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 2^nd. 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:

Family,

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. 

But,

·         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.

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 Issues—the 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 System” StreetLoc, 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 Scytl” Great Game India Journal, Nov. 13, 2020. 

·         “Did Crown Agent Dominion Voting Systems Rig The US Elections 2020” Great 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 Biden” The 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!” 

Evidence of Voter Fraud Is Mounting

Things keep moving along—in the background, with silence from the corrupt media.

We now have North Carolina, 15 electoral votes, and Alaska, 3 electoral votes, concluding their vote counts, both in favor of President Trump, so he has gained 18 electoral votes since Monday.

Graphic as of November 12, 2020 from EveryLegalVote.com

According to the tally at EveryLegalVote.com, as of today, the current count is 234 electoral votes for Trump, 214 for Biden, with 80 still disputed. This tally shows Virginia in dispute; if I understand correctly, the dispute is for other than the presidential race, but there is a recount being requested. The Epoch Times shows Virginia as decided for Biden. That would mean adding 13 to Biden, putting him at 227, still behind President Trump.

Image from here

In the past couple of days, lawsuits have been filed in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and we’ll go over some of what those entail. Be aware that lawyers could be disbarred if they bring forth a frivolous lawsuit during such a moment in history. They have to vet every person who contacts them, to verify that they have knowledge that can be used—that they have firsthand knowledge, or at least hearsay knowledge that corroborates other evidence. These are serious people doing serious work at great risk to their reputations and livelihood.

On Tuesday, Kayleigh McEnany held a presser laying out some of the charges in the lawsuits, along with experts on the cases in Pennsylvania and Michigan. We’ll cover that presser first.

Also Tuesday, David Frei, Canadian law vlogger of the Viva Frei Vlawg, went through the lawsuit filing in Michigan to help us understand the law—which is his purpose. He’s pretty much non-political and has no personal stake in our election. But I do see a very strong bias toward law and order in him.

Following that, there’s some some other news of the day.

All of this contradicts the media claim that “there’s no evidence of voter fraud.”

 

Trump Campaign Presser 

Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany at Tuesday's Press Conference
screenshot from here

Kayleigh McEnany starts with some observations about what we’re seeing—that the simple solution would have been transparency. Where that’s lacking, it’s probably because there’s something to hide:

There is only one party in America that opposes voter ID, citizenship, residency, eligibility. There is only one party in America trying to keep observers out of the count room. And that party, my friends, is the Democrat Party. You don’t take these positions because you want an honest election. You don’t oppose an audit of the vote because you want an accurate count. You don’t oppose our efforts at sunlight and transparency because you have nothing to hide. You take these positions because you are welcoming fraud, and you are welcoming illegal voting

She quotes Justice Neil Gorsuch twice, from his opinion in Democrat National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature: 

“Our oath to uphold the Constitution is tested by hard times, not easy ones. Last minute changes to long-standing election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos, and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes.”

And,

“Nothing in our founding document contemplates the kind of judicial intervention that took place here. Nor is there precedent for it in 230 years of the Court’s decisions.”… “No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted.”

Attorney Matt Morgan in Tuesday presser
screenshot from here

She turned time over to Matt Morgan, an attorney for the campaign. Adding to the charge that the elections official and Pennsylvania Supreme Court had illegally taken upon themselves the legislative duty of setting election law, he summarized, putting the irregularities in two categories:

1.       A violation of equal access based on a lack of meaningful observation and transparency, particularly in Democrat-controlled counties.

2.       A violation of equal protection based on disparate treatment between Republican voters and Democrat voters.

Morgan gave some specifics about the disparate treatment. And then, about the refusal to allow observers, he said,

In Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, there were over 682,000 ballots that were tabulated outside the view of our observers who were entitled by law to review those ballots. And we believe that a meaningful review of those ballots could discern that there were ballots that were illegally counted.

They are asking for meaningful review in order to discern, within those 682,000 at least, and possibly more throughout the state, whether those ballots were treated differently depending on party and location in the state.

Will this review make a difference? Yes. Review of only those ballots is likely to identify enough votes to put the state into the margin requiring automatic recount. This lawsuit, he said, could swing that discrepancy.

So this Pennsylvania lawsuit isn’t the last step in finding an accurate count for the state; it is a first step—the step right after setting aside ballots at issue because of their late arrival,  against the law before the election official put in the fix without input from the legislature.

Then time went to Ronna McDaniel, Republican National Committee Chair, who talked mainly about the Michigan lawsuit, which is her home state. She started by mentioning Wayne County, where

Republican poll watchers were denied their legal right to monitor the election and purposely kept in the dark. But, literally and figuratively, poll watcher—or poll election workers—blocked windows and had locked doors. Obviously that’s not going to instill confidence.

