We Are at War

War comes in various shapes and sizes, and temperatures. Some are comparatively small, others big. Some are cold, others kinetic. Some are wars of ideas. Maybe all are wars of ideas. Ideas like, what is good and what is evil—and which are we choosing? We’re in one of those right now.

Back in the 60s there was a saying, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” It never made sense, because if nobody is warring, there is no war. But if one side is warring and the other side isn’t defending itself, you just have a takeover by the warring party. So, if someone is warring against you, you either succumb or fight back.

We’re being warred against. Many of us are fighting back—in non-kinetic, non-violent ways. We spread the message. We campaign. We vote. We work the polls. Some of us fight in the courts. Some of us fight in the legislature—if we’re not in the legislature, we testify and do citizen lobbying. We speak up. We make our voices heard. And meanwhile we live peaceful, productive lives in our communities.

The other side is using less lawful tactics. They censor. They propagandize like crazy. That is, they lie. They falsely accuse—in fact, if they’re accusing us (their opponents), you can assume they’re doing what they’re accusing us of. They harness business, media, unions, schools, NGOs, agencies, and anything else they can finagle to do their bidding.

They thwart free and fair elections. We have an election underway, with early voting running through tomorrow, and election day coming next Tuesday. And all of the thwarting is evident. However, in our war against evil, we have upped our game—more training, more poll watching, more calling them out. And yet, here’s an example of what this war looks like.

Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote
were arrested for not revealing a source
image from True the Vote found here

Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote (which started here in Houston and trained me in poll watching over a decade ago), and Gregg Phillips, a fellow researcher, turned over information to law enforcement identifying the company Konnech as having stored personal data of millions of US election workers on a server in China. CEO Eugene Yu has been arrested on criminal charges in the case; he is a naturalized US citizen, if I understand correctly, but is nevertheless a spy for the CCP.

The fact that charges were made means that verifiable information was provided and corroborated. But Konnech filed a defamation suit against True the Vote and all involved. The thing is, it’s not defamation if the claims are true, and the fact that charges have been filed make it very likely that what was said about them was true. In other words, Engelbrecht and Phillips did not make false claims, so a defamation lawsuit ought to be dismissed. Instead, the judge in the case is insisting that they provide the names of their sources.

And Monday Engelbrecht and Phillips were jailed for contempt of court. Here’s a good metaphor:

“Let’s imagine that a drug dealer facing criminal charges filed a lawsuit in civil court to make the cops provide the name of a source inside his organization. Would anyone think for a moment that would be a reasonable request? Would anyone have any doubt as to the fate of the informant if he was identified?

That’s how ludicrous this is and how obscene.”

                              —Sam Faddis, former CIA operations officer, writing in AND Magazine

Let’s look a little closer at the timeline. I’m getting most of this from a True the Vote email newsletter, as well as some recent news stories.

January 2021     True the Vote learned of the illegal breach of personal information to the CCP by Konnech. Recognizing the seriousness of the breach, they immediately turned over their information to the FBI. It turned out Konnech was already on their radar. They continued to cooperate with the FBI for 15 months.

April 2022           Catherine was told by a Texas-based FBI agent that the Washington, DC, office was now involved in the case. The FBI agent told her it was possible the FBI would now be targeting them, and their best way forward was to go public with their information.

August 2022       Engelbrecht and Phillips held a meeting in Arizona, called “The Pit,” an audience including citizen researchers, journalists, and law enforcement personnel, to whom they divulged their story publicly for the first time.

September 2022              Michigan-based company, Konnech, filed suit against True the Vote for defamation, racism, and xenophobia, based on their making their findings public. The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which required providing the names of all individuals who were involved in the discovery of poll worker data in China.

October 4, 2022               Following a grand jury convened in Los Angeles, Konnech CEO, Eugene Yu, was indicted in California on charges that included fraud, embezzlement, and a data breach that resulted in the theft of the personal information of election workers in LA County. The arrest was announced by LA District Attorney, George Gascon.

October 7, 2022               Attorneys for Engelbrecht and Phillips made an initial appearance in federal court in Houston to answer the civil lawsuit filed by Konnech. It was at this hearing that the judge issued a highly unusual order requiring Engelbrecht and Phillips, through their attorneys, to reveal the name of the individual who originally presented them with the poll worker data on the server in China. Their attorney reluctantly complied and revealed the name of that one individual.

October 27, 2022             Engelbrecht and Phillips appeared in federal court in Houston, at which point they intended to demonstrate that there was a criminal matter in LA County regarding Eugene Yu and Konnech—which would mean the defamation case could be dismissed. The judge refused to consider this essential fact and further directed Engelbrecht and Phillips to reveal publicly the name of yet another individual who had been in the hotel room where Phillips had viewed the poll worker data in January 2021. Engelbrecht and Phillips offered to cooperate with the court and Konnech’s lawyers by providing the name of this individual under seal. The judge refused this offer. At the end of a long day of testimony, the judge found Engelbrecht and Phillips in contempt of court. They were provided an opportunity to “cure” the contempt on Monday, October 31, at 9:00 AM by announcing the name of this individual in open court. If they did not “cure” it, they would be immediately remanded into custody by the US Marshals.

October 31, 2022             Engelbrecht and Phillips refused to name the individual who was in the hotel room in January 2021, because this person was not involved in the sourcing of the poll worker data, and they strongly believe that this individual’s life would be in danger if his name were to be revealed publicly. They were immediately remanded to the custody of the US Marshal’s Service and remain in federal prison.

