Censorship Is Deadlier than the Virus

It has been a couple of months since I updated my COVID graphs. My purpose in doing my own data collection is to see the data in a form I find useful—which I haven’t much found elsewhere.

Today I’ll share the latest local data. Then we need to take an honest look at the dishonest reporting and what that has wrought.

 

Data Report

Texas Deaths

This first graph is the 7-day rolling average of daily deaths due to COVID-19 in the state of Texas.

I’m using two sources of data here, but it’s a bit hard on the graph to see the comparison. They are supposedly the same source. Around October 10^th, the Houston Chronicle stopped doing daily updates. I thought that would be altogether, so I went to the source they said they used, which is the Harris County Public Health data. The Chronicle has continued to show daily updates, almost every day, except that about three days a week there are repeats, followed the next day by a cumulative big number. Fortunately, doing 7-day rolling averages evens that out.

Last month the Harris County site decided to redo their page. Up until yesterday I was able to choose between old and new landing pages, so I could continue getting the data I want. Yesterday they stopped that. Getting the number of deaths, so I could compare that to the day before and get the average, was suddenly much more difficult. They’re emphasizing new cases and number of vaccinations; I’m looking at new daily deaths and info on my zip code.

Texas Daily Deaths, 7-day Rolling Average. I collect the data daily from here.

You can see that there was a surge of deaths in August, which receded through early November. Since then there has been a steady rise, equaling the summer surge, for a longer time.

 

Harris County Deaths

Harris County is 13.9% of the population of the state of Texas. And it’s an urban area, meaning dense population. So it would seem logical to expect at least 13.9% of daily deaths to be in Harris County. That would mean 43 deaths per day. But we’ve averaged 15 per day or below since early October.

I don’t think Harris County is doing anything particularly novel. And our county judge continues to label us as “in the red zone,” on a scale that has never moved since it was first installed.

I don’t have a way to find out where all those excess Texas deaths are coming from. With my limited skills, maneuvering around the data sources I have at hand, the only way I see would be to update county data from all 254 counties every day and run my own rolling averages. Anyway, you can see that we’re not in a dangerous upsurge. I’m suspicious that the state numbers are not accurate.

Harris County Deaths, 7-day Rolling Average. I collect the data daily from here.

My Zip Code

I pretty much ignore case numbers except for my zip code. I figure that’s a size and location I can envision, to know whether the numbers are somewhere near accurate.

In a population of 37,146, we have had 2621 total cases, about 7% of the population (my guess is that’s low, but who knows). We have 292 active cases. The number of new daily cases has been going up sort of spikey lately. But the active cases daily have been going down—consistently. We haven’t had a daily increase in the 7-day rolling average for 16 days. We last had a death on January 21^st. The one before that was December 22^nd. You can see on the graph—those below zero days mean fewer active cases than the day before. That means those getting well equals the dark line plus the light line (subtract a negative number means you add it, you remember from middle school math, right?)

New and active cases in my zip code, data from here

 

The Misinformation

There are a great many things related to this illness that suddenly changed after the election, coincidentally. Steve Deace listed several a few weeks ago. Cities suddenly opening up from lockdown, sending kids back to school—even as they claimed a new more contagious strain was spreading even more rapidly. So it appears the messaging changes are related to the apparent outcome of the election.

Of these, one is that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is now recommended as an early treatment to avoid hospitalization.

This was the news I wrote about March 19, 2020; I had heard it from other sources the day before, and wrote about it the same day President Trump mentioned it in his daily briefing.

Here in America it appeared that the treatment was shunned because the President had mentioned it, but there was worldwide prejudice against it. I don’t fully understand why, but my best guess is that it was too easy, and maybe too cheap, a solution to the dangerous pandemic. And, while the illness was real, so was the political use of it to gain power over people. The longer the people remained scared and helpless, the better for the power mongers.

Back during the summer, when we had our surge, and up until recently, you could get censored on social media for mentioning the possible efficacy of HCQ. At the very least, you’d get a Facebook warning label and/or a notice of where to go for “accurate” (i.e., approved) information on COVID-19. Doctors who talked about it had their videos removed or were deplatformed so that they couldn’t get the message out about their actual clinical experiences and numbers. Some got fired. Because we were supposed to “follow the science,” we were told. Very frustrating.

