In our post on Friday night — OUR FIRST OF MANY — We revealed how they stole the battleground states!
The fix was in. The current results of the Presidential election in Pennsylvania reported to the public are fraudulent because they are close to statistically impossible.
On election night President Trump totally ran away with the election in Pennsylvania.
President Trump was ahead of Joe Biden by nearly 700,000 votes! It was an insurmountable lead.
The President was still ahead in Pennsylvania with 56% of the vote to Biden’s 43% the next morning.
The President was winning Pennsylvania and held a 675,000 vote lead in the election over Joe Biden.
What happened next was corrupt and criminal as the Democrats went about to steal Pennsylvania for Biden.
They took a Trump landslide and they criminally flipped it to Joe Biden.
The President won 2.7 million votes compared to Biden’s 1.4 million votes. The President’s votes were nearly twice as many as Joe Biden’s!
But what happened next was shocking. Pennsylvania began counting ballots by mail. There was no reporting on how many votes were outstanding at the end of election night. There was no reporting ever that we are aware of where the state announced how many votes were left to count after the election.
They just kept counting.
The state also allowed votes to come in for three more days after the election. Of course, these were all mail-in ballots. We do not know how many mail-in votes came in during these three days. The Republicans were not allowed to observe the counting of these votes even though a court order was in place demanding that the state do so. These actions go against Pennsylvania’s constitution which state that the voting process is to be determined by the legislature. The change in ruling was implemented by the executive and judicial branches. This is an important issue with the Trump campaign in their complaints against the state as they try to undo the injustices in Pennsylvania.
Today the state is reporting more than 2.5 million mail in ballots. This number was never seen before in this state. As the mail-in ballots were counted, the state began cutting into the President’s 675,000 vote lead and eventually they gave the election to Biden. Biden won 2 million of the 2.5 million mail-in ballots.
How could the President receive only one fifth of the mail in ballots after crushing Biden in in-person voting on Election Day? The answer is: this was basically impossible. And here’s why.
When we looked at these statistics and we identified a pattern that is virtually mathematically impossible. The President won two thirds of the Election Day vote. But with the basic exception of Philadelphia, the President won around 80% of the vote in each county in the state. (See the blue line in basic the chart below showing the percent of total election day votes won by President Trump.) Philadelphia is so large that it offsets these numbers and brings the President’s results down to around 65% of the state’s votes on Election Day.
What happened with the mail in votes is almost statistically impossible (See the orange line below). In almost every county throughout the state, the President was awarded a percent of votes 40% less than the percent the President won on election day (see the grey line below). If Trump won a county by 80% of the vote on Election Day, he won 40% of the mail-in vote for a county. If the President won 60% of the vote on Election Day, he won 20% of the mail-in vote in another county. This pattern occurred in almost every county with the only noticeable exception of Philadelphia, where the President only earned 30% of the vote on Election Day.
These numbers are so consistent that they are almost certainly fraudulent. This NEVER happens in data sets. Below is the data by county (Note the counties are listed alphabetically – number 51 is Philadelphia):
Again, the fact that the mail-in votes and Election Day votes mirrored each other as revealed in the diagram above is basically impossible. Also, the extent of separation is very large at 40%.
They got caught.
We looked at other states that were not swing states and the lowest percent in mail-in ballots less than the President’s Election Day votes was 40% but this occurred very rarely. We also spoke with Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, the inventor of email and polymath, on Friday and he told us he is seeing similar patterns in voting data from this year’s election.
We believe we are on to something here.
Dr. Shiva found the same exact vote reallocation (stealing) strategy in Michigan this week.
On Tuesday Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai posted this video on his YouTube channel. The video went viral.
Dr. Shiva, Phil Evans and Bennie Smith found the same exact pattern in Michigan as we found in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Shiva looked at the top four counties in Michigan.
The first thing Dr. Shiva noticed was in three major counties Trump’s margin was reduced by a minimum of 138,000 votes.
The transfer was done by a computer algorithm that linearly transferred the votes from Trump to Biden.
Dr. Shiva found that the vote transfer was greater in Republican precincts than Democrat precincts.
In early voting in Oakland County Dr. Shiva says the algorithm was “too perfect” and that 40,000 votes were taken from Trump and given to Biden.
The same thing occurred on election day. The algorithmic line again is “too perfect.”
Dr. Shiva found the same phenomena in Macomb County and Kent County in Michigan. The same algorithm was put into place.
They found the same beautiful straight line in all of the counties which is impossible. They did not see this same algorithm in Democrat counties like Wayne County.
Dr. Shiva detected the weighted race algorithm that transferred votes from President Trump to Joe Biden.
Tens of thousands of votes were transferred to Sleepy Joe this way.
This is the same phenomena we found in Pennsylvania.
Now Dr. Shiva found the same “weighted race allocation” in several Michigan counties.
