paused, and the announcement had been made that all ballots had been received. Nothing to see here.

What the judge has done, inadvertently, is identify where the plaintiffs will need to shore up their evidence for the next lawsuit, which I believe was taken on by True the Vote

Those various dismissed lawsuits are mainly concerning mail-in ballot counting issues, which are numerous.


More Data Scientist Evidence

Let’s talk about the data science issues, adding to the ones I talked about a week ago. 

More on Benford’s Law

In case you’ve heard that the use of Benford’s Law[ii] for voter fraud was debunked, that’s not true either. There’s a mathematician in the UK, Matt Parker, who spent some time showing why Benford’s Law may work fine for financial fraud issues, but not for election fraud. The reason, he explains, is that Benford’s Law only works with a larger numbers. If you deal with numbers under 1,000, which many precinct counts would be, you don’t get the numbers you expect.

What he doesn’t say is, all you have to do is use either large enough precincts, or do the data by pairing or combining precincts. You could combine even up to 5 precincts and still have quite an array of data in a large county. You could do it by area or randomly. You could do it by state house district, or zip code, or some other combination. By the debunking guy’s own explanation, Benford’s Law would then be a viable check for fraud. I do not know if that has been done, but the data is available to do it.

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai and Team

I became aware of another data science method of identifying fraud just after my last post, which you may have heard of by now. I’ll lay that out briefly, and then cover the debunking (by the same British guy).

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai has a PhD in computer science from MIT, among other credentials. He is also currently (since results have not yet been certified) a candidate for senate in Massachusetts. He makes the presentation. There were two other data analysts on the presentation team, Phil Evans and Bennie Smith. Phil Evans has been looking at these patterns for a couple of decades.

Their study looks at four counties in Michigan: Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Wayne. They are making the claim that, in three of these counties, a minimum of 69,000 votes were taken from President Trump and switched to Biden, for a total difference of 138,000 votes.

The concern is over any counting that uses a particular type of software system—Diebold, which I believe is a product of Dominion. There are 86 counties in Michigan. You can extrapolate from there. And, of course, there are many counties in many other states that used this same counting system. The goal, I think, is to show that there is a need to look into the count wherever there is the possibility that this vote switch was done.

Dr. Shiva says his goal is to educate viewers enough so they can explain the concepts to their friends. So I’ll give that a go.

There are two types of voting available in Michigan: straight ticket or regular voting (choosing a candidate for each individual race). Up until this election, we also had straight-ticket voting in Texas, which is convenient but tends to invite uninformed voters and makes voter harvesting easier. Anyway, they have that in Michigan, so we can compare straight-ticket to regular. Data sets for these two types of voting include early voting and election day voting. In some they graph these separately, and in others they combine them.

What is straight-ticket voting? It is by party; you press one button, and all the races on the ballot go to the party of choice. On ours, we had the option of going over the ballot afterward and changing individual choices. I don’t know whether Michigan had that, but I think that would no longer count as a straight-ticket vote, even though the convenience was there for the voter. Other voters may go all the way down the ballot, doing each race individually, voting all for one party. (That’s what I usually did.) That wouldn’t technically be straight-ticket voting, as far as convenience for the voter, but I think in the analysis it might count as such.

You can put each party’s straight-ticket voting on a line—the x-axis of a graph—indicating how strongly Republican or Democrat a precinct is. It may not be an exact identifier of party strength in a precinct, but it’s a pretty good indicator. For example, if a precinct’s straight ticket voting is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, that’s a fairly strong Republican precinct. If a precinct’s straight ticket voting is 7% Republican and 93% Democrat, that’s an extraordinarily strong Democrat precinct. So the x-axis runs from 0% Republican to 100% Republican, and each precinct has a location based on that percentage.

Then there’s the y-axis. The specific thing Dr. Shiva’s team is comparing is, of those who varied from a straight-ticket vote, how many made a change only in the presidential race? In other words, how many preferred a different-from-party presidential candidate over the other candidates of that party on the ticket?

What you would expect to find is something relatively close to the x-axis, with some precincts giving a few more or a few less to a particular candidate. Precincts where more regular voters preferred the Republican candidate in a higher percentage than the straight-ticket voters would be above the line, meaning Democrats or others chose the Republican candidate over their own. Precincts where fewer voters preferred the Republican candidate than the straight-ticket voters would be below the line.