So, when the American Journal of Medicine recommends HCQ in their January issue, we’re supposed to forget all that censoring we went through.

Treatment algorithm for COVID-19-like and confirmed COVID-19 illness 
in ambulatory patients at home in self-quarantine.
Figure 1 from "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early
Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-10) Infection"
in American Journal of Medicine, January 1, 2021.

How Many Lives Were Lost Needlessly?

What I’d like to know is, how many lives could have been saved using this protocol they now recommend? It’s essentially the protocol doctors recommended last April—because it was successful in virtually 100% of patients treated this way in the early stages.

The drug had used safely for eight decades, and was known for nearly two decades to help with coronaviruses. It seems like a perfect drug to try during such a desperate time. There was that Lancet study that the news media used as an excuse for labeling it as “dangerous,” a study that was pulled within a week, because it was shown to be so flawed. And there was another supposed study that refused to use HCQ until people were hospitalized with severe symptoms—too late for the protocol to be effective—and they were given toxic-level high doses of HCQ and without it being combined with zinc, azithromycin, or anything that was part of the successful protocol. Then, when patients died, they blamed the HCQ for killing them. Why would actual doctors or scientists do that to real human beings placed in their care?

What if everyone had listened to those doctors who used the successful protocol early? Those deaths in the surge might not have happened.

I don’t know whether anyone is doing an actual study to estimate lives lost needlessly because of prejudice against this protocol. But let me do what I think might be a reasonable bit of math.

Looking at the protocol chart, those under 50 and healthy have remained very unlikely to die—roughly 1/10,000, or 0.01%. Those over 50 with 1 or more comorbidities have brought the overall death rate up to 0.1%. That’s ten times higher than for the younger and healthier. But that’s still only 1/1000. Even among those very elderly (I’ve known some), they got pretty sick, but with appropriate treatment they got through it about like they would a bad flu. Nevertheless, the highest percentage of deaths are in the 80+ range with multiple comorbidities.

Some of those doing using protocol early on were dealing with nursing homes—where they were having near 100% success. Zero deaths. I don’t think we can go that far in our estimate, because some people of that age and fragility are going to pass away regardless of treatment. But we might be able to estimate that we could save 90% of them.

If you think that’s too high, we might say 75% of them.

Let’s say that every person who became symptomatic from April on was given this protocol, and it saved 75% of those who died but didn’t have to.

The total US count of deaths from COVID-19 today is 486,992. Some might not have recognized their symptoms until they were severe, and they would have to do the additional hospital protocols. And some would still have died. But many others—those told to stay home and watch their symptoms, take cold medicine, and come to the hospital when their breathing got hard—they could have been treated quickly and easily, the way we treat with Tamiflu for the flu, and been on their way to recovery instead of on their way to death.

So, 75% of 486,992 is 365,224. That’s an estimate of how many lives could have been saved—if the information on what could save them hadn’t been censored, or the medicine banned from being used. Your loved one who died might be among them. It wasn’t “Trump’s fault for mishandling the pandemic.” It was the media’s fault. It was the power mongers’ fault.

Also, we could have returned to our relatively normal lives possibly 8 or 9 months ago. If your business has been closed, or curtailed, or you’ve lost your job, or your kids have had a very spotty education for two consecutive semesters—that’s their fault as well.

Does it really do any good to place blame? Yes. I think it ought to be done. To prevent them from having power over us ever again.

They’re not done controlling. And they’re not done misinforming.

 

The Mixed Information

One of the most difficult things has been getting accurate information. Even my charts—I make them myself by collecting data every day, but I’m dependent on what the county and state say the numbers are. I don’t know whether they’ve overcounted COVID deaths. I don’t know whether they’ve far overcounted or undercounted cases.