In any normal case, the defamation suit would have been dismissed. In parallel cases where journalists or researchers have been jailed for not revealing a source, it was at least on the pretext that it was preventing law enforcement from verifying the evidence they needed to proceed with their investigation. That is clearly not true here.

The judge doesn’t even seem concerned with how political it looks to do this false imprisonment a week before the important Midterm Election, for which True the Vote is a clearinghouse of training for poll workers, poll watchers, and any other election observers who see election laws being broken. They couldn’t wait two weeks to avoid the appearance of political shenanigans?

post on Catherine Engelbrecht's Locals.com account November 2, 2022
linking to the updates of election violation reports, of which the leading
problem is ballot drop boxes

The logical conclusion is that this judge, along with Yu and other players, is fighting on the side against truth and freedom.

Engelbrecht’s friend Dinesh D’Souza, who directed the movie 2000 Mules, based on their research, suggested in his Tuesday night podcast, we pray for them of course, but not to worry about them. They will be fine. Some years ago he underwent political persecution that ended up in his spending time in prison for a violation that should have been limited to a fine, if anything. He said he learned a lot, and it actually raised his profile so that he could share his ideas with more people than before. He hopes that will be the case for Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips.

We can’t not fight in the courts, because to not fight is to succumb. But it is definitely not a fair fight. So getting the word out, spreading the message that compares freedom to tyranny, is essential.

In that fight we are shut down at every turn by those warring against us. But truth rises. Truth wins.

Meanwhile there are battle to be fought all around, and not all will be won, as we would hope.

Another such casualty in the fight for truth this week was Dr. Peter McCullough. Not dead. Just another attempt to silence him. He has been one of the most published and outspoken doctors (also here and here) in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, who developed an effective protocol early on, shared by millions and found to be effective. He’s a cardiology specialist and was among the first to connect the rise in myocarditis in young people to the so-called vaccine.

Dr. Peter McCullough testifies to the Texas Senate HHS Committee March 11, 2021
screenshot from here

After decades of stellar work and spotless record, all of his credentials have been stripped from him. He was not given due process. He was not given a chance to defend himself, or even to learn the reasons; he was coldly informed in an email. In a message about it, Dr. McCullough said,

I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors.  There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process.  Just e-mails or certified letters.  Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.

Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.  

None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”

I don’t know what this means for him going forward. He is of an age that retirement is an option—but that would be a tremendous loss for the public. While he might be prevented from seeing patients (it would be hard to get insurance without credentials), he might still be able to do research and publish findings. And he could still continue his online work and speeches and interviews. So we shall see. But I’m sure it’s intended to be a warning signal to any other medical professional who dares to go against the powers of those warring against truth and freedom.

We will win some battles in this war. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter may be a good thing for freedom of speech, although not quite fully realized in time for the Midterm Election.

And speaking of the Midterms, we may have a rare number of victories next Tuesday. Biden’s ominous and odd speech the other night seemed to portend a repeat of the worst—don’t expect the count to be complete for several days (so that they can dump in enough unreal main-in ballots to change outcomes they don’t like); and beware of violence breaking out (is that a threat against us disguised in an accusation toward us, disguised as a call for peace?) Weird.

I don’t know what it means. But I do know in this war between freedom and tyranny, the tyrants will not give up easily. And they have already proven, many times over, that abiding by the law is a limit on us, not them.

In the final end, we win the war. We’d better keep that in mind as they continue their attacks in this war many only recently realized we had to fight.

Two Movies You Couldn't Make Again

This is going to be a bit of a movie review, or just commentary. Probably no spoilers. Both are documentaries. Both could probably not be made again.

 

What Is a Woman?

This documentary, by Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire, is worth seeing. He’s dealing with the transgender question by asking the absolutely fundamental question, “What is a woman?” It ought to be simple enough. But in our day, the obviously simple answer is fraught with danger. If you say the basic truth, you’ll be labeled a heinous bigot.

So Matt Walsh covers the country, and the globe, asking this question. He asks it at the annual Woman’s March, wearing a sandwich board sign. He of course gets heckled and ousted, but doesn’t get an answer. He asks it on the streets; I think he’s in Hollywood. People on the street obviously know what a woman is but act like it’s a tough question they can’t answer.

Matt Walsh talking to people on the street in Hollywood
in the film What Is a Woman?

He asks a series of therapists and transgender people (some of the therapists are transgender people as well). They attempt answers, but these are circular. A woman is what a person says it is. But what is it they say they are? A woman. But what is that? It’s whatever they say it means.

You get the picture. Walsh goes through these interviews basically deadpan. He doesn’t indicate an agenda. And this interests me. I wondered how he got these people to talk to him. If they’re going to be angry at him just for asking basic questions, or indicating that he’s trying to get to a truthful definition, why would they submit to his questions?

During some of the interviews and podcasts he’s done since the movie came out last week, he has been giving some behind-the-scenes info. Here’s the thing: they didn’t know who he was.

I’ve been following his blog and podcast for over a decade, since before he was at The Blaze, and long before he joined The Daily Wire crew. He has a sizable following and is fairly well known. To our side. He’s a social conservative opining mainly on social issues. These opinions are essentially unknown to the people he interviewed. They’re aware there’s opposition. But as one therapist (a doctor who performs permanent mutilating surgery on minors) dismisses such opposition as “dinosaurs.” They’re relics of an ancient bone heap of some past generation.

It did not occur to them to look him up. If a person with film crew was coming to ask basic questions—and he submitted the questions to them ahead of time—then it must be an opportunity to declare their message, they seem to assume.

