In order to establish any type of proof of electronic voter fraud, you first have to look at anomalies and irregularities in vote patterns. That means you need to see a repetition of information that appears to skew one way or the other. As Dr. Frank did in his analysis of “electronic vote stuffing” by adding ballots according to a predetermined algorithm and the determining a “key” to predict voter turnout exactly, looking at other patterns that seem to suggest some form of data manipulation in the vote totals. To that aim, a report was produced by Seth Keshel for the Texas Lieutenant Governor’s Task Force on Election Fraud titled, “Report on Suspicious Voting Patterns in Texas.”
Looking at the 2020 Election data, Trump improved over his 2016 performance in 158 counties throughout Texas. Looking at how Mr Trump performed he increased his voter base in traditional Democrat strongholds in the states: Hispanics, suburban White women, Blacks, and blue collar White men. So, the question has to be asked: If Trump gained in traditional Democrat strongholds, where did Biden improve? Republicans? I do not think so, and neither does the data.
So, let’s explore this in a little more detail. If you look at the State of Texas, one of the anomalies that stands out is that in EVERY county that was operating a Hart Intercivic voting system, that Trump lost margins from 2016 compared to 2020. Notice the green X’s in the map below. This is just not a coincidence, it is an impossibility. Remember, Trump IMPROVE his performance across al traditional Democrat demographics, so how did Bide do this? Think phantom voters as I describe here.
Finally, you need to look at the past to understand the present. Below is a table of how Trump performed in the 2016 Presidential Election compared to the 2020 election. In 2016, Trump was running against Hillary Clinton and in almost every county, he beat Clinton by a substantial margin. Remember, there was an election steal going on in 2016 too, but Clinton thought (erroneously) that there was no way Donald Trump could possibly beat her.
Now, lets move to 2020. Looking at the table below, notice that in these counties with HART Intercivic machines, that Trump actually increased his voter turnout substantially, but Biden, the guy who did NO campaigning and did not visit Texas once, actually did BETTER that both the historic highs of both Hillary Clinton (2016, first female candidate) and Barrack Obama (208; first black candidate) in getting more Democrat votes out. Both Clinton and Obama were historic candidates in their own right and of course you would expect to see an increase in Democrat turnout, but for Biden to not only go above, but essentially double these historic candidates turnouts leaves one to pause. This just does not happen unless there is foul play at hand. The big red flag is Tarrant the deep red Tarrant county, flipping18.5 point in Biden’s favor. That just did not happen organically.
Statistically, this is an impossibility considering in counties without HART Intercivic machines, there was no appreciable increase in turnout of Democrats throughout Texas. The increase in Democrat voters in these 12 counties amount to 344,568. Even accounting for historic highs in turnout for these Counties, at least 190,000 votes are just fabricated out of thin air. So, it is pretty easy to see how 1.1 million phantom votes could have been cast in Texas as there 254 counties. The only conclusion one can reach is that these machines’ tabulation was tampered with and must be audited to see if Phantom voting was in play. This audit should also includie canvasing these counties.Until that is done, questions will continue and distrust in our elections will persist. Again, we must eliminate the ability of anyone to manipulate voting totals in Texas en mass, and that means elimination of electronic voting of any kind in Texas.
Dr Frank has cracked one of the major hacks of the 2020 elections. The other voter integrity solutions are the canvass, kinematic artifacts (all things paper), and technology (all things software and hardware.). His solution for integrity and transparency in 2022 is to “Vote Amish.” That means no more electronic voting and only using secure paper ballots for voting.
Here is the video of Dr. Frank presenting his findings in Georgia.
This is still more evidence of fraud in Georgia.
Dear Governor Abbott,Despite my big win in Texas, I hear Texans want an election audit! You know your fellow Texans have big questions about the November 2020 Election. Bills to audit elections in your great state’s House and Senate were considered during Texas’ Second Special Session. Instead, the legislature passed a watered-down amendment that doesn’t even apply to the 2020 Presidential Election. This short amendment doesn’t answer the questions Texans have about the last election. Texans demand a real audit to completely address their concerns.
We need HB 16, which was just filed in the Third Special Session. This legislation specifically addresses the 2020 Presidential Election, and enables audits for future elections. The bill creates a process for candidates and party chairs to initiate an audit, and uses the same language as SB 97, which already passed the Texas State Senate, but did not have enough time to make it through the House during the Second Special Session.
Texas needs you to act now. Your Third Special Session is the perfect, and maybe last, opportunity to pass this audit bill. Time is running out. Paper ballots in your state are only kept for 22 months after the election. Your citizens don’t trust the election system, and they want your leadership on this issue, which is the number one thing they care about. It is their most important issue—one that will affect 2022 and 2024.
Governor Abbott, we need a “Forensic Audit of the 2020 Election” added to the call. We’re quickly running out of time and it must be done this week. Texans know voting fraud occurred in some of their counties. Let’s get to the bottom of the 2020 Presidential Election Scam!
Donald J. Trump
To reiterate, this video shows how in a country, which Trump made historic gains and inroads in traditionally Democrat voters, Hispanics, that Biden also did better than both Obama and Clinton? Impossible. It just goes to show that as long as we have electronic voting in Texas, we WILL have election fraud, period.
This video might make you angry or discouraged but here is the problem with evidence. It does NOT go away. It just keeps growing and growing and growing. The denier have finally admitted there is voter fraud and yes maybe enough to have effected the election, but too bad there is nothing you can do about it? Really? They should review history because fraud vitiates everything. You should bookmark this video somewhere because it will be useful in dumping Biden in the street. We have to keep of the fight and get rid of electronic voting wherever possible.
It’s frustrating to hear people on the Right, including some who should know better, claim there’s “no evidence” of significant, possibly outcome-changing fraud in the last presidential election — even as the forensic audit in Arizona uncovers multiple discrepancies.
Clearly, they’re confusing “evidence” with “proof.”
No, there may not be absolute, incontrovertible proof of election fraud — yet. But there is plenty of evidence, good