Presidential Election Fraud. What's To Be Done?

The evidence that points to the recent election having been fraudulent is obvious and massive to all who are interested in looking. It includes video and photographic evidence, more than a thousand sworn affidavits of irregular activity in the ballot counting, the discovery of many thousands of verifiably illegal voters, voting machines that are demonstrably manipulatable, and so forth. Those who have passionate hatred of Mr. Trump will have none of it. The major media have no interest in investigating the situation, and along with social networking mega billionaires have been actively working to discredit the claims of foul play. The judiciary, preferring to see the issue handled by the politicians, has kept hands off by refusing to hear the cases which have been brought to them on technical grounds rather than stepping into the minefield of controversy that would result from an actual review of the evidence.

 

The problem on the other hand is that there are those of us who, putting his idiosyncrasies aside, very much like the President's actions and policies, which were effective in turning the country away from a very corrupt, decadent, and self-destructive direction.  Those many millions of us have taken the trouble to look at and listen to the evidence being presented of a flawed election and find it convincing. It is our belief that those who are making light of the evidence haven't in fact had any interest in examining it and are willing to simply accept the reassurance of the overtly politically biased major media and State executives.

 

What's to be done about this divide in viewpoints? Well, we have a precedent of sorts. After 2016 we had a Special Council who was given unlimited time and resources to investigate a claim of meddling in the campaign, a charge far less serious than the present one of actual illegal vote meddling and fraud. The problem with that approach is that it would come after the new administration had been established, which would leave us in a difficult situation even if fraud were unequivocally proven.

 

Although Democrats have turned a blind eye to the voluminous evidence of cheating, they must in their hearts understand the well-known peculiarities that point in that direction. The dramatic difference in enthusiasm for the candidates, the groundwork for cheating laid in the poorly supervised mail-in balloting procedures, the discrepancy in the showing for Mr. Trump vs. the large gains by Republicans in down ballot offices, the unusually high proportion of support by minority voters, the distribution of Mr. Biden's  gigantic success in major urban areas of key swing states as opposed to his significant losses in other usually bellwether states and counties, the resistance to allowing for accurate inspection of the voting procedures, the appearance of sudden bursts of ballots in early morning hours giving support to Mr. Biden in improbable percentages, the failures in maintaining custody control of the ballots, the reluctance to allow IT inspectors to review the contents of the voting machines, and more, are problematical signs that should incentivize those who claim to be concerned about the sanctity of our election process to take a closer look at the actual concrete evidence, however reluctantly. It is hard not to conclude that those who consider Mr. Trump to be a malevolent, bigoted, almost inhuman brute feel justified in turning him out of office by whatever means are necessary. The ends justify the means.

 

Those of us who are concerned about the integrity of this election have been told that what's done is done and that we must "move on". But those who tell us that fail to understand that the objection of millions of their fellow citizens is not so much that it is being declared that our candidate has lost, as that we are fairly convinced that we have had our sacrosanct voting right stolen. So, we are not going to "move on". Somehow this matter must be given a serious investigation with appropriate redress if major irregularities are verified.

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election, Fair or Fraudulent?

In 2016 Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party claimed that Mr. Trump won the Presidential election by subterfuge and that he was an illegitimate President. The basis of their complaint was that Russian agents had interfered in the election, such as by placing fake social media posts, and that Mr. Trump had made a secret arrangement with Russian President Putin for this purpose in exchange for benefits to Russia in American foreign policy. This charge, as we all know, was investigated intensely for 2 1/2 years and no evidence was found to support it.

 

In 2020 we have the reverse situation in which the President and his party are claiming that massive election fraud produced the result. To be sure considerable circumstantial evidence raises that suspicion. In light of the large success of the Republicans in the Congressional and State legislatures, the significant loss of the man at the top of the ticket makes one wonder. His substantial success in bellwether states such as Ohio and Florida, as well as the large majority of usually bellwether counties around the country, raises suspicion as to why he did so overwhelmingly poorly in key large Democrat urban areas in selected swing States, especially considering the increase in support for him from the usually stalwart Democrat base of minority voters in other parts of the country. The massive middle of the night infusions of overwhelmingly large Biden votes which overcame Mr. Trump's early significant lead is strange. One would wonder why the dramatic increase in mail in balloting, purportedly to counteract the risk of COVID, would so enormously attract Democrats over Republicans. Also, there is the matter of the voting machines which have been shown to possess multiple vulnerabilities that could be used for fraudulent actions.

 

But what about real evidence. The Republican challenge have taken two lines, first the occurrence of numerous procedural irregularities that contradicted election law, and secondly actual discoveries of fraudulent behavior in the votes themselves. 

 

The first line covers areas such as changes in voting procedures by State election officials that contradict State laws and constitutional provisions, as well as numerous instances in which vote tabulation was carried out apart from the legally obligatory party observers. In the second case Republicans claim to have uncovered large numbers of illegal votes such as from deceased persons, out of state residents, underage and non-citizen voters and double voting. There are numerous testimonies from individuals who claim that votes in their names were cast falsely.