Matt Walsh's bestselling children's book
image found here

Their lack of awareness astounds me. Granted, Matt Walsh had gotten a significant amount of notoriety during the previous year of filming. So most of the interviews were done before he had an infamous encounter asking a trans person to define “what is a woman” on the Dr. Phil show this past February.  And it was before he published a best-selling children’s book, Johnny the Walrus, illustrating the absurdity of letting children decide what they are, with the story of a child who imagines himself to be a walrus. And I guess it is even before he temporarily moved to Loudon County, Virginia, to speak for one minute at a school board meeting. 

Still, like I said, I’ve been following him for over a decade. And his media footprint isn’t invisible for anyone with a search engine.

I think today he could no longer make the movie. He wouldn’t get those people to even respond to his requests, let alone sit in a room with him to answer questions.

A very fun part of the movie was when he goes to Kenya to ask the question of Masai tribesmen, through an interpreter. They thought he was crazy. Everyone knows what a woman is. And if you think you can change from man to woman, they think there’s something wrong with you both for thinking it’s possible and for wanting it to be possible.

Walsh has said in interviews that this part was most painful to his pride. He had to let them think maybe he agreed with these ideas, or at least that he thought they were questions to ask seriously, which meant he left them thinking he was such an idiot—and that people in the US were wacky, and that they’d never want to go there.

I can see he needed to not tell them beforehand, in order to get their honest answers. But I would have thought he’d disabuse them of these misconceptions after the interview. He says he didn’t. To this day they think he’s a crazy American who doesn’t know a man can’t become a woman.

Matt Walsh speaks with Masai tribesmen to ask them,
"What is a woman?" screenshot from here

The point of that adventure was to see if, as is claimed, sex is just a Western social construct. The Masai are about as non-Western as he could find. So, if they know how a man and woman are different, it is not because they have been fed this “social construct” by Western traditions.

The documentary is well done. And Matt Walsh is perhaps the singular person who could ask the question in the way he does.

There’s more to the movie, including the ramifications of society going the way of this war against basic truth. The attempts to hack and prevent this successful film from being seen is evidence the opposition knows the power this movie might have.

You can stream the movie at https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman and probably some other streaming sources.

Here are some of the movie premiere discussions:

·        “Daily Wire Backstage: What is a Woman? PREMIERE” June 1, 2022. 

·        “What surprised Matt Walsh the most when filming 'What is a Woman' | Will Cain Podcast” June 8, 2022. 

·        “Matt Walsh Revisits His What Is A Woman Interview With Dr. Forcier” June 3, 2022. 

·        “Trans YouTuber Responds To What Is A Woman Trailer” Matt Walsh, May 23, 2022. 

 

2000 Mules

I’ve talked about this movie by Dinesh D’Souza a bit already (here and here). One description of the theater experience was, there was a smattering of clapping afterward, but mostly there was stunned silence. People didn’t immediately get up and leave. They were thinking something like, “Wow! It really happened. What do we do now?” That's still an open questions.

There was an interesting interview Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips did with Roman Balmakov on Facts Matter, for EpochTV. Phillips, who does not seem inclined to overstatement, says what they revealed in the movie is just the beginning. There is game changing information coming out soon. In an interview Phillips did with Patriot Patel, he places the release of this information at about six weeks out, or around mid-July.

Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips talk about 2000 Mules
screenshot from here

I’ve been trying to imagine what this bombshell might be. I’m assuming it’s something that can be shown through data analysis, since that’s what he specializes in. He says it isn’t something that can be turned into a movie. It’s something he can clearly explain in a couple of minutes. But there’s six more weeks of getting ready to lay that out? I don’t know what details have to be checked and rechecked. Some of it has to do with getting the information out. He said he’d be bringing news outlets, such as Patriot Patel, together to lay out the explanation. I presume those outlets won’t include the various censoring media.

So I’m curious.

This is another movie that might not be made at another time. The perpetrators know how they were tracked this time. So will they use burner phones? Will they avoid the multiple drop boxes per mule that they encouraged this time? That was to avoid the sudden overload in a single drop box, which would cause suspicion. If all the nearby drop boxes got, say, around 100 ballots in a day, and this one drop box got 1300, that would be an anomaly.

There’s also the fact that, while video surveillance of the drop boxes is required by law, most did not do it. Video coinciding with geotracking is enough evidence for an indictment. So—do you just “accidentally” fail to provide video? Seems likely.

True the Vote noticed mules during the Georgia runoff using latex gloves—after a case where the perpetrators were caught because of fingerprints on the ballots. So they change their method based on what was done to catch them in the past.

Back in May, I had something weird happen on my phone. I asked this question in a group, but didn’t find anyone who had experienced something similar. Anyway, here’s what I posted:

Sincere question, not sure who to ask: This past Friday I went to the internet on my phone, which I do less frequently than most. A notification popped up—which disappeared before I could figure out how to get a screenshot—telling me, as I recall, that my security agreement was changing. Companies I go to online would no longer be able to track me or purchase my tracking data.

Normally I’d say that’s a good thing. I already opt out of tracking wherever I notice that I can. But this was the week 2000 Mules came out. In that documentary, True the Vote (from here in Houston) used tracking data, available for purchase by companies, and/or used by law enforcement, to identify phone tracking data showing people who went from one mail-in ballot drop box to another, when it is illegal to drop off another person’s ballot.

So, was this announcement a normal phone update? Or was it a response to the knowledge that tracking data can locate illegal voting? And if it’s the latter, does that mean we won’t have the same means of tracking this form of illegal voting in November?