A normal distribution would look something like this, with some above and some below.

simple example of a normal case
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

Each square dot is a precinct. It’s direction on the x-axis is the percentage of straight-ticket voters of, say, the Republican Party. It’s placement on the y-axis is the difference, either positive or negative, of regular votes who preferred a candidate other than the chosen party. Again the 0% is the x-axis, the straight ticket voting percentage.

In this actual example, a few Democrats in heavy Democrat areas voted for the Republican. In the center you get more independents and swing voters, and you see a natural scatter. As you get into the strong Republican areas, there are fewer Democrat/other voters who can defect toward Republicans, so the percentage goes down. The red line is the average of precincts at a given location on the x-axis. The pattern is something of a parabolic curve.

A normal real example, showing parabolic curve
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 16 video

In Dr. Shiva’s presentation, we’re seeing how many Republican voters there were who preferred all Republican candidates—except for President. And how many regular Democrat/other voters there were who preferred only the Republican candidate for President. If the near-straight-tickets veer away from Republican, the precinct is below the line. If the near-straight tickets veer toward Republican, it’s above the line. You’re seeing whether President Trump was more or less popular than other Republicans on the ballot.

What you would expect is, in less strong Republican areas, regular Republican voters might be more likely to veer away from their candidate, and in strong Republican areas, regular Republican voters might be more likely to stick with their candidate, even if they veer on another race or two, and you’d even see some of the other party’s votes joining in.

But you don’t see that.

This is a scatter graph of Kent County.

graph showing Kent County, MI
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

You see the same pattern for early voting and election day voting separately for Macomb County.

graph showing Macomb County, MI
early voting and election day voting
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

Take a look at the first 20%, the least strong Republican areas. In the presentation, he does this with Oakland County. The average of precincts is a relatively straight line, showing that Trump is 7% more popular than other Republican candidates.

graph highlighting least Republican precincts
in Oakland County, MI
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

Then you see the graph drop. The stronger the Republican area, the more likely it is that regular voters choose Biden over Trump. And it’s a straight downward slope.

graph of Oakland County, MI
yellow line shows average of precincts
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

There is a direct proportionate link between strength of Republican areas and choice of Biden. Republican voters are choosing all or most of the other Republican candidates, but not choosing Trump for President. Greater Republican strength = less Trump popularity. That’s just the opposite of what you’d expect to happen.

Could this be happening naturally? If there’s a movement of strong Republican voters who disapprove of the President, then it could happen. But there’s no evidence of any such movement. And, if there were, it would happen organically, mixed among Republicans all across the list of Republican voters, not getting more obvious moving toward the more strongly Republican areas.

The linear nature of the data is evidence that it is not natural. Remember, the natural graph above with the parabolic curve? That isn’t happening here. What they speculate is that, up until about 20% Republican strength, the vote is relatively natural, and then an algorithm kicks in, giving more Trump votes to Biden the further you move into Republican strength.

Wayne County is an exception. It looks like this, which they think is natural—or, at least it doesn’t imply manipulation by an algorithm. What you notice is a messy splatter graph.

graph of Wayne County, MI
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 10 video

Oddly, Wayne County is where so many of the lawsuits are happening, based on observed counting irregularities. Dr. Shiva makes it clear that what his graphic data does not show is whether some other form of fraud happened; it only shows that an algorithm was used to alter data from one party to another.

Cleverly, the altered data happens in areas that still win a Republican majority, just at much lower percentages than you would expect for strong Republican areas. So the theft is less likely to be noticed by casual observation.

An interesting detail, especially obvious on the Wayne County graph, is that, in some of the strongest Democrat areas, you see the most movement toward Trump. The area shows much higher concentration of Democrat strength, according to straight-ticket voting, but surprisingly heavy veering toward Trump in those areas. Dr. Shiva and team speculate that, without the algorithmic interference, you would have actually seen a landslide victory for President Trump.

More Debunking

Now, back to the guy who tried to debunk Dr. Shiva’s presentation. Parker is not looking at the same things. He quickly dismisses the first 20% being parallel to x-axis and just draws a longer straight line down; he doesn’t say he has actually measured the average of the precincts in that section of the graph. Then he uses non-straight-ticket voting in total for the data. If it’s not straight ticket, but is nearly entirely Democrat, he’s using that. So of course deviation from straight-ticket Republican is greater, if you’re counting all Democrat non-straight-ticket voting, all of which includes a vote for Biden. The more non-straight-ticket-Republican votes, the more deviation from Trump votes.