It is clear that corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania did all they could to steal the 2020 Presidential election for Joe Biden. There was no excitement for the Biden campaign and there still isn’t. Republicans are convinced he cheated.
They did the same thing in Michigan.
But we caught them.
Bringing justice to Pennsylvania and Michigan is a key step in addressing election fraud and addressing the massive Democrat fraud in the 2020 election process.
(If you have any information related to this post that you would like to share, please contact the author of this report. Also, some additional information was provided based on comments already received.)
“Don’t be evil” may no longer be Google’s official company motto, but it remains the last sentence of its Code of Conduct. As part of not being evil, Google maintains that “everything [it does] in connection with [its] work…will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct.”
Apparently, Google does not deem it unethical to fire an employee for expressing the research-based view that differences between the sexes/genders may include occupational proclivities. Google must not consider it unethical to blacklist conservative or otherwise nonleftist news sites, websites, and users. Google must believe that autocompleting searches with patent nonsense represents the highest ethical standards. Google maintains that factual search results representing the world as it is amounts to “algorithmic unfairness” and changing them to desired results using “Machine Learning Fairness” is highly ethical. That is, nonideological, nonaltered search results represent unfairness, while fairness is the result of informational affirmative action results manipulation—in some cases. Algorithmically ranking search results in favor of leftist or left-leaning politics and down-ranking conservative or right-wing sites is most ethical. It must consider rating the “Expertise/Authoritativeness/Trustworthiness” of websites using Wikipedia as meeting the highest ethical standards. Fact-checking only conservative or nonleftist news, often wrongly, is highly ethical. Discrimination against populist political movements and campaigns and favoring other, establishment movements and campaigns meets the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. YouTube’s routinely demonetizing and censoring conservative or otherwise nonleftist content is ethical. Bombarding users with political ads based on their search profiles, and especially bombarding nonleftists with items having a leftist perspective, represents the highest ethics. Blatant declarations of the intent to prevent the reelection of a US presidential candidate using search rankings meets the highest standards of ethics, especially since “(1) biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more,” as Robert Epstein and Ronald E. Robertson conclude.
In the wake of the riots across US cities over the past several months, I ran a Google search for “left-wing violence.” The top two results, from The Guardian and the New York Times, respectively, were entitled “White Supremacists behind Majority of US Domestic Terror Attacks in 2020” and “Far-Right Groups Are behind Most US Terrorist Attacks, Report Finds.” This is a highly ethical result, no doubt, especially when information on leftist violence was sought and no shortage of such articles exist. This is especially ethical, since the search analytics industry has found that the top three search results on Google drive over 70 percent of clicks. The top ten search results for the question, “Will Democrats steal the 2020 election?” included five articles about the prospect of Trump stealing the election, while all ten of the top ten results for “Will Trump steal the election?” were actually about the prospect of Trump stealing the election.
All but leftists realize that Big Digital corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and others lean left and squelch opposing views—to the point of creating an alternate reality. But few ask why they are apparently leftist, let alone satisfactorily answering the question—to my satisfaction, that is. How are we to understand the blatant and well-documented leftist bias and the censorship of nonleftist views and sites by these companies? Why leftist? Is the internet leftist merely because those in Silicon Valley have been indoctrinated into leftism?
And should we adopt the view that since Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are private enterprises, they can be as biased and censoring as they like? After all, aren’t these private platforms and not public utilities, with no obligation to represent views with which they disagree? They are no more obliged to do so than I am obliged to allow some Antifa member into my home to spout his, her, or zir beliefs, right?
These are the kinds of questions I address in this talk. The answers should go a long way toward explaining the disavowed yet blatant attempts on the part of Big Tech internet companies to decide the 2020 election, and much, much more. In terms of the election, they’ve interfered in the election with completely favorable coverage of one candidate and unfavorable content along with the near-complete blackout of favorable content about another. They’ve likewise made a rigged election result appear to be a credible result. Then they’ve censored or banned everyone from the president on down from talking about how the election was rigged. That’s more than an in-kind donation. They may be considered accomplices in a federal election crime. They represent a fraud on public credulity.
1. The Governmentalization of Private Industry
In Google Archipelago, I argue that these Big Digital goliaths, or what I call the Google Archipelago, act as appendages of the state, at the very least. They are state apparatuses, or, to use a postmodern neologism, they are “governmentalities.” In a series of lectures entitled Security, Territory, Population, the postmodern theorist Michel Foucault introduced the term “governmentality” to refer to the distribution of state power to the population, or the transmission of governance to the governed. Foucault referred to the means by which the populace comes to govern itself as it adopts and personalizes the imperatives of the state, or how the governed adopt the mentality desired by the government—govern-mentality. One might point to masking and social distancing as instances of what Foucault meant by his notion of governmentality. While Foucault’s usage has merit (yes, Foucault exhibited a few redemptive, libertarian tendencies), I adopt and amend the term to include the distribution of state power to extragovernmental agents—in particular to the extension and transfer of state power to supposedly private enterprises. This governmentalization of private enterprise, and not the privatization of governmental agencies and functions that leftists like Foucault decry, is the real problem with “neoliberalism,” as I see it.