Maybe it was normal, and I’m being a bit paranoid. But the timing of it, just days after the movie premiered, seems odd. And I wonder if it could mean there’s movement to stop mules from being tracked the next time around.

You can find the movie and ways to stream it at https://2000mules.com/.

Here are a few extra videos related to this movie:

·        “EXCLUSIVE: Ballot Mules Funded by Obama-Linked NGOs Pouring Billions Into ‘Local Insurgencies’” June 3, 2022. 

o   Watch the full version on EpochTV May 13, 2022

·        “Patel Patriot Interviews Gregg Phillips” May 28, 2022. 

·        “2000 Mules: Why I Changed My Mind About the2020 Election | Dinesh D’Souza | POLITICS" The Rubin Report, June 5, 2022

·        “FILM REVIEW 2000 Donkeys by Delish” Mr. Reagan podcast, May 9, 2022. 

Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation—and Censorship

I looked up the government’s definitions for these three types of information the new Disinformation Governance Board is concerning themselves with:

·        Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

·        Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

·        Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

Notice that this includes false information you didn’t know was false (a mistaken belief), false information you knew was false (a lie), and true information that the government deems evil. In other words, it includes all information, true or false, that the government comes up with a reason to disapprove of.

You’ve been hearing it called the Ministry of Truth, which wouldn’t make sense, since they want to hide inconvenient truth, not declare it—unless you’re familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

image from a T-shirt, found here

In that novel, the Ministry of Truth is the censoring department deciding what people are allowed to know or say or even think. Truth, of course, has nothing to do with it. But their language, Newspeak, is a way of saying things to hide what the government is doing, so as to control the people.

Ministry of Truth is a description of the kinds of organizations found in other regimes:

·        The Nazis’ Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, established 1933.

·        Glavlit, the Soviet Union’s propaganda arm, under Stalin.

·        The Kuomintang (KMT) of the Chinese Communist Party.

·        The Juche ideology in North Korea.

·        Castro’s propaganda apparatus in Cuba.

Of Cuba’s propaganda apparatus, Wikipedia says, “Today the Cuban government maintains an intricate propaganda machine that includes a global news agency, magazines, newspapers, broadcasting facilities, publishing houses, front groups, and other miscellaneous organizations that all stem from the modest beginnings of Castro's revolutionary propaganda machine.” Add in a total control of social media, on top of all other media, and a government just might find totalitarianism easy to accomplish and maintain. 

According to the government’ website, they are calling this—this writing that I do here, in the safety of obscurity—terrorism; domestic terrorism. Criticism of the government—including criticism of a current administration while they are undermining our Constitution—is considered a form of terrorism. 

On their website, they say there’s a focus on elections, so today so will I.

They do not bother about preventing election fraud. Instead, they are concerned with conversations that undermine trust in the election system. In other words, instead of increasing trust by increasing election security, they are targeting those who want to increase election security. Expressing questions about things that were not done according to law, or that left open the possibility of fraud, are on the list—I guess qualifying as malinformation, which is true stuff they don’t like.

 

2000 Mules

In a spirit of rebellion against Big Brother, then, I suggest you find a theater to go see Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary 2000 Mules, which details a particular type of voter fraud, the kind that combines ballot harvesting and/or weak rules surrounding mail-in ballots and unmanned drop boxes. It’s illegal to handle anyone’s ballot but your own. So when you find people going from drop box to drop box—particularly after stopping at Democratic headquarters or other election fortification nonprofits—then you look at those.

True the Vote, the organization from here in Houston that taught me how to be a poll watcher, gathered the evidence. They thought to use geo-tracking data from cell phones, the kind of widely used information purchased by companies for marketing purposes. They targeted a few cities, I think five around the country. And they eliminated any chance of coincidental traffic, such as a person dropping off their own ballot and then by happenstance going to a store near the next drop box. They’ll spell out the details, but I think their targets had to go to at least five drop boxes plus the nonprofits.

Then, where it was available, they got public security camera footage, targeting the time stamps when the “mules” were dropping off ballots. Then they had not only phone tracking but photos of the person and what they were doing. There could be no excuses like, “I loaned my phone to my brother,” or “I was just going to that store there; I wasn’t even using the drop box.”

screenshot from the 2000 Mules movie trailer

The documentary is showing this week (May 2 and May 4). Tickets are only available at their website, not at theaters, so there can be no intimidation of theater employees. Unfortunately, I hesitated to coordinate with my husband, and all tickets within driving distance were sold out for May 2, when we were available. There will also be a livestream on Saturday, May 7. That is an election day here in Texas, so poll workers will miss that opportunity. I’m guessing that there will be additional opportunities after this initial viewing, because the idea is to get all the election fraud deniers to see it.

It appears that just the cities investigated, with the limitations True the Vote imposed on themselves, provided enough instances of voter fraud to have flipped the election.

There’s a Townhall article here. 

 

Another Data Scientist Proves Voter Fraud

While we’re on this to-be-censored subject, I saw yet another data scientist’s take on election fraud, which seems to me a reasonable focus for investigation. He has found an anomaly in the machine counting that took place in 2020. The data scientist is Jeffrey O’Donnell, whose company is Ordros Analytics. You can see the full interview here. 