There are some things that strike me as ridiculous and make me trust the “experts” even less. Here are a few:

A story from the UK in the Evening Standard says, “Vaccinated Brits told not to hug kids amid fears millions will ignore Covid rules once they have jab.” So, you should get the vaccine, but that won’t mean you can feel free to hug your kids. What? You’re living in the same household all along. You get the vaccine. But you still should social distance—from your children? Was anyone social distancing in their houses, with children, when not ill? What are you, some sort of monster?

Various stories mention that the vaccine won’t mean you can go back to normal. You might still get it. Or you might carry in on you or something. So, keep staying home, keep wearing a mask, keep being scared. Then why get the vaccine at all?

If you’ve already had the disease, you still need to get the vaccine. Why? For that matter, if you’ve already had the disease, you can still get it and spread it—even though that’s not normally how viruses and the immune system work, and the number of people who have been known to have gotten the virus twice is extraordinarily small.

There are many cases where the vaccine itself has harmed people, or killed them. Why should a person at very low risk of death from the illness get a vaccine that could do them more harm than the illness? Because you never know? But you never know about that vaccine either. Pressure to be vaccinated or be prevented from working, or doing business, or traveling seems to be just another power monger thing, if a person isn’t allowed to weigh the risks and make a decision for themselves.

Suddenly now it’s OK to go back to school, and teachers don’t really need the vaccine first. Except the teachers’ unions say, no, too dangerous.

We don’t have enough vaccines for everyone right away, so we prioritize healthcare workers, the vulnerable—and Guantanamo prisoners—before the general public can get it.

I think Dr. Fauci intends to drive me crazy. Early on—don’t wear a mask. Later—wear a mask. Why the change? [paraphase] “Oh, we lied about masks not being useful, because we were afraid the general population would stupidly buy them all up, leaving shortages for healthcare workers.” The expert didn’t foresee that people forced to sit at home during a “two weeks to lower the curve” shutdown emergency were too stupid to just make millions of masks on their own? Or that businesses could retool to provide them?

We should wear masks when we are inside and can’t socially distance. But we must wear them in addition to social distancing. Because?

And outside. On a bike. Or running, hiking, kayaking, even if alone. Even though outdoor spreading is very rare. And meeting for church shouldn’t be allowed, even in cars in a parking lot, outdoors, with masks. Because?

I lost all faith in Dr. Fauci—this is from some time ago, and I don’t have a date or citation, just a memory—when he was trying to advise about having sex for those who are dating during COVID. No clothes and exchange of bodily fluids, no problem. But wear a mask, and don’t kiss. And social distance. I think he’s not clear on the procreative process, nor on the spread of disease.

What have we learned from COVID-19? Do not trust the experts. Do not trust anyone that censors the free exchange of information. Such people are willing to let you and your loved ones die for the sake of their power. And they’re willing to zap the living out of any life you have left. It’s what tyrants do.

 

The COVID Collection

I’ve been writing about the pandemic since the shutdown in March 2020. Some posts are about how the response has affected our civilization, rather than just about the data. Many are about the government overreach. At first it was all consuming, almost every piece for two or three months. I still collect the data daily, but I write only occasionally now on COVID. Today I’m just compiling them, as a sort of history of this past year.

·         “Just Some Personal Stories” November 19, 2020. 

·         “Remembering Freedom and Finding Truth” October. 26, 2020. 

·         “Time for a COVID Update” October 5, 2020. 

·         “What If Conspiracy Isn’t a Theory?” July 30, 2020. 

·         “The Neverending Convention, Part I” July 21, 2020. 

·         “Politics Is Viral” July 9, 2020. 

·         “Data, Debates, and Dystopia” June 11, 2020. 

·         “Coercive vs. Cautious Response” May 28, 2020. 

·         “Breaking Out” May 21, 2020. 

·         “Coming to Be at Peace” May 11, 2020. 

·         “Civil Disobedience—Under What Circumstances?” May 7, 2020. 

·         “Seeing Miracles” May 4, 2020. 

·         “Math and More Questions” April 30, 2020. 

·         “Open to Hope” April 27, 2020. 

·         “Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?” April 23, 2020. 

·         “Federalism Works—Even in a Crisis” April 20, 2020. 