Or do they amount to the same thing? We are witnessing the governmentalization of private industry, the turning of supposedly private enterprises into state apparatuses, and the growth of the state through putatively private extensions of it.
2. Governmentalities in Action
For clear and pertinent examples of governmentalities in this sense, consider government contractors that comprise the so-called shadow government. As depicted in the documentary Shadow Gate—which was banned from YouTube after just one day—according to two whistle-blowers who worked for military and intelligence contractors for many years, government contractors like Dynology, Global Strategies Group, Canadian Global Information (CGI), and many others engage in intelligence projects that include interactive internet activities (IIA). Such “social media psychological warfare” and “social media influence operations” rely on masses of data that social media and other sources provide and are designed to influence individuals, groups, or populations to behave in ways desired by the “deep state,” or other customers. Desired behaviors include voting for particular political candidates; supporting desired political movements and outcomes; and opposing undesired political candidates, movements, and outcomes—both at home and abroad. According to the Shadow Gate whistle-blowers, social media psychological warfare, which includes fake news, was initially developed for intelligence agencies but has been used and sold by intelligence contractors independently. They claim that social media psyops were employed in an attempt to tie Trump to Russia and discredit his campaign. The dominant narrative, of course, is that it was used by Russia to benefit Trump’s election. According to the Shadow Gate whistle-blowers, it was also used to whip up the recent “protests” after the death of George Floyd, while other sources claim that and the hype about the protests was itself fear porn whipped up by Russia-initiated psyops. Still others maintain that the protests themselves were part of a Russian psyops campaign targeting black Americans.
What does this have to do with Google, Facebook, and other digital media companies? IIA operations use and mine their sites, apparently gaining immunity from “fake news” designations. But these platforms are more than passive participants in personal data mining, social media psychological warfare games, and social media influence operations. A brief look at their inception, funding, and histories should make this clear.
3. State and State-Connected Funding of Google and Facebook
First, both Google and Facebook received start-up capital—both directly and indirectly—from US intelligence agencies. In the case of Facebook, the start-up capital came through Palantir, Accel Partners, and Greylock Partners. These funding sources either received their funding from, or were heavily involved in, In-Q-Tel.
In 1999, CIA created In-Q-Tel, its own private sector venture capital investment firm, to fund promising start-ups that might create technologies useful for intelligence agencies. As St. Paul Research analyst Jody Chudley notes, “In-Q-Tel funded Thiel’s startup firm Palantir somewhere around 2004. In 2004, Accel partner James Breyer sat on the board of directors of military defense contractor BBN with In-Q-Tel’s CEO Gilman Louie. Howard Cox, the head of Greylock, served directly on In-Q-Tel’s board of directors.”
In the case of Google, as independent journalist and former VICE reporter Nafeez Ahmed has detailed at great length, Google’s connections with the intelligence community and military run deep. Ahmed details that relationships with DARPA officials yielded start-up funding, and direct funding from the intelligence community (IC) followed. The IC saw in the internet unprecedent potential for data collection and the upstart search engine venture represented a key to gathering it.
In 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with CIA for its Intelink Management Office, “overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,” according to Homeland Security Today. In 2004, Google purchased Keyhole, which was initially funded by In-Q-Tel. Using Keyhole, Google began developing Google Earth.
Intelligence agency backers also included In-Q-Tel itself. In-Q-Tel’s investment in Google came to light in 2005, when In-Q-Tel sold its $2.2 million in Google stocks. A no-bid contract with the NSA sister agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), followed in 2010. Google’s connections with the IC and military communities also involved personnel exchanges, including the acquisition of the former head of DARPA and Highland’s Forum cochair, Regina Dugan, who left the agency in 2012 to become a senior Google executive overseeing the company’s new Advanced Technology and Projects Group.
“From its inception, in other words,” Ahmed writes,
Google was incubated, nurtured and financed by interests that were directly affiliated or closely aligned with the US military intelligence community, many of whom were embedded in the Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Second, and lest I be accused of the genetic fallacy, it should be noted that Google technologies were developed largely in connection with the IC and military and thus bear the earmarks of IC and military interests. And Google’s contracts with the IC have continued. Moreover, these platforms and social media outfits fully cooperate with the IC and military, handing over data to the NSA upon demand and granting them backdoor access to user data. Google was a deep-state asset from its inception and remains one to this day.