This story is out of Mesa County, Colorado. Their Dominion machines were due for an update in May 2021. But a wise county clerk, Tina Peters, thought to ask what that update would do to the data already on the machines. Federal law requires keeping all election-related materials for 22 months after an election; Colorado requires 25 months. It’s fortunate she asked, because that update was going to do a clean wipe of the hard drive. So they took an image of the hard drive first—that is, an exact digital replica of the hard drive. It’s a process used by organizations to backup their data, to preserve it, or to present it elsewhere such as in a court proceeding. It’s how we are learning what is on Hunter Biden’s laptop without having the actual laptop; images were made and shared. (I do not suggest looking for that image, since there’s illegal stuff on Biden’s hard drive.)

Anyway, they took this digital image of what was on their machines after the 2020 election. And, since they could, they made it available, in case somebody out there wanted to go through the data. Friends of O’Donnell thought he was the right person to take that on.

The first step of a computer audit is to look at the numbers and see if they add up. They did not. He tells the story, using the timeline:

They started counting ballots on the 19th of October. And these were, of course, mail-in ballots that had come in at that point. And over the next three days until halfway through the 21st, they had counted about over 25,000 mail-in ballots at that point. And what happened is that at 2:00 or so in the afternoon, something woke up inside the machine.

This was not caused by anything the clerks did. This was not a normal procedure. Some bit of code inside the Dominion machine woke up and decided that it needed to create some new databases, copy some ballot information to those new databases—not all but some of that—and essentially went through that reprocessing of about 20,000 of the 25,000 ballots.

We know that they are reprocessed, because there’s a thing called adjudication, or manual adjudication. And that’s simply that, when a ballot gets put into the system, if the computer can figure out what the voter meant to do by the dots, then we’re fine. It registers those votes. If it can’t, then it kicks them out to a couple humans that have to look at them and at the image of the ballot and see if they can determine what the voter meant to vote for. That’s what we mean by adjudication. Or, I call it manual adjudication just to kind of make clear it’s a human being doing it.

Well, when those 20,000 or so were run through again, the number of ballots that were kicked out for this manual adjudication process wasn’t the same.

Now, the same ballots run through the same computer with the same software should have had the same results. And the only way to explain that is, something had changed in the ballots at that point. Which, to me, points to where— Well, what I’ve told you so far is already proof of ballot manipulation. That it went through this process that nobody told it to do and nobody— There’s no way to explain it terms of normal processing.

It's unauthorized. And it is on a very deep level, illegal. And by the fact that these were reprocessed, then, if it had the opportunity then to overwrite any votes that were counted the first time it was through, it was a do-over on those 20,000. And then after that was done, it just kind of went on to the rest of the election as normal.

the anomalous reprocessing in Mesa County, Colorado during mail-in ballot counting 2020
screenshot from the O'Donnell video interview

Lest you think this was a one-off, an anomaly, a “mouse running across the keyboard” sort of scenario, there’s more. Mesa County had an additional election in April 2021, with mail-in ballots starting to be counted in late March. The same anomaly happened again, in the same way. For this one, O’Donnell says,

They were about 40% through the election [the count of existing mail-in ballots]. And suddenly this rogue process woke up. It can't read some of the ballots, and reprocessed and left others in there. It was, you know, different numbers obviously, because it was a different election and a smaller number, but it was the same unauthorized process that occurred again.

So that meant they needed to look deeper. He has spent the last seven months preparing his report. And he calls this Mesa County information the Rosetta Stone that is giving them the clues to know what to look for in other elections.

They are finding some serious anomalies. There’s what he calls the Law of Big Numbers. He explains:

The best way to think about that is as if you flip a coin and it comes on some coin twice; it comes up once heads and once tails. So, if you look at, I have half heads and half tails. If I flip it again the third time, whichever one comes up, it's going to be I have a third now of one and two thirds. So it's a big jump from 50% to 66% or whatever percent.

But imagine if you flip the coin a thousand times and you're keeping track of what percentage of heads tails. On the thousand and first flip, that count where you get the heads or tails of that coin can only affect the percentage by 1/1000^th, because you've already had a thousand flips into that data.

What they saw was that, in the counting of mail-in ballots, after a large number were counted, you’d expect only a very little affect in percentage with each additional ballot counted—because you’d expect some randomness in how they were turned in. But what you actually see is, late in the process a huge percentage go a certain way and no other.

As he explains, in olden days of voter fraud, the fraudulent actors would wait until well into the process to find out what number they needed in order to accomplish their win, and they would suddenly come up with those ballots. Someone comes in with—"these boxes of ballots I had forgotten were in my shed” (actually happened in Washington State a couple of decades ago).

These days it’s less physical. It’s in the numbers being counted. They’ve done a hyper-accurate calculation of how many votes they need under what circumstances; they’ve pre-loaded the expectation into the machine. And when the machine sees they’re not going to reach their plan, the algorithm kicks in to “reprocess” ballots to get a new count.

When we should expect to see very little affect on the percentage with each additional vote—

Instead, we see wild rises and falls in the last portion of these races.

That's the fingerprint, or one of the fingerprints, that we see once we're out 100,000 votes or so…. Suddenly have a swing, and that swing can be frankly in either direction.

Theoretically it could be either direction. In this particular election it was one particular direction—the Democrat direction. He adds, in case it’s not clear yet,

This is an unnatural pattern of voting. This is not how people vote. This is not how large numbers work. It points to manipulation. There has to be something manipulating the votes in order to get this kind of pattern of voting.

Theoretically, you could have a place where this unnatural pattern happens. You could get a sudden string of 100 “tails” in your coin flip following a randomly even first 1000 tosses. But you wouldn’t see it over and over in different places. Other places would even out the percentages. The odds are so astronomically against this anomaly that it’s impossible for it to happen naturally.