 

Numerous court challenges along these lines have been rejected, but largely on the basis of technical problems such as excessive delay or lack of standing. The courts generally seem to be reluctant to take the momentous step of actually judging the cases on the merit of their claims. To be sure, the Republicans seem to have been caught flat-footed and are late to the game in challenging violations in election law, particularly in the adoption of massive mail in balloting procedures which were an open invitation to cheating. It would have been much better to have strict identification, monitoring and chain of custody regulations in place before the election with invalidation of votes being the penalty for flaunting them.

 

But what of the Republican's claims of thousands of illegal votes? It seems it would be easy enough to evaluate their evidence. If it is not convincing that will be that, but if it is how can we accept the results of such an election? Mr. Trump's allies are for now continuing to fight, but It seems more and more likely that the Democrats will prevail in convincing the country that what's done is done without any further investigation such as was carried out after the 2016 election. Our country has historically been freewheeling characterized by strong local control, but is it possible that in America in 2020 that we cannot carry out a fair general election that can be accepted by all sides?

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Should Trump Supporters Just "Move on" from the Cheating?

The Trump campaign recently filed a lawsuit in Georgia. The suit includes (and here I quote from another article detailing the elements of the case):

"affidavits from dozens of Georgia residents attesting, under penalty of perjury, to large numbers of voting irregularities, from failure to verify signatures on absentee ballots to the appearance of "pristine" absentee ballots not received in official absentee ballot envelopes. Those ballots being almost exclusively for Joe Biden.

Data experts also provided sworn testimony that identified more than 150,000 illegal votes, to wit, votes from 2,560 felons, 66,247 votes from underage voters, 2,423 votes from people not registered to vote, 1,043 individuals registered at post office boxes, 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state, 395 individuals who voted in two states, 15,700 votes from people who had moved out of the state before the election, 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county, and another 30,000 to 40,000 absentee ballots that lacked proper signature matching and verification."

I would reemphasize that these charges are not claims from Trump campaign operatives. They are testified to by ordinary citizens, under penalty of perjury if they are making things up. If even only a portion of these findings were verified, they would far exceed the 12,000 votes by which Mr. Biden was reported to have won the state. Similar situations exist in the other battleground states.

What should Trump supporters do with such information? Should we just say "Oh well, he lost, so we'll just forget about it until 2024" Let me ask the critics who appear to feel that's what should be done – what would Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, as well as their major media and movie star supporters, have done with such information in 2016?

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Election Problems Will Continue

It's an understandable assumption that cheating has always gone on in our elections and that this year's election is more of the same but unlikely to change the election results. If you think that it wouldn't be surprising, since the major media's not covering the issue and are accepting the claims of highly partial election officials that all is well and that this year's election was the cleanest ever.

 

But take the trouble to watch and listen to some of the hearings on the matter going on in the various swing states. Watch the sworn testimony of witness after witness, under penalty of perjury, all well-spoken and appearing credible, of all races and genders, regarding the corruption they observed, or the serious vulnerability of the voting machines being used. Hear the evidence of the discovery and documentation of very large amounts of illegal voting. The amount of corruption involved is astounding, for the present seems incontrovertible, and is easily enough to overturn the elections in at least some of the states in question.

 

What's to be done about it is the question. Mr. Biden and the Democrats are rushing full speed ahead to consolidate his position as "President Elect" and time is running short until a President must be inaugurated. Democrats, naturally, and their media allies are averting their eyes. There is the potential for State legislatures or the Supreme Court to act, but action by either, even with solid evidence, would take courage.

 

On the other hand, as Mr. Giuliani has pointed out, it would be surprising if the election officials in all these states devised these subterfuges independently. If Mr. Biden is inaugurated investigations are very likely to continue by the Senate, Republican legislatures and Mr. Trump's forces, and in due time if a conspiracy is clearly uncovered, we would be in uncharted territory.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

COVID-19: How It Spreads. The Effect Of Lockdowns.

Here's a chart of the new COVID cases in the various states relative to the population over the past 7 days. The darker the color, the greater the number. The geographic distribution is striking. The history of the virus activity since March is one of moving from one area of the country to another, first the Northeast, then the South and West, and now the Mid-West and Mountain states. The only exception is New Mexico which initially escaped the involvement in the Southwest, but now has more intense infection.

What explains this? Why, as the virus spreads from one area to the next, doesn't it simply persist and grow worse in the new site. Why does it appear to die away and move on? I like the explanation that in every community there is variation in susceptibility so that when it enters there is a large outbreak followed by a dying down as the virus encounters more resistant individuals. To be sure this is the usual behavior of epidemic illnesses. There is considerable scientific justification for this idea. It's becoming increasingly clear from studies of T cell reactivity to the virus that resistance is much more prevalent than previously thought and may be seen even before any possible previous exposure, perhaps from contact with other common coronaviruses. T cells are recruited against the virus invaders early on, often before antibodies appear and probably confer much longer lasting immunity than is suggested by antibody presence. Some of this might begin to explain the puzzling low incidence of infection in children and the likelihood of only mild symptoms in younger individuals.