Furthermore, it is possible that tools developed by the IC and military have been acquired by private contractors and are being used by these platforms and social media giants to influence the behavior of users of their services. In particular, former IC contractor Patrick Bercy alleges that social media psychological warfare tools that he developed for the Defense Department were acquired, possibly illegally, by General James Jones, formerly the National Security Adviser under then president Obama. In partnership with the Atlantic Council, where Jones is now the executive chairman emeritus, Facebook, Bercy alleges, is using social media psychological warfare tools, supposedly for the purposes of “restoring election integrity worldwide,” and “to combat election-related propaganda and misinformation from proliferating on its service.” It just may be that what is deemed “fake news” by Google and social media platforms represents the truth about the fake news that the platforms themselves are proliferating.
In short, Google, Facebook and others are not strictly private sector entities; they are governmentalities in the sense that I have given to the term. They are extensions and apparatuses of the state. Furthermore, these platforms are governmentalities with a particular interest in the growth and extension of governmentality itself. This includes championing every kind of “subordinated” and newly created identity class that they can find or create, because such “endangered” categories require state acknowledgement and protection. Thus, the state’s circumference continues to expand. Big Digital is partial to the interests and growth of the state. It not only does business with statists but also shares their values. This helps makes sense of its leftist bent and their preference for the deep state Democrats. Leftism is statism.
4. Russia, Russia, Russia! Or Chy-na!
This talk would be incomplete without a treatment of the “actually existing socialism” in our midst, including its most significant, official state form, namely “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” i.e., China. Much ink has been spilled and many airwaves have been congested with the “Russian interference” narrative. Nary a day goes by without multiple references to Russia’s attempts to influence or interfere in US elections using social media. Donald Trump has been consistently portrayed as Putin’s puppet, even after the “Russian collusion” narrative officially fell apart. Less has been written and spoken about possible influence and interference by the Chinese Communist Party, although one may hear about this from a few sources. The recent revelations about the business dealings of Biden & Son in China brought the issue to the fore in those few outlying media and social media outlets that didn’t seek to deep-six the story. I don’t mean to suggest that Russia does not attempt to interfere in US elections or other national concerns but rather to note that CCP influence and interference attempts go largely unremarked upon or are otherwise dismissed while having no less if not more significant implications, especially where free information exchange and expression on Google and social media platforms are concerned.
Likewise, it is worthwhile to consider the differences between the objectives of these respective state-driven domains. As National Security scholars Michael Clarke, Jennifer S. Hunt, and Matthew Sussex argue:
For the Russian Federation, which has emerged as the West’s chief spoiler, the goal has to been to exacerbate existing social divisions in liberal democracies, to undermine public trust in key institutions, and to boost narratives around a host of statist themes: anti-immigration movements, the “alt-right,” and trade protectionism. In this way, Moscow has played the role of a wrecker, seeking to destroy the liberal order rather than replace it. It has utilized diaspora communities, fringe media, and political activists on the margins of political discourse as proxies, and has facilitated the leaking of compromising information to promote false narratives and conspiracy theories. China, on the other hand, has pursued an arguably more sophisticated approach given that it seeks gradually to supplant the Western order rather than simply undermine it. Its efforts therefore have been geared primarily around obtaining longer-term leverage through multiple channels of influence among elites in politics, business, and society.
Of the many tactics it uses to advance its agenda of actively shaping foreign perceptions and behaviors, China practices what Victor Cha of the Center for Strategic and International Studies called “predatory liberalism.” China “leverages the vulnerabilities of market interdependence to exert power over others in pursuit of political goals.” China flexes its economic muscle to spread its ideology and guard its reputation. Examples include pressuring Apple to remove its HKmap.live app from iPhones sold in China due to pressure by Beijing because the app enabled “illegal behavior,” as protesters used it “to target and ambush police” and to “threaten public safety,” or so China claimed. Another involved the NBA. When Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted on October 4, 2019, in support of the Hong Kong protesters, he was pressured to delete his post and apologize for “offense” caused to the Chinese people. Serving as a proxy for the CCP, the NBA in turn precluded any economic damage to its Chinese market that such a rhetorical breach might have caused.
Big digital platforms including Google, Facebook, and Twitter not only support the extension of domestic statism, they serve the expansion of foreign state ideology and power as well. While propaganda, censorship, and surveillance have turned social media into instruments of totalitarianism in China, China has invested millions into propaganda campaigns on social media and beyond its borders to extend its influence. Buying and usurping user accounts on Twitter and creating fake accounts on Facebook, for example, China seeks to influence the perception of the regime as well as promoting its agenda. Although Google’s Project Dragonfly was canceled and it is unlikely that Google will establish a search engine operative in China any time soon, Google nevertheless maintains offices and employees in China and sells cloud, AI, and other services there.
In accommodating their state customers and ideological sponsors, the dominant search and social media platforms have come to resemble the governments that they effectively serve and reproduce. This is especially true where China is concerned. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have adopted the CCP’s penchant for the regulation of speech, the dissemination of propaganda, and the suppression of dissident views. A few examples of direct interventions in search-related and social media control should suffice:
Facebook blocked posts that referenced a Chinese virologist whose research traced the SARS-2 virus to a Wuhan lab.