When asked whether they’d found this anomaly elsewhere around the country, the answer is a definitive Yes:

We have found the same fingerprints in all states, all counties, and all vendors that we have looked at so far. And it’s considerable now.

He's saying it isn't just Dominion machines; it's every counting machine they've looked at. 

A machine to count votes—its one task—ought to be fairly simple. These machines are not simple. They contain 300 or so complex tables in dozens of separate files and folders—only one table of which is the actual vote count. But the machines seem to be whirring along, sorting votes, apparently to keep better track of when an algorithm needs to kick in and reprocess some votes.

O’Donnell was asked where his report and the investigations in other states are all going. He says,

I think that things are finally moving at comparatively breakneck speed as we get close to the 22-month period, where they are allowed. As I've said, that we're right now, I guess four months from the biggest coordinated bonfire since Nero burned down Rome.

And so everyone—that I deal with anyway—is fully aware of this. And there’s really a three-pronged effort going on. And there's no reason why we can't do all three at the same time, because we've got a lot of good people. And one is exposing everything about 2020.

I still think we're going to see a number of states decertify. Unfortunately, I can't wave my magic wand and make it happen, but I think it's going to happen. That's going to have a huge emotional, if no other, impact on the process and start the ball rolling at the same time.

 

Recommendations

O'Donnell suggests we learn from 2020, “to make sure that they don't do the same things in 2022.” He recommends several things: don’t use machines to count, for one. Humans haven’t actually forgotten how to count. 

I would interject here that it isn’t quite that simple. I had a state rep who told the story of his first run for office. He lost by a few votes. An alternate judge and clerk of his party followed the presiding judge and another clerk to drop off the ballot box, back when they were paper ballots. The relatively short trip took hours. They could see the people in the car with the ballot box, shaking it and removing ballots they didn’t like—until they had taken out as many of the ballots for my rep that they needed for their candidate to win. So you’ve still got to deal with chain of custody, counting with both parties present and witnessing, and you need a definitive way of deciding what a ballot says. But all that might be doable—with willing people of good intention.

He also recommends getting rid of universal mail-in ballots. We’ll probably always have mail-in ballots for people documented to be out of town or in nursing homes, etc. But that should be a small number so that it can’t likely sway an election.

We ought to clean the voter rolls—accurately. We shouldn’t be outsourcing that to ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center, a Democrat-aligning nonprofit) or any non-local entity. Some states had thousands of double voters—people who have changed their registration, because of getting married or some other reason, so they get a new registration and the old one is dormant; but both show up as voters who voted in the election. Thousands of these in some states—in addition to all the other election issues.

And of course we need Voter ID laws.

O’Donnell suggests we ought to train people the way we train bank tellers—not to assume that nobody would ever do anything wrong, but to think that, if there’s a way to game the system, somebody’s going to do it, so you’ve got to be vigilant.

He’d like to see total transparency. Like with that image of the Mesa County election—anyone could see it, go through the data on their own. You don’t include data that connects the voter to how that person voted, but everything else ought to be available for viewing. The only reason not to do that is that you’re hiding something.

 

Conclusion: The 2020 Election Was Stolen

Let’s note that Colorado wasn’t one of the few swing states in question in 2020. It was just another place using those machines. What would we find if we did this careful look at every location using voting machines?

If you look at only the six counties in the swing states, you have enough evidence to show the election outcome was rigged. If you look at just the evidence of illegal mail-in ballots in 2000 Mules, you’ve got more than enough to show the election outcome was rigged. The various states that held hearings to hear about the voting irregularities—many showed enough evidence to indicate that their election results should not have been certified; decertifying those few states would have changed the outcome.

I think anyone who looks honestly at that election can see that the sitting President of the United States was ousted by voter fraud. You might call that a coup. Many people knew that right away—well ahead of January 6^th. Evidence continues to verify that the election was stolen.

We don’t have a solution for this unprecedented theft of our country and our freedoms. But awareness is a first step.

And we become aware when there is the free exchange of information. You cannot restore the people’s confidence in the election process until you make the system transparent and honest—something they might call malinformation: truth that they don’t like. But it’s what we’re going to have to insist on.

It's Not Over

Don’t go insane. You can get mad, but don’t go mad.—Andrew Klavan 

I was going to debrief our pretty good poll working experience, and then get on with the insanity. But this was too long. Let me just say, one of our new workers was pleasantly surprised; no one got angry all day. If you run things smoothly, you can avoid irritable voters—while preventing fraud.

There’s a long list of voting irregularities and outright fraud in Harris County. Observing from afar, my lawyer son says, “Your County Clerk belongs in jail.” But we’ll save that list for another day. Lawsuits are underway. But today, the national election is more at issue.

President Donald Trump, Thursday press briefing
screenshot from here

 

Sharpie-Gate

One voter fraud situation I have personal knowledge of is Sharpie-gate. We first heard of it from Mr. Spherical Model’s brother in Arizona. There were polling places in multiple states that handed out Sharpie permanent markers to use to mark paper ballots. Sharpies can bleed through, and that causes problems for the optical readers. And the ballots get rejected.

A friend said online that, from now on, if it doesn’t come from Reuters, she doesn’t want to hear it. No more news from friends’ Facebook posts or blogs. While I question her choice of authoritative news, I offer my anecdotal report anyway. When I mentioned this on a Facebook thread, I got called out for spreading rumors from a friend’s Facebook post. But that’s not what I was doing; I was sharing direct knowledge from an extended family member, and I hadn't yet heard of it anywhere else. So to me it wasn’t rumor. More news came out later—so the attack guy probably should have held his peace for a while.