But, if you’re looking at the ballots that vote nearly fully Republican except for the President—which is what Shiva’s team looks at—then there should clearly not be a proportional relationship. And a straight line downward is truly suspicious.

Could I be wrong? Certainly. I haven’t worked the data myself; I have gone by what different people have said they used. But the data is publicly available for anyone who wants to work it themselves. Plus, earlier today, Dr. Shiva came out with another video addressing some of the debunking. 


More Fraud Details

Let’s add a few details.

Weighted Ballots Are a Feature

The software used for counting—in these cases, they are looking at Diebold—there is a feature that allows for weighted voting. It’s a feature, not a bug. (See their user manual, below.) It’s possible, for example, to count a vote as something greater than “1 vote = 1 vote,” for example, something like “1 vote = 1.5 votes” for a particular area or category of voter, while another area or category is counted as “1 vote = .5 votes,” or any weight that gets programmed in.

in the Diebold user manual, red circle added by me
screenshot from Dr. Shiva's Nov. 16 video

There’s a question about all those places that stopped counting at around the same time in the middle of the night, when they were showing Trump winning, and then when they come back online to count hours later, the counting goes to Biden in such numbers that it seems—unlikely. Or maybe even mathematically impossible.

Then there’s that one county, Antrim County, Michigan, where there was a Republican familiar with her area and could see the outcome was way out of line with what was expected. So she did a hand recount. There were 6,000 votes that had been switched from Trump to Biden.

It was called a glitch. Dr. Shiva and his team say there is no such thing as a “glitch.” The software does what it is programmed to do. A “glitch” or “bug” is when the software, in testing and trial use, ends up doing something unintended. It’s not something that shows up randomly in some places, but not other places under the same conditions. The machine doesn’t make a counting “error”; it counts wrongly when programmed to do so. That glitch in Antrim County is, in itself, enough to question many other places where the same counting system was used.

Then there’s this. The counting machine, at least for Dominion, takes a picture of a paper ballot—and then counts the image of the ballot. The ballots are set aside. It is federal law that all voting data and materials must be held for at least 22 months beyond an election. But many states are deleting the images—the things actually being counted. They claim they don’t have to keep them, because the ballots themselves are saved. But by deleting the actual images, they cannot show whether any alterations were made to the images.

Every such location should have a hand recount of the actual ballots.

Refusal to Reject Mail-in Ballots

Then there’s the matter of ballot rejection for absentee ballots.

Back in August I referenced a NYT article from October 20, 2012, “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises/National Election Defense Coalition.” The difficulty with any type of absentee ballot is chain of custody. How do you prove that the person who filled out the ballot was the person entitled to that vote? If signatures don’t match, they can be rejected. If they don’t arrive with the appropriate signed outer envelope, they can be rejected. If they arrive late, they can be rejected. There are any number of reasons a ballot should not be counted, because there are so many ways these ballots are easy marks for fraud.

So you would expect that, anyplace that uses mail-in ballots would need to put in place very strict rules to make sure the person entitled to vote is actually voting, without pressure or influence—all things you can watch for and guarantee at an in-person voting location that follows the rules.

Instead, this year you’re seeing many counties in many states refusing to do even the minimal checks. Instead of a 2% rejection rate, you have rates much lower, for example, 25 times lower in Pennsylvania

Georgia Recount Failure

About that recount in Georgia: the Secretary of State came out publicly, promising to do absolutely everything by the book, to get an absolutely accurate recount, re-canvass, and full audit. And then they started recounting main-in ballots without checking signatures. That absolutely can’t go on.


Release the Kraken

Meanwhile, other stuff is going on. Rudy Giuliani tweeted yesterday,

Stay tuned for big news tomorrow. @SidneyPowell1 and I have substantial evidence of fraud and I can confirm that we have Dominion in our hands and are analyzing the logs. It will expose fraud to such extent it will be irrefutable that @realDonaldTrump won in a landslide. (2:13 PM, Nov 15, 2020)

Sidney Powell interview with Lou Dobbs
screenshot from here
All I’ve heard so far today is that the President’s legal team is changing lawsuit strategy. But Sidney Powell, newly added to the team, has been making the rounds, and speaking pretty bluntly that something is going to hit soon, using the phrase about releasing the Kraken.