Six Chinese nationals now work on Facebook’s “Hate-Speech Engineering” team to produce algorithms that rank, and block content deemed too conservative, among other tasks.
Twitter purged tens of thousands of accounts critical of the Chinese government just days ahead of the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 2019.
Twitter employees train Chinese officials to amplify their pro-China messaging.
YouTube has deleted comments critical of the Chinese Communist Party due to “error.”
In a case of contradictory non-fact-checking, Twitter allowed over ninety thousand tweets from the beginning of April through May 2020 from two hundred diplomatic and state-run media accounts that suggested that the coronavirus originated in the US or the US military, among other claims casting doubt on its Chinese origin.
These are but a few of the examples of influence campaigns and tactics employed by China, and they do not represent the most egregious cases of the censorship and propaganda we’re encountering. Most of the censorship and propaganda is domestically oriented and produced. My point is more about shared ideological commitments and tactics than anything else.
5. Trump or Not-Trump
How does all this figure into the election? It’s clear that this presidential election has not been a contest between Trump and Joe Biden per se, but between Trump and not-Trump. It has been a contest between a boorish, rambling, irreverent, and politically incorrect gatecrasher versus a corrupt veteran of the political class. The “resistance”—which includes the mainstream media, the social media and “globalist” oligarchy, the neocons, the better part of the intelligence community, and an assortment of leftist political activists and radicals—has aimed at destroying the prior and supporting the latter. The political establishment has shown its sheer cynicism by propping up an enfeebled, high-stakes influence peddler and having him taken seriously.
I’ve considered the possibility that the anti-Trump fervor has been based largely on aesthetic revulsion. Indeed, aesthetic revulsion has been cultivated and promoted by the sponsors of the resistance. But the sponsors of the resistance don’t hate Trump merely because he fails to reflect the image of the effete intelligentsia. After all, look at how they’ve rehabilitated George W. Bush. No, there’s more to it.
Trump is a rogue parvenu who threatens (or threatened) the political establishment, not because he has [or had the potential to “drain the swamp,” an insurmountable task for any president or administration, but rather because he is unpredictable and might have stumbled upon and exposed “deep state” secrets and crimes. Trump has been an interloper, a nuisance, a thorn in the side of an elite cozy with elements that Trump has deemed inimical to American interests.
Further, Trump’s brand of nationalism interferes (or interfered) with the global interests of those who do business with our new Cold War opposition, and not only the kind we saw recently exposed in the case of the Joe Biden Swindling Company.
Finally, and most importantly, Trump has represented a line of defense, however tenuous and thin, of American liberties, liberties that stand in the way of a global governmental and extragovernmental order that thrives on lockdowns, masking, muzzling, banning, blacklisting, down ranking, memory holing, gaslighting, deleting, canceling, censoring, precensoring, and obliterating dissent and dissenters.
Concluding Remarks
Regardless of the election outcome, however, repressive and propagandistic governmentalities—including academia, cultural institutions, culture industries, information and intelligence technologies, mass media, political movements, social media, woke corporations, and more—are combining to effect a totalitarian creep under which its subjects are complicit in their own subjugation and hellbent to impose it on others.
Whether Trump or not-Trump is finally declared the winner of the 2020 US presidential election, we are in for the battle of our lives. A constellation of state and state-extended apparatuses has openly declared war on liberty, on us. We are all thought criminals now. Risk aversion will not do. What we risk by being risk averse is everything that makes human life worth living. In the face of an enemy that brazenly revels in its totalitarian character, it is time to put everything on the line for liberty.
BLM/Antifa Thugs Attack Trump Supporters, Including Children, After D.C. "Million MAGA March" Tyler Durden
Sat, 11/14/2020 – 19:20
Massive crowds of people converged at Freedom Plaza in Washington on Saturday, joining other rallies around the country to show support for President Donald Trump and ask for fairness in the election process.
As The Epoch Times’ Allen Zhong reports, the participants marched to the U.S. Supreme Court holding signs that read “Stop the Steal,” “Make America Fair Again,” and “Trump 2020.” Before the start of the march, the crowd heard speeches from prominent Trump supporters including Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and My Pillow founder Mike Lindell. Several other prominent figures including Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka were also on the speaking list.
Participants chanted slogans calling to “stop the steal,” which is also the name of the grassroots movement organizing the event in part. Organizer Ali Alexander told The Epoch Times in a previous interview that the events are a grassroots effort by a coalition of about a hundred activists and influencers to show “support for President Trump and fair elections and transparent counting.”
Similar events, although smaller in scale, were organized in around 50 other states on the same day.
Everything was very peaceful (not just mostly peaceful) until the crowds started to disperse and groups of BLM and Antifa activists began to appear, agitating attendees, and eventually turning to violence… even against children.