My BIL took his marked absentee ballot to the polling place and turned it in as his vote, and his counted; they have a place you can go to online to check whether your vote is accounted for. His wife filled out her ballot at the polling place, using the Sharpie marker provided by poll workers. When she checked online, hers had been rejected. In addition, they have multiple relatives around the state who had the same issue. Those in Democrat areas had no problem; those in Republican areas had their votes rejected. It’s a small sample, but enough to make them personally suspicious.

My SIL was able to cure her ballot (verify it and get it counted) by Thursday morning, but at least three other relatives have not been able to get theirs counted yet as I write this.

Arizona Republican officials give press briefing Thursday
screenshot from here

Arizona has a hotline for people to call and report when they have this problem. It looks like, at least for those complaining, they will eventually be able to cure their ballots. It just may take a while. And the expectation is that, eventually, Trump wins Arizona’s 11 electoral votes.

·         Check your BALLOT STATUS HERE: https://my.arizona.vote/AbsenteeTracker.aspx

·         IF it says “cancelled,” file a COMPLAINT HERE: https://www.azag.gov/criminal/eiu

Catherine Engelbrecht, on the True the Vote podcast, said she first heard about the Sharpie problem from hotline reports out of California, North Carolina, and Michigan. It was when the calls started coming from Arizona, and then Nevada, that she realized it wasn’t an anomaly; it was widespread. She said, 

Now, there’s new details coming in on this. And as I said at the top of this broadcast, this is raw, right, so we don’t have some of the details that we will have throughout the day that will help glue some of this together. But what we have been told is that there was a company, particularly in Michigan, that was responsible for passing out Sharpies. That’s one data point. Another data point, out of North Carolina was that some of the Republican election workers—and you may have seen this in our Twitter feed late last night—the authorities had the sheriffs called in on them, sheriff’s, law enforcement called on them for trying to not use Sharpies, and using ballpoint pens instead, because it wasn’t spoiling the ballots.

We’ll see how that turns out. But, yes, poll workers saw the Sharpies were spoiling ballots, so they went and got ballpoint pens, and someone called the cops on them—for making sure their voters’ votes were not spoiled! I’d like to know who called the cops and what crime did they claim had been perpetrated.

 

Mail-in Ballots

On Andrew Klavan’s show, he wryly headlined his post with this: 

If only someone had predicted that mail-in voting would be a chaotic mess!

Of course we knew this would be the outcome. The only scenario that would not have worked out this way would have been a decisive, unquestioned, fairly counted Biden win. We knew that wasn’t going to happen. The multitudes at Trump rallies, compared to pathetically few at the purposely scarce Biden appearances, told us that.

I know this was a misspeak,
but we heard him say it and not correct it.
image found here

What we’re seeing play out is the Democrats’ plan A. They pushed every form of ballot chaos they could, well ahead of time.

One of the main points of contention is the counting of mail-in ballots. This is a new thing, special for this election. And they’re ripe for fraud; they’re missing most of the safeguards of in-person voting.

Yes, there are a few states who do it relatively successfully. They have a process in place, with years to have worked out issues. In particular, they clear out their voter rolls completely every two-year election cycle. People have to re-register or they do not get a ballot, and their registration includes their signature. They have a system of identifying that the enclosed ballot belongs to the registered voter who received it. (Still, I hear reports of people I know who have gone to the polls in person only to find that someone else had already voted in their name.)

There’s nevertheless a span of time when the ballot is “in the mail” and could be tampered with, or “lost.” So it will never be as secure as in-person. There’s also no way to have observers verify that the voter wasn’t intimidated or coerced or influenced as they filled out their ballot. That’s why absentee ballots are typically a last resort way of voting, reserved for those who cannot make it to the polling place in person—not on election day nor during early voting. It’s a courtesy for elderly voters and for active military, so it’s usually a small, manageable number that are not likely to sway an election.

But the places that do mass mail-in successfully do not send out ballots to people who have long since moved, or died, or never existed, or never registered in the first place. In our county, where the county clerk printed ballot applications to send out to every voter (because he couldn’t get away with sending actual ballots to uncleared voter rolls) spent millions on the printing, and then was prevented by law from sending them out to people who had not requested them. Still, he sent probably a million. Some households got several ballots more than the number of people living there.

President Trump warned about this months ahead of time. And the experience of many places in primary and runoff votes showed they could not—maybe ever—determine the outcome of the election in a timely and just manner. The sudden use of mail-in ballots—especially without the legislature putting safeguards in place—is dangerous and probably illegal.

The news media use President Trump’s warning against him, saying he’s stirring up lack of trust in the process.

Not so. There is a fairly simple solution to lack of trust: transparency. You have observers from both parties view every interaction with every ballot, and work together to determine the eligibility of each vote.

But that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re seeing Democrats thwart the observation. Purposely. Intentionally. Breaking the law by denying access. (See video here from the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan.) 

The Democrats are acting like people trying to steal the election—with the added bonus of causing loss of trust in the system.

The President is resolute. I’m glad to see it. And he explains it well. This isn’t about him or any other particular candidate winning; it’s about us, the American voters, having our votes counted accurately.

Democrats keep saying “Count every vote.” Republicans are saying “Count every legal vote.” It echoes the immigration fight: “The Republicans hate immigrants,” versus the truth: “Republicans welcome legal immigrants.”

Let me put it this way, every illegal vote that is counted disenfranchises a legal vote. Notice which party is intent on disenfranchising voters.