·         “Tyranny's Body Count Rises” April 16, 2020. 

·         “Unrighteous Dominion” April 13, 2020. 

·         “Worldwide Unity” April 9, 2020. 

·         “Encouraging Words” April 6, 2020. 

·         “The Classic Trio: Emotion, Logic, Action” March 30, 2020. 

·         “Innovation” March 26, 2020. 

·         “Crisis Legislation” March 23, 2020. 

·         “Look to Literature” March 19, 2020. 

·         “From Home” March 16, 2020.  

Three More Updates on the Neverending Election Saga

We’re going to cover three pieces of news, all related to that election that happened three months ago, and yet are newly relevant:

·         There was a cabal that successfully affected the election.

·         The proof of voter fraud, both of the traditional corrupt type and the newer corrupt digital type, is now available.

·         Courts are finally beginning to consider the evidence in voter fraud lawsuits, and a 2/3 majority are ruled in favor of Trump or Republicans.

 

The TIME Story

image from here

That news about the cabal isn’t from some conspiracy theory source; it is from TIME Magazine, documenting what happened, as told by those who did it, because they’re so proud of what they accomplished.

The TIME piece is called “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election,” by Molly Ball, with reporting by Leslie Dickstein, Mariah Espada and Simmone Shah.  It appeared online February 4^th, and the print version is set to appear February 15^th. As the piece describes it,

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum.

By “save,” they mean prevent Trump from winning. And by “across the political spectrum,” they mean leftist/progressive Democrats along with some anarchists, with a few never-Trumpers added in. They  also say,

[T]he participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream—a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

It runs close to 7,000 words, so a review here can’t cover everything. But we can highlight what they’re so proud of. While I’ve summarized, I’ve taken the info pretty much directly from the story; I’ve highlighted my comments to differentiate them:

Overview of What They Did

·         There was an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.

o   It stretched to Congress, Silicon Valley, and the nation’s statehouses.

·         They got states to change voting systems and laws [to remove rules meant to prevent fraudulent votes].

·         They helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding used to promote the voting changes, particularly mail-in voting.

·         They recruited armies of poll workers.

·         They got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.

·         They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [i.e., opposing views] and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears [i.e., opposing views, again].

Who Are They?

·         The architect of the cabal is Mike Podhorzer, senior adviser to the president of the AFL-CIO.

o   He brought together a group of liberal strategists in the early 2000s, which led to the creation of the Analyst Institute, a secretive firm that applies scientific methods to political campaigns.

o   He was also involved in the founding of the progressive data company Catalist.

·         Among the participants were the US Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO; and Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party. They also partnered with the Movement for Black Lives and the Working Families Party.

·         Other actors included The Fight Back Table, a coalition of “resistance” organizations.

o   Many leaders of the summer’s racial-justice protests were a key part of the liberal alliance.

o   They did scenario-planning around the potential for a contested election, gathering liberal activists at the local and national level into what they called the Democracy Defense Coalition.

·         On March 3^rd, Podhorzer drafted a three-page confidential memo titled “Threats to the 2020 Election.” [By threats to the election, or to democracy itself, they always mean a Trump win.] The memo laid out four categories of challenges:

o   Attacks on voters [i.e., voters who commit fraud].

o   Attacks on election administration [i.e., election officials who commit fraud].

o   Attacks on Trump’s political opponents.

o   “Efforts to reverse the results of the election.”

The Activities

·         Podhorzer began coordinating in October 2019. He began hosting weekly 2½-hour Zoom meetings in April 2020, talking about which ads were working, what messaging to use, and legal strategy, aiding communication among various leftist groups who normally didn’t communicate.

·         Taking advantage of COVID-19 as a crisis, in March the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights led 150 organizations to pressure Congress to steer COVID-19 relief to election administration, including postcards encouraging mail-in voting and other alternatives.

o   Private philanthropy joined in this COVID-19 response effort on elections. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative chipped in $300 million.

o   Amber McReynolds, a former Denver election official who heads the nonpartisan National Vote at Home Institute, which advised 37 secretaries of state plus DC on such things as which vendors to use and where to locate drop boxes.

o   McReynolds also provided press materials used to convince the public on the importance of absentee ballots for shortening lines at polling places and preventing an election crisis [ meaning a Trump win].