LIVE in DC: Posturing and heckling takes place on both sides of a barricade in front of SCOTUS. @mattmiller757 reporting for The Post Millennialpic.twitter.com/IbCTCvju1s
The most disturbing piece of footage depicts a family being attacked by Antifa. A mother is seen attempting to flee the area with her small daughter. He daughter is eventually thrown to the ground in the middle of a fight.
So – when will the media admit that the boarding up of stores/businesses/homes ahead of the election was not out of fear of a Biden victory, but a Trump win and the inevitable mostly-non-peaceful attacks and looting that would inevitably follow.
Norma had been vocal about her support for President Donald Trump before the election, and sees no reason to stop now. “I’m supporting Trump right up until the very end,” Scott said in her Trump shirt and buttons, carrying a flag.
Georgia Democrat Raphael Warnock argued in late 2016 that Americans needed to "repent" both for supporting Donald Trump and for the country’s "worship of whiteness."
The comments came in an address at Atlanta’s Candler School of Theology shortly before Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
"If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral needs to repent," Warnock said to raucous applause. "No matter what happens next month, more than a third of the nation that would go along with this, is reason to be afraid. America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness, on full display this season."
A full version of Warnock’s remarks can be found here. The Warnock campaign did not respond to a request for comment. While Trump’s support among white men eroded in the 2020 presidential race, he gained ground with African-Americans and Hispanics.
The senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, Warnock is now locked in a tight Senate race against Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler. He is already under fire for a bevy of his previous statements, from calling Israel an "oppressive regime" to his defense of the anti-Semitic Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He is also come under scrutiny for praising his religious mentor, Dr. James Cone, who argued that white Christians practice the "theology of the Antichrist" and described whites as "satanic."
In the same sermon, Warnock also argued for raising the minimum wage, telling the audience that refusing to do so while demanding Americans work is dehumanizing. "Whenever we refuse to raise the minimum wage while demanding that people ought to work, we are saying, ‘I can do with them whatever I want,’" he said.
Warnock is headed into a runoff election against Loeffler on Jan. 5. National political organizations are expected to pour record-breaking funds and resources into the highly contested race, which is one of two runoff elections in Georgia that will determine party control of the U.S. Senate next year.
Republican Burgess Owens proved victorious over his challenger, Democrat Rep. Ben McAdams, in Utah’s Fourth Congressional District for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
As of Friday night, with 99 percent of precincts reporting, the Salt Lake Tribune considered Owens’ 2,095-vote lead over McAdams to be “insurmountable.” The Tribune also noted that Owens had 47.50 percent of the vote on Friday compared to McAdams’ 46.93 percent.
“If Owens’ lead holds as those and any remaining ballots in Utah County are counted ahead of the final canvass next week, he will be one of two new members in Utah’s six-member congressional delegation,” the Tribunestated.
Owens’ campaigned focused heavily on the far-left’s “socialist policies” and extreme “Marxists.”
Earlier this year, in May, Owens said that he must take back Utah’s Fourth Congressional seat in an attempt to help Republicans “take back our country.”
Owens, a former Oakland Raiders Superbowl Champion, has also been very critical of Colin Kaepernick and his decision to kneel during the national anthem before football games.
“We have a responsibility as we pass the torch down to the next generation, and there is an example of someone we all respect: Kobe,” Owens told Breitbart News in February. “There is a difference in Kobe’s approach to life, and maybe some other athletes who don’t quite get it.”
My generation has dropped the ball. We have allowed the socialists and Marxists to get in our school systems and teach our kids a different way than we were brought up. Kaepernick is a good example. In today’s society, our greatest enemy is socialists and Marxists who lay in wait and attack our most vulnerable. In this case, you have kids going to school fresh-eyed and excited about life and looking forward to a great future, but they come out anti-American Marxists.
Up until Owens’ success, Utah’s Fourth Congressional District was one of 30 districts represented by a Democrat that President Donald Trump had won in 2016.
In the same district’s 2018 race, McAdams narrowly defeated incumbent Rep. Mia Love (R) by 700 votes.
Owens’ victory marks the twelfth seat in the House of Representatives to be flipped from Democrat to Republican on Election Day.
Other candidates and districts where Republicans were successful this year include CA-39: Young Kim; CA-48: Michelle Steel; FL-27: Maria Elvira Salazar; FL-26: Carlos Gimenez; IA-01 Ashley Hinson; MI-03: Peter Meijer; MN-07: Michelle Fischbach; NY-11: Nicole Malliotakis; NM-02: Yvette Herrell; OK-05: Stephanie Bice; and SC-01: Nancy Mace.
Another federal lawsuit was filed in Michigan this week that seeks to toss out up to 1.2 million votes, which would flip the Great Lakes State in President Donald Trump’s favor.
Media-declared president-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump in Michigan by approximately 146,000 votes.
What are the details?
The lawsuit, filed by four voters in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeks to toss out ballots in three Democratic strongholds — Wayne, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties — over allegations of voter fraud, according to Michigan Live.