This new understanding suggests that lockdowns in rapidly worsening areas may be necessary early on to prevent overwhelming of the medical facilities, but if continued beyond that may be a setup for recurrences. As social interaction resumes the virus encounters individuals previously unexposed and susceptible and surges, as we saw recently happening in Europe and some Northeastern states. Consistent with this idea is that cases now seem to be leveling off or declining in most of these areas. Considering all of this, as some experts contend, should our public health strategy be to concentrate our preventive efforts and vaccine administration when available to those at high risk and otherwise allow more general immunity to develop, and at the same time avoiding the many serious consequences of intense societal lockdowns.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Do Masks Give Protection. A New Negative Study.

To mask or not to mask. That is the scientific question. Early on in the infection we were told by both the WHO and Dr. Fauci that masks did not help and had some negative effects, including giving a false sense of security and encouraging facial touching. There has now been a complete 180 such that not only are the 2 authorities mentioned above advising masks but CDC head, Dr. Robert Redfield, said in September that masks are a more effective tool than a vaccine. At this point various state authorities, citing "the science" have gone whole hog and are requiring mask wearing indoors on Thanksgiving, and also while eating, carefully lowering the mask between bites.

 

But what about "the science"? Well, up until now there has been precious little to support an almost puritanical trust in masking as a major key to controlling our modern-day plague. The number of supporting studies are few, and all of the observational variety, the type that was disparaged as being of little value in the great hydroxychloroquine debate.

 

But now we have an honest to goodness randomized controlled trial on the subject, the first of this type to be done, from Denmark, carried out in the spring and eventually published only a couple of days ago in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The study randomized 2 large groups of people, one of which wore no masks, and the other of which was given a large supply of surgical masks and was asked to wear them full time, and then the number of subsequent infections in the two groups was observed. There was no meaningful difference.

 

This finding does not sit well with the authorities in academic medical circles as reflected in 2 accompanying editorials commenting on the findings, and nevertheless recommending continued universal mask wearing. Some points are well taken, such as that the study was conducted during a time when there was as yet little mask wearing in the community so that perhaps it might not apply where there was general mask wearing. On the other hand, the mask-wearing group in this study was given a large supply of high quality surgical masks which were not reused and was carefully instructed in the proper technique of mask use, such as avoiding touching them when putting them on and off and many other precautions which are not followed at all in the general mask wearing we presently see around us.

 

The negative findings in this study are buttressed by a study of about 300 patients by the CDC in July which found that extended mask wearing seemed to give little protection from contracting the disease.  Indeed, the common experience of a rising number of cases in areas where there is a fairly high amount of mask wearing suggests the same conclusion. It should be pointed out that the new Danish study says nothing about the question of whether masks prevent an infected person from passing on the germ, but just that evidence for a protective function in those wearing them is weak.

 

A major problem with this issue, like everything connected to the epidemic, is that it has become political. Mr. Trump early on eschewed mask usage seeing that he and everyone around him was being tested regularly, so that mask wearing has become to some extent symbolic of one's political feelings. Mr. Biden has made it a fetish, a reflection of his earnestness in his contention that Mr. Trump bears the responsibility for our troubles. Personally, I'm somewhat neutral. I don't like wearing a mask, and I have plenty of company there, and I think that the appearance of everyone walking around wearing a mask is strangely inhuman. On the other hand, I carry one in my pocket and put it on when the sign says to do it, which is almost everywhere. At the same time, I couldn't disagree more with Dr. Redfield that general mask wearing will prove to be more helpful than the new vaccines waiting in the wings.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Biden Administration's Insipid Ideas For Coronavirus.

Dr. Atul Gawande, a reliable liberal who will be a Biden advisor, thinks the key to control will be mask wearing. What? Does Dr Gawande not know that 34 states, especially those with the most viral activity,  presently have mask-wearing mandates. Furthermore, in southwest Florida where I am at present, and which does not have a mask mandate, there's not a single business establishment you can enter without a mask. Masks are everywhere, with many wearing them on the street, alone in their car, and running in the park. If masks are the answer, how is it then that the virus is increasing, and more so in the states with the mask mandates?

Here's what Dr. Videk Murthy, Co-chair of Mr. Biden's advisory team describes as their plan: "(it) involves expanding testing capacity, increasing contact tracing, ramping up the production of personal protective equipment, and issuing guidance." Is this insipid list the answer to our problem that somehow escaped the notice of President Trump?

Dr. Murthy said in an interview that Mr. Biden does not want to have a national lockdown after all but that. "the way we should be thinking about this is more like a series of restrictions that we dial up or down depending on how bad spread is taking place in a specific region," 

So I guess the idea is that now the federal bureaucracy is going to decide on high what we out here in podunk are to do and how we are to do it, instead of the state and local governments who know the situation on the ground.

This is all so dumb, dumb, dumb. Assuming the legal challenges to the election results don't manage to succeed, (and I fervently hope and pray that they do), it looks as if we've decided to put in charge of the problem a whole new bureaucracy with less experience, no new ideas, and a leader who's never accomplished anything in the real world

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10