·         The Voter Participation Center, instead of doing get-out-the-vote canvassing, focused on getting people to vote by mail and overcoming resistance, particularly by black communities that didn’t trust mail-in voting.

o    In August and September, it sent ballot applications to 15 million people in key states, 4.6 million of whom returned them.

·         Democrat lawyers fought pre-election lawsuits contesting law changes and rule changes. [Note: many lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, because damage had not yet been suffered by plaintiffs. However, later lawsuits were dismissed for laches—being filed too late for remedy, because problems should have been contested before the election.]

The Media Campaign

·         Laura Quinn, progressive operative who co-founded Catalist, piloted a nameless, secret project that tracked disinformation [i.e., opposing viewpoints] online and tried to figure out how to combat it.

o   Her solution was to pressure platforms to remove content or accounts that spread disinformation [i.e., opposing viewpoints] and by more aggressively policing it in the first place.

·         In November 2019, nine progressive leaders met with Mark Zuckerberg in his home, pressuring him to act against election-related “falsehoods.”

o   They weaponized current rules, expanding beyond actual crimes, such as inciting violence, to include the “dangers” of “false” ideas [i.e., opposing viewpoints, again].

o   Among those present was Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who also pressured Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and others.

·         They had a media message campaign to convince voters:

o   That mail-in voting wasn’t susceptible to fraud.

o   That failure to finish the count on election night was to be expected.

o   The Voting Rights Lab and IntoAction created state-specific memes and graphics, spread by email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, urging that every vote be counted [they mean every vote, not merely every legal vote]. Together, they were viewed more than 1 billion times.

o   By late October over 70% of Americans did not expect to get election results on election night.

Hair-Trigger Timed Riots

·         Activists prepared to reprise the summer’s demonstrations if Trump claimed to win the election.

o   This included 150 liberal groups: the Women’s March, the Sierra Club, Color of Change, Democrats.com, the Democratic Socialists of America, all joined the “Protect the Results” coalition.

o   The group’s now defunct website had a map listing 400 planned postelection demonstrations, to be activated via text message as early as November 4^th. [I highlighted this, because it shows their control over mob violence, which they intended to launch as needed. Meanwhile, they’re impeaching Trump for violence at the capitol that he did not cause.]

o   The summer’s racial-justice protests had sent a signal to business owners about the potential for economy-disrupting civil disorder, which led to the US Chamber of Commerce’s connection about a week before the election. [Notice the similarity to mafia protectionist racketeers: “It would be sad if something happened to your place; we’ll protect you—in exchange for a little something.”]

·         Podhorzer held an 11:00 PM Zoom call election night. He knew that polls had underestimated Trump’s support but promised that election-day voting would be overcome with mail-in votes.

o   Those on the call carefully prepared timing of planned protests.

o   Protect the Results announced that it would “not be activating the entire national mobilization network today, but remains ready to activate if necessary.”

o   Twitter continued to allow upset progressives to converse about how to stop the Trump “coup” [i.e., win of the count at that early point, or challenge of the irregularities]. They wanted violence.

o   Protect the Results altered protests into a weekend of celebration. “Counter their disinfo with our confidence & get ready to celebrate.”

Post-Election Day

·         Biden victory was declared by the media on November 7^th. After that came:

o   Winning the count.

o   Winning the certification.

o   Winning the Electoral College.

o   Winning the transition.

·         At 10 PM on Election Night, poll watchers arrived at the TCF Center in Detroit. Within 45 minutes progressive reinforcements arrived and were added to email chain for updated instructions.

o   Reinforcements included racial-justice activists from Detroit Will Breathe and Fems for Dems, working alongside local elected officials.

o   The media strategy messaged “the people’s right to decide, demanding their voices be heard and calling attention to the racial implications of disenfranchising Black Detroiters.”