Those three counties are responsible for about 1.2 million votes, favoring Biden by more than 2:1. Eliminating ballots from those counties would give Trump a victory in Michigan.
Plaintiffs claim that "sufficient evidence" exists "to place in doubt the November 3 presidential-election results" in the three identified counties, citing "issues with transparency, fraudulent changing of dates, a software glitch, clerical errors, illegal votes, and many other issues and irregularities."
Plaintiffs also cite ongoing investigations launched by the Michigan Legislature and a variety of other claims that have been debunked. The allegations include charges of Republican ballot challengers being harassed and illegal tampering with ballots.
Plaintiffs conclude that "this evidence suffices to place in doubt the November 3 presidential election results in identified counties and/or the state as a whole." However, the group of voters also claims to have additional evidence of illegal ballots being included in unofficial results, based on "expert reports" and data analysis.
The lawsuit further says that certifying the votes would violate voters’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by "vote-dilution disenfranchisement."
Defendants include Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, members of the Michigan State Board of Canvassers, Wayne County Board of Canvassers, Washtenaw County Board of Canvassers, and Ingham County Board of Canvassers.
Are the lawsuits working?
Lawsuits alleging unproven claims of voter fraud are losing the legal battle in court.
The most recent loss came on Friday, when Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny denied a request for an independent audit of Wayne County votes, according to the Detroit Free Press. The lawsuit had claimed local election officials managed a fraudulent election.
Also on Friday, Trump’s campaign dropped a legal challenge in Arizona and shut down its voter fraud hotline. The campaign also suffered a loss in federal court when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled against the campaign’s efforts to block mail-in votes received after Election Day from being counted.
Republican officials in Georgia have sounding the alarm over “issues” pertaining to the ordered presidential election recount and audit in the Peach State. As noted by GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel on Thursday, state Republicans say the the protocols for the audit do not include signature review and the timeline for Georgia counties is set to […]
A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. In the early hours of Nov. 5, a surge of some 20,000 mail-in votes suddenly appeared for Joe Biden, while approximately 1,000 votes for President Trump mysteriously disappeared from his own totals in the critical swing state, where Biden holds a razor-thin lead.
A poll watcher noticed the suspicious shift in votes while monitoring the interim election results on the Georgia secretary of state website.
“I concluded from looking at these results that this was an irregularity, since there was no obvious reason for President Trump’s totals to have decreased while former Vice President Biden’s totals increased dramatically,” Voter GA co-founder Garland Favorito swore in an affidavit he filed this week with the secretary of state’s office.
Favorito suspects a variety of factors, including that votes were “artificially inflated” for Biden while using the same Dominion Voting system used by Antrim County, Mich., which erroneously transferred 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden. Last year, Georgia contracted with Dominion to automate vote tabulations in all 159 of its counties.
“The software appears to have thrown votes from Trump to Biden here too,” he said in a RealClearInvestigations interview. “Or Biden ballots were manufactured.”
The large disparity of gains between the two candidates “was something I had never witnessed before in my years of election monitoring,” said Favorito, a career IT professional who has been a leading advocate for election integrity in the state over the past two decades. He says he is not a Republican or Trump supporter.
On Nov. 10, Favorito sent his affidavit to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, recommending a full, by-hand ballot recount. The next day, his office announced it will conduct such an audit for the presidential race. Biden currently leads Trump by more than 14,000 votes in the state.
“It’s a good first step,” Favorito said. “A recount will be able to determine if there was electronic vote fraud.”
In addition to helping certify the presidential race, he said it’s imperative investigators identify the source of the irregularities before the state holds its two U.S. Senate run-off elections on Jan. 5 so they don’t repeat themselves.
Georgia is now Ground Zero in the battle for control of the Senate. Republicans currently hold a 50-48 edge, but if they lose both Georgia seats, presumptive Vice President-elect Kamala Harris could cast tie-breaking votes to carry out the Democratic agenda.
While noting that “no election is without isolated issues,” Dominion states: “Election safeguards – from testing and certification of voting systems, to canvassing and auditing – prevent malicious actors from tampering with vote counts and ensure that final vote tallies are accurate.”
But Favorito, who lives in the Atlanta area, said the Fulton County shift was so dramatic it seemed as if someone had “dumped” a huge batch of mail-in ballots for Biden into the system overnight.
“One candidate could not go up by 20,000 and the other do nothing — in Fulton County or any county in Georgia,” he asserted. “That’s just not going to happen.”
Added Favorito: “I think they’re going to find the root cause of the irregularity was something electronic, and I think it’s going to change the results substantially.”
He suggested it may have been the result of a software or equipment malfunction or possibly even vote-swapping “malware” infecting the system. Of greatest concern, however, is the possibility of intentional misconduct by an election official or worker.
“There’s always the chance it was an inside job,” Favorito said, though both Republican and Democratic officials in the state say they have found no credible evidence of election fraud.