Then she listed that thousands of poll watchers have reported being intimidated and prevented from doing their job. So far they have 131 affidavits—signed statements under penalty of perjury—in Michigan, entailing over 2800 incident reports so far. She described the process.

RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel at presser
screenshot from here

As you guys can understand, with 2800 incident reports, this is a lot to track down. It means we’re interviewing these people, we’re getting their statements, and we’re turning them into affidavits. But that takes a lot of time and effort. And, as Matt has mentioned, there’s a canvass process and a certification for a reason.

But I will just tell you, the distress that I’m hearing in my state from people who were at TCF, and the way they were treated, is deeply alarming. I hope you go and look at this. I hope you look at these affidavits, and I hope you hear from the people that were there, who feel like they were denied transparency and saw wrongdoing in Detroit. We should all be alarmed by this, no matter where you are on the political spectrum.

Here’s where she calls out both the Democrats and the media:

So just after a week after the polls closed, Democrats and the media want to ignore these clear irregularities and rush to call states as won, and end the certification and canvass process. We’re hearing we need to unite; we need to come together. Well, for the thousands of people who spent time and hours going out to be part of this process, who feel disenfranchised, who don’t feel like there was transparency, we can’t do that unless we search out all these irregularities.

Even one instance—even one instance—of voter fraud should be too many for all of us. We intend to ensure that every lawful voter has their vote counted in accordance with the law, that observers are granted the access they are due under state law, and that any irregularities that have occurred, whether by malicious intent or incompetence, are investigated to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

She said that, on Tuesday, two new lawsuits were filed, by a Detroit city worker and a whistleblower. I think we’ll let Viva Frei cover those details. But first I want to share McEnany’s final mic drop. After all that about affidavits and votes counted without allowing observation, and challenged votes being thrown back into the regular piles, the press asks their mantra question:

Do you have any evidence you can show us today that shows illegal votes were counted?

McEnany says,

Let me say one final thing. There were 682,479 counted in Philadelphia, in Allegheny County, that there were no poll watchers allowed to watch. It’s the job of the media to ask the question why. Because all we are asking for is truth, transparency, and sunlight, here. That is all we are asking for. And, sadly, we are asking the questions many of you should.

 

Viva Frei Vlawg on Michigan Lawsuit 

David Frei of Viva Frei Vlawg. Yes, he films in his car.
(The T-shirt reads "Politics Ruins Everything.")
screenshot from here

Frei starts with this description of the overall situation:

I think in 20 years’ time, we are all going to remember the 2020 elections. But, as of today, November 10, 2020, the only thing people are talking about is the US presidential elections… and the fact that the outcome is so hotly contested. On the one hand you have roughly half of America saying, “Something smells a little fishy here.” And on the other hand, you have the other half of America, with the support of the mainstream media saying, “Nothing to see here. Everything was good. Let’s transition into a Biden presidency.”

On the one hand, you have the mainstream media saying, “There is no evidence of any fraud.” On the other hand, you have the mainstream media saying, “There isn't any widespread fraud.” On the other hand, you have the mainstream media saying, “Where they find glitches, they have reversed them.” [background graphic, “yes, that is 3 hands”]

It is something of a moving target, but the underlying sentiment, and the underlying mantra of the mainstream media is that there is no evidence of fraud.

Much of the vlog covers reading portions of the actual lawsuit, which you can read here. 

Spoiler alert. He says,

And I’ve got to tell you, after reading the Michigan lawsuit, I don’t think anybody can credibly say that the accusations and the allegations are not themselves credible.

Here’s some of what’s in it. Numerous instances of fraud (starting 3a on page 3; some rewording for brevity):

a.       Ballots were processed when voters did not appear in the Qualified Voter File (were not legally registered voters).

b.       Defendants instructed election workers to not verify signatures on absentee ballots, to backdate absentee ballots, and to process such ballots regardless of their validity.

c.       After announcement that all ballots had been received, another batch of unsecured and unsealed ballots, without envelopes, arrived in trays at the TCF Center. There were tens of thousands of these absentee ballots, and apparently every ballot was counted and attributed only to Democratic candidates.

d.       Election workers were instructed to process ballots that appeared after the election deadline and to falsely report that those ballots had been received prior to November 3, 2020 deadline.

e.       Defendants systematically used false information to process ballots. Many, for example, were assigned the birthdate of 1/1/1900.

f.        Election workers campaigned and coached voters to vote for Biden and Democrats.

g.       Unsecured ballots were accepted and added to be counted.

h.       Defendant election officials and workers refused to record challenges to their processes and removed challengers from the site if they politely voiced a challenge.

i.         Following challenges, poll watchers were ejected from the room and prevented from watching.

j.         Defendants permitted thousands of ballots to be filled out by hand and duplicated on site without oversight from poll challengers.