·         When President Trump invited GOP state house leaders to the White House to talk, Protect Democracy’s local contacts researched pressure points to keep the lawmakers’ from being persuaded to act on fraud and irregularities.

o   Activists scanned flight schedules and flocked to the airports on both ends of Michigan lawmaker Shirkey’s journey to DC. Michigan was key to preventing other states from failing to certify questioned election results.

o   A street artist projected the state lawmakers’ images onto the outside of the Trump Hotel building on Pennsylvania Avenue, along with the words “THE WORLD IS WATCHING.”

o   Activists flooded the livestream of the canvassing board meeting, using the Twitter hashtag #AllEyesOnMI.

·         According to the TIME story, all progressive activists were told to scrupulously stand down on January 6^th. That meant any mayhem would be blamed on Trump supporters.

o   Business leaders denounced the Jan. 6^th attack and vilified the lawmakers who refused to certify Biden’s victory.

And Now

·         Podhorzer and his allies are still holding their Zoom strategy sessions, gauging voters’ views and developing new messages. Media and social media censorship continue.

·         Trump is in Florida, about to face his second impeachment trial, deplatformed from his Twitter and Facebook accounts.

The piece ends with this:

Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed. But it’s crazy, in retrospect, that this is what it took to put on an election in the United States of America.

The “will of the people” does not mean what you think it means; it means the will of these people. And this is where we’d better define terms, in order to translate.

Democracy, at the time Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America, in the 1820s, wasn’t referring to a form of government, but to an egalitarianism—no elite ruling over the plebians. Anyone was equal to anyone else, and was just as entitled to rise to the top of his business or other sector of influence.

When these people refer to democracy today, it is clearly not that; they mean forcing the plebians (us deplorables) to submit to the ruling elites in government, media, academia, and business.

We know it isn’t even rule by the majority, which they claim they favor, because they want to ensure than only the elites’ choices are made, regardless of the voting will of the people. But they do put a fair amount of effort into persuading the plebians to go along with the elites’ choices—by preventing any opposing viewpoints from getting through.

What they claim to have done was save America from “an autocratically inclined President,” ironically failing to see the fascistic, totalitarian thought control and corruption they use to do it. Also ironically failing to notice that Trump’s actions throughout his four years were decidedly not autocratic or authoritarian. But it helps their narrative to paint him as Hitler, without letting little things like facts get in the way.

They claim their efforts were “dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.” But their admissions actually show that they were about “winning the vote” at all costs, particularly at the cost of free and fair elections—and at the cost of trust in the election process going forward. Ironically, they blame Trump for the lack of trust they could have solved simply by being trustworthy.

Joshua Philipp, on his January 7^th Crossroads episode, talked about this weird story: 

You have conspiracy here. And what do you call it when groups working together for more than a year in a conspiracy to change the outcome of an election, have been found to have coordinated on it—again, what do you call that? That’s a coup. That’s sedition. It’s what they’re accusing Trump of doing right now.

Something about a cabal, a secret conspiracy, a secret pact, and totalitarian censorship just doesn’t give off the “credible and uncorrupted” vibe they say it does. They are so out of touch that they think their collusion admission is noble.

Rather, it corroborates what Trump voters already knew, but non-cabal-participating Biden voters did not. Maybe you should tell them.

Here are a couple of good legal discussions of this TIME story:

·         “Time Magazine Releases Information About the Secret 2020 Election Shadow Campaign” Robert H. Gruler, Feb. 5, 2021. 

·         “The Times Elections Exposé is STUNNING” Viva Frei Vlawg, Feb. 6, 2021. 

 

Absolute Proof

Already I’m writing too long. I hate when that happens. One of the big news stories of the week was the excellent documentary put out by Mike Lindell, called Absolute Proof. It is a little under two hours.

title screenshot of Absolute Proof

It has been banned from YouTube and Vimeo, but not before getting 10 million views. And it continues to spread better than any previous collection of voter fraud evidence. You should be able to get it directly at MichaelJLindell.com.

The first portion goes over the more-or-less traditional election fraud, which is mainly what the cabal of the TIME story was involved in. There’s plenty of that. The following screenshots show the known fraudulent votes totals of those types in the six battleground states. Notice that each state far exceeds the margin of victory.