He said he also sent his affidavit to the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections for investigation, but has not heard back. The board did not respond to requests for comment.
Precincts across the state reported problems with the Dominion system during this summer’s primary elections, including malfunctioning machines. Even before June’s voting meltdown, Favorito said, he and his nonprofit, Voter GA — which stands for Voters Organized for Trusted Elections Results in Georgia — warned Raffensperger and his staff not to buy the pricey equipment and software from the Canadian company.
“They knew good and well they should never have bought this system in the first place,” he said. “We explained that Dominion was rejected in Texas for failing to meet basic security standards before they bought it.”
Favorito suspects similar surges in Biden ballots may have taken place during the counting of mail-in ballots on other nights, including Election Night. On Nov. 3, Fulton County elections officials informed observers that they were shutting down the tabulation center before midnight, only to continue counting throughout the night while no one was watching.
“Fulton County elections officials falsely announced that the counting of ballots would stop at 10:30 p.m.,” Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer complained in a recent Tweet. “Officials unlawfully resumed the counting of ballots after our observers left the center.”
Favorito fears that what he observed on Nov. 5 was not an isolated incident. “There could have been multiple 20,000-batch irregularities,” he said, “but they never got reported because they cleared out the observers.”
He does not rule out “ballot harvesting” as the culprit behind the sudden surges of mail-in votes for Biden.
He said the hundreds of drop boxes Raffensperger agreed to distribute at shopping centers and other cities throughout the state may have encouraged third parties to collect ballots in the name of other voters and stuff them into the boxes, which is illegal.
“That’s just begging for fraud,” Favorito said.
Previously, voters who didn’t want to mail in their absentee ballots had to go to the county elections office and deliver their ballot in person while showing an ID to prove they were the individual who filled it out. But in this election, anybody could drop ballots into the otherwise unregulated boxes the state installed for the first time this year.
Fair Fight Action, a voting-rights group founded by former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, helped convince Raffensperger to install hundreds of them across the state — including dozens in Fulton County — by arguing that the cost of a 55-cent stamp was a modern-day “poll tax” for many African-Americans who didn’t want to risk voting in person during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“There is evidence there was some type of ballot harvesting going on in Georgia,” Favorito said, “but we don’t know yet if it’s tied to the drop boxes.”
Favorito cited the disproportionately large number of “Biden-only” ballots cast, or ballots that had only the presidential vote marked and filled out for Biden, with no down-ballot races checked, indicating ballots may have been collected from voters and filled out for them — that is, “harvested” — and then delivered to the drop boxes.
Mail-in or drop-off ballots are notorious for creating opportunities for voter error and fraud. In a typical election, 1 in 20 mailed ballots are rejected, according to recent studies. More than 534,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the Democratic primaries alone.
‘Curing Defects’ in Biden Ballots
“Curing” or fixing errors in rejected provisional ballots is another area ripe for potential fraud, election watchdogs warn.
Voters are required to cast provisional ballots if their name does not appear on the list of registered voters. Or if they lack proper ID. Or if there’s a problem with their signature. Or if they cast their ballots after polls close, among other reasons.
Provisional ballots are last to be counted and rarely factor into election outcomes — except in tight races such as this one in Georgia.
Democratic activists have scrambled to make these otherwise rejected votes for Biden count. They claim thousands of provisional ballots cast for Biden in Georgia have “curable defects,” and they’ve been deploying volunteers to go door-to-door to help voters in Fulton and surrounding counties fix their ballots so they will be counted.
The statewide Democratic operation is revealed in post-election court filings. In neighboring Forsyth County, for example, Democratic lawyers have sued to obtain the dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers of rejected voters so they can contact them and help fix their ballots.
The law firm representing the Democratic plaintiffs — Krevolin and Horst LLC — also represents Abram’s Fair Fight PAC, according to Federal Election Commission vendor reports. Her group, funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Democrats, has sued the state of Georgia over allegations of “systemic suppression” of black voters.
In its lawsuit filed Nov. 5, the firm argued that Biden voters “will be “disenfranchised” if Forsyth County election officials do not provide the activists the personal information they seek to contact them and “cure” their deficient ballots.
County officials, however, refused to provide the information, and a judge ruled in their favor, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.
“Several other counties including some surrounding us like Fulton allowed the activity that our local judge prevented,” Forsyth County Commissioner Dennis Brown, a Republican, told RCI.
“It is my understanding that this has been successful for the Democratic Party in many jurisdictions throughout the state,” he said. “The end result is they were able to ‘cure’ many votes for Democrats up and down the ticket, including for Biden, that would not have been counted otherwise.”
Advised Favorito: “Provisional ballot-fixing is definitely another area for potential fraud.”
This RealClearInvestigations article was republished by The Gateway Pundit with permission.
Paul Sperry is the former D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, Hoover Institution media fellow, author of several books, including bestseller INFILTRATION