Fox News screenshot, found here

 

The Suspicious Six

So, the Sharpie states seem to be among the suspicious six: Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. [Other states, including New York, used Sharpies, maybe without issues. I’m wondering about differences in the paper used, or in the optical scanners.] All six have Democrats in charge of voting. All six had President Trump leading or quickly gaining—until around 3:00 AM (Eastern?) Wednesday morning. Then they stopped counting. For several hours.

I can’t emphasize enough how odd this is. You don’t stop the counting in the middle of the process. Ever. For any reason. I think it was Georgia that claimed their pause had to do with a pipe that burst—far away from the counting location and having no effect on it. Hmm. I’m unaware of any rational explanation from any location. Then, when they opened up again, suddenly there were huge Biden gains. As though they had just happened to come upon some surprise boxloads of votes, all of which went to Biden.

I found this on Facebook, an unofficial news source, but I think it’s well stated, by Jan N. Freeland: 

How come the people processing the ballots suddenly couldn't process anymore ballots at the same exact time in the same states in different time zones? Did they all have their break times synched with each other across the USA? Did they all have to go home at the same exact time? Why, for hours, weren't any of these missing ballots being tallied up?

One thing you learn when investigating is that coincidences need to be carefully examined, in the event of multiple coincidences happening at the same time, which points to a non-coincidence.

What we are seeing now is a carefully orchestrated backup plan; it is far too planned out to be a coincidence.

There were areas where, in entire townships, only single digits of votes went to Trump—in areas where he won last time. I defy you to find a voter who went for Trump last time but not this time. Let alone an entire township. It doesn’t happen. It’s such a statistical anomaly that you can say it cannot happen—except by voter fraud. Incidentally, during the 2000 Florida recount there were entire precincts without a single Bush vote—except for some spoiled ballots that got thrown out. So, yes, we’ve seen this before.

Also consider this, from Joy Pullman at The Federalist:    

It would be mystifying if Republicans won more seats in the House, retained the Senate, and picked up state legislative seats, all while the same voters voted against Trump. Trump has solidified his support among Republican voters and enjoys a massive approval rating from them he didn’t have in 2016, and expanded his coalition to more working-class and minority voters this year. This is not a blue wave year. This is a year that the blue wave of 2018 appears to be receding.

Yet we are supposed to believe the same media-Democrat complex that fed us wildly erroneous polls all year, and runs false information operations on us about coronavirus, the Russia hoax, and everything else they can use to steal power, that this blue wave’s evaporation did not at all affect the top of the ticket?

Something is amiss.

tweet from Mollie Hemingway

 

The Lawsuits

Our new State Republican Executive Committeewoman, Deborah Kelting Fife, was one of the original members of Catherine Engelbrecht’s True the Vote team. They’re the ones that taught me poll watching and ballot security law, back in 2010. Deborah says that Catherine

has offered assistance in reconciling votes across the Nation. Without going into detail, it would be a very simple process to electronically determine the number of times people voted, deceased votes, or felons, or illegals, or people that have moved out of the State, etc.

Trump wants to count every LEGAL ballot.

I know True the Vote is not the only group. If you have evidence of voter fraud issues or irregularities, here are some places to report:

·         True the Vote Election Integrity Hotline or 855-702-0702

·         Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Election Hotline 

·         Trump/Pence, Defend Your Ballot 

·         Brandon Straka, #StopTheSteal 

Rudy Giuliani said this about the President’s lawsuits: 

When these mail-in ballots that you know are highly suspicious anyway, this form of balloting has always been considered the most prone to fraud—that’s according to the New York Times when it didn’t apply to candidate President Trump—well, we were supposed to be allowed by law to observe the counting of the ballots. Now, observe means, to any intelligent person, being able to look at it. The way that it’s interpreted by the Democrat crooked machine of Philadelphia is that the observers can be 20 or 30 feet away, never able to see the ballot itself. Never able to see if it was properly postmarked, properly addressed, properly signed on the outside—all the things that often lead to disqualification of ballots, or make it easy to dump 50,000 totally fraudulent ballots, because they’re not observed. This went on for 20 hours. While all of you thought there was some kind of legitimate count going on here in Philadelphia, it was totally illegitimate.

Does it make a difference? It wouldn’t if people were honest. So, yes, it makes a difference. For example, in Wisconsin, the location of at least one of the President’s lawsuits, after a pause in counting suddenly 120,000 ballots show up. We have no way of knowing from where, or whether they’re legitimate at all. Because observers weren’t allowed to observe. That’s where they’re putting boards on windows so spectators can’t even look in.

According to Catherine Engelbrecht, even Democrat observers around the country are calling in to complain that no one is allowed to observe. Backroom shenanigans are being carried out. Vote counts aren’t just showing gradual rises, they’re showing vertical rises in favor of Biden. That doesn’t happen.

image found here

 

My Plan

Don’t give up on our beloved 233-year experiment in self-rule; our constitutional republic is a gift from God, worth preserving, whatever the cost.

Pray hard. Pray for God’s intervention in this darkness that is too heavy for us to bear alone.

Pray that every single incident of voter fraud is uncovered and made known—with consequences to follow. Pray for President Trump, and Vice President Pence, and their families. Pray for those working to uncover the voter fraud and bring it to light.

Pray that those who vote another way will see the corruption on their side and realize it doesn’t represent their beliefs; welcome them when they break away.

When you get up off your knees, take action. Spread the word. Volunteer. Bear one another’s burdens. And be of good cheer. Whatever comes, God’s plans will include you and your choice to serve Him.