There’s plenty of speculation about what that could be. Some of it rampant. I’m trying to weed out truth from maybe over-the-top wishful thinking. What I think is true is that Dominion and Scytl servers were seized as evidence. In the case of Scytl, it would be done under an executive order signed in 2018, allowing seizure of assets used in an attempt to influence the outcome of a US election. Scytl servers were located in Germany and routed through Spain. Rep. Louis Gohmert validated the claim that the servers were seized, with Germany’s cooperation.

Things I think they would be looking for:

·         Source codes indicating an algorithm that caused a change in how votes were counted—such as the weighting of ballots. It’s there; are there indicators of when/where the weighting was turned on, and the ratios? Because that could give estimates of actual votes changed.

·         Any indicators instructing voting places to shut down during the night, possibly allowing for the resetting of counting to be weighted, or weighted further, from that point on.

·         Key players controlling beyond local and state officials.

·         Enough evidence of fraud, or possible fraud, that the election results in many states are clearly unreliable so other constitutional procedures can take place.

There’s probably more. After so many years of seeing wrongdoing that gets brushed aside, with lawbreakers not being held accountable, I’d love to see all the corruption brought out publicly and brought to an end. It might be messy, but a lot less so than having anti-Constitution tyrants try take over and impose totalitarian rule over us.

Check my links and footnotes too, but I looked at these sources. Use your discernment:

·         Dr. SHIVA LIVE video: “MIT PhD Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals Unfortunate Truth of U.S. Voting Systems,” Nov. 10, 2020. 

·         Dr. SHIVA LIVE video: “MIT PhD Continued Analysis of Michigan Votes Reveals More Election Fraud,” Nov. 16, 2020. 

·         Bill Whittle, The Stratosphere Lounge video: “Episode265: The Smoking Gun” 

·         The Epoch Times, American Thought Leaders Interview, video: “Google Vote Reminders Only Went to Liberals, Not Conservatives for at Least 4 Days—Dr. Robert Epstein,” Nov. 12, 2020. 

·         Viva Frei Vlawg video: “Michigan Voter Fraud Lawsuit DISMISSED—Here's Why!” Nov. 14, 2020. 

·         Viva & Barnes Live Stream, video: “Ep. 34: Elections Lawsuits from Michigan to Georgia, Updates & MORE!” Nov. 15, 2020.  

·         Viva Frei Vlawg video: “Dominion Voting Machines Issuesthe New York Times!” Nov. 12, 2020.  

·         Lou Dobbs interview of Sidney Powell on Fox, clipon Instagram by davidjharrisjr 

·         Buck Sexton, The First video: “Trump's Lawyer Gives Update on Legal Battle,” Nov. 12, 2020. 

·         CDMedia video: “Interview with Source on Electronic Vote Fraud,” Nov. 5, 2020. 

·         Bellwether Counties Went Overwhelmingly for Trump in 2020,” by Petr Svab for The Epoch Times, Nov. 15, 2020  

·         2020 Rejection Rate of Pennsylvania Mail-in Ballots Over 25 Times Lower Than in 2016,” by Elizabeth Vaughn for the Dan Bongino Show, Nov. 7, 2020. 

·         Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises” by Adam Liptak for the New York Times, Oct. 6, 2012. 

·         True the vote sues Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to contest illegal ballots counted in Michigan,” True the Vote press release Nov. 12, 2020. 

·         The US Raided European Software Company Scytl, seizes servers with links to Dominion Voting SystemStreetLoc, Nov. 13, 2020. 

·         What’s Kraken?” by Clarice Feldman for American Thinker, Nov. 15, 2020. 

·         New federal lawsuit seeks to throw out 1.2million votes in Michigan, flipping the state for Trump” by Chris Enloe for The Blaze, Nov. 14, 2020. 

·         Why 2020 US Election Votes Were Counted By A Bankrupted Spanish Company ScytlGreat Game India Journal, Nov. 13, 2020. 

·         Did Crown Agent Dominion Voting Systems Rig The US Elections 2020Great Game India Journal, Nov. 9, 2020. 

·         The Extremist At Dominion Voting Systems” by Darryl Cooper for The American Conservative, Nov. 16, 2020. 

·         How a Philly mob boss stole the election—and why he may flip on Joe BidenThe Buffalo Chronicle, Nov. 14, 2020. 

[i] Viva Frei discussed this dismissal in a vlog posted November 14.  Also, Frei and Robert Barnes discuss this on their Sunday night livestream, at around 1:17:00 in. 

[ii] There’s a good mathematical explanation from 2011 called “Benford's Law—How mathematics can detect fraud!”