Frei points out that evidence isn’t accepted as fact, or even evidence, until a judge accepts it as such. But he also says,

All of these allegations are supported by seven sworn affidavits with firsthand knowledge of that which they include in their affidavits. There may be, and in fact is, some hearsay in their affidavits, but at the very least sworn affidavits are firsthand knowledge of what they were told and what they in fact did.

Frei adds this,

Bear in mind that exhibit B is a sworn affidavit from the employee of the city, an employee who had been working for the City of Detroit for decades. That is not to say that it is infallible proven fact. That is only to say that someone with a lot to lose is saying something under penalty of perjury, and it is a very serious allegation of firsthand knowledge.

Some of the allegations refer to actual fraud—very serious charges. Some refer to irregularities that imply possibilities of fraud. Frei acknowledges this span and suggests an audit could go a long way toward resolving any questions of legitimacy of the election.

Here are the listed charges:

·         Forging ballots on the Qualified Voter List (numbers 14-30, pp. 5-8)

·         Illegal Voter Coaching and Identification Issues (numbers 31-32, pp. 8-9)

·         Changing Dates on Ballots (numbers 33-34, p. 9)

·         Illegal Double Voting (number 35-37, p. 9)

·         Two Rounds of New Ballots (numbers 38-49, pp. 10-11)

·         Denied Access to Observers (numbers 50-51, p. 11)

·         Inputting Voter Names in the QVF after Voting (numbers 52-55, pp. 11-12)

·         Absentee Ballot Signatures not used for validation as required by law (numbers 56-59, p. 12)

·         Unsecured Ballots (numbers 60-62, p. 12)

Then come the list of laws that were alleged to be violated, which I’ll let you go through for your reading pleasure. (Again, that's here.)

What’s presented in the lawsuit is pretty damning. Nevertheless, it’s still early in the process. Frei ends with this:

It may never be able to be proved in a court of law. The affidavits might be “full of malarkey,” to use someone’s expression. Come to your own conclusions. At least now you have a better idea of the facts to do so.

At the very least, the next time you hear a media person asking, “Do you have any evidence that shows illegal votes were counted?” you’ll know they’re in denial. There’s plenty. And, by the way, Joe Biden is not president-elect. He is, at this point, just a guy who ran for president and is waiting for a vote count on that. Anyone describing him otherwise will need to be held responsible for the cognitive dissonance people face when all of this fraud inevitably comes to light.

Will the recounts be enough? Because the fraud is in enough places, I think so. Some of it depends on judges, who are human beings and, despite their oath, tend to be political. But fair-minded individuals can see the evidence and weigh it for themselves. For me, it weighs a whole lot heavier than the call for unity from the people who have called us Hitler, deplorables, racists, etc., and have been compiling lists of our names in order to punish us for our views the moment they sense they have the power to do it.

It’s not a time to give in, to make nice to get along. If the corruption is not rooted out at this moment in history, we will never have a “next time” free and fair election to vote it out.

 

More to Read

Here are some additional stories I’ve read since my last post.

·         “Georgia Will 'Audit, Recount, and Recanvass' Presidential Vote” by Megan Fox at PJ Media, Nov. 11, 2020. 

Georgia SOS announces full hand recount and audit
screenshot from here

·         “Tens of Thousands of Pennsylvania Ballots Returned Earlier Than Sent Date” by Petr Svab for The Epoch Times, Nov. 10, 2020. 

·         “Sidney Powell: 450,000 ballots voted only for Biden, left the rest blank” Ken Webster, Jr., for the Michael Berry Show, KTRH Radio, includes a Fox video clip of Sidney Powell listing charges. 

·         “Official Says Optimism Growing That Trump Wins Arizona,” by Bowen Xiao for The Epoch Times, Nov. 10 (updated Nov. 11), 2020 

·         “County received mail-in ballot from Nevada woman who died in 2017; state investigating 2 allegations” by David Charns for 8NewsNow Las Vegas, 

·          “Sorry, Nancy, House Democrats Had Another BAD Day in the Races That Have Yet to Be Called” by Matt Vespa for Townhall, Nov. 11, 2020. 

·         “Arizona Congresswoman Says Trump Should Not Concede” by Bowen Xiao for The Epoch Times, Nov. 12, 2020. 

·         “Rudy Giuliani Confirms “Dominion”Whistleblowers Are Coming Forward (Video)” News BBT, Nov. 11, 2020. 

·         Kyle Becker Twitter thread, with video, claiming Dominion machinery has the ability to add marks to a ballot after the voter last touches it. Every county that used it may need to be recounted by hand.