Arizona

Arizona voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Michigan

Michigan voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Nevada

Nevada voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Wisconsin

Wisconsin voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Georgia

Georgia voter fraud and irregularities
screenshot from here

Those of us who have been paying attention have seen this evidence. It has also been catalogued by the Navarro Report, the Epoch Times documentary, and various other places we’ve referred to before. In normal times, this evidence would have prevented those six states from certifying until the questions could be cleared up and the actual outcome known, if it is possible to know. But these are not normal times.

Later in the documentary there is additional proof, of the more technical type of voter fraud. The other sources have mentioned this as well. People keep claiming it’s a conspiracy theory, and that, “you haven’t provided a shred of evidence.”

OK. Challenge taken. Lindell brings in the experts to lay it out.

They demonstrate that they have every instance of information exchange catalogued. They can show what IP address (what individual computer) made what contact to an election system, even down to the precinct level, what changes were made, whether they were attempted only or whether they succeeded in making the change.

And they have mapped each individual incidence of that interference on a global map. An outsized amount comes from China, but there are plenty of other locations involved.

map showing real time election interference from global locations
screenshot from here

They explain pretty carefully how they got the information, and how they know it is accurate. It would very likely hold up in a court of law.

Mike Lindell says that, now that the evidence is out—where he believes even the nine Supreme Court Justices have by now had a chance to view it, as well as the general public—the obvious need to clean up our elections is something we can unite behind. (I think he's overly optimistic, but I like that in a person.)

He doesn’t call for Biden’s ouster and Trump’s reinstatement. He is simply about putting the evidence out there, in the hands of the public.

Of course, then he’s censored. I suggest you view it directly from his site. And download it as a historical record.

 

The Court Cases

I was listening to a Jordan Peterson podcast of his conversation with Douglas Murray, recorded in January. During their far-ranging discussion, they talked about the US Presidential election, from their Canadian and British outside views. Jordan Peterson said that the biggest evidence that Trump was wrong about election fraud was the mass of cases thrown out of court. So many of them—all thrown out. That's what the media has told them.

If you’re paying attention here in America, you might know that those cases that were thrown out were on lack of standing or some other technicality—without looking at the evidence. That has been frustrating. But, failure to look at evidence does not equal lack of evidence. (See Lindell’s movie, referenced above.)

Justice tends to be slow and not always satisfying. But there has been some progress.

Citizen journalist John Droz, Jr., described as a physicist and environmental advocate from North Carolina, has been tracking the 2020 Presidential Election lawsuits, on his publicly available spreadsheet, updated as of February 6^th. 

According to an Epoch Times story, 

Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated and 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. Both the cohort of 11 and of 23 should not be considered “wins or losses for either side,” Droz says, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”

This leaves 47 cases. Of those 47, 22 have been finalized after the court heard arguments, considered evidence, and then issued a ruling.

Of those 22, Trump or Republicans won 15 and lost 7, according to the analysis.

This leaves 25 lawsuits that have yet to be finally disposed of.

Winning two out of three isn’t a bad start. I’m guessing that’s not what you’re hearing in the uncensored news.

Included in those 25 remaining lawsuits, the Supreme Court on Friday announced they had scheduled hearing several of the highest profile cases on February 19^th. These are Sidney Powell’s Michigan case, Linn Wood’s Georgia case, and Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania case,  plus a couple of others. (Read this Epoch Times piece on them.) 

These specific cases all allege illegalities that affected the outcome, such as expanding mail-in ballots against state law, failure to provide adequate security measures around mail ballots, issues with machine vote tabulation, and denial of meaningful access to poll watchers. I don’t know whether the “machine vote tabulation” part will include the evidence shown in Mike Lindell’s video. Regardless, the Court is not likely to actually hear the cases before October 2021. That means not until the next session, which ends around June 2022.

 

Conclusions

So, what have we learned today? Things we knew, but now with more certainty:

·         Truth comes out.

·         Justice is not swift.

·         If the enemies of the Constitution are accusing our side of something, they’re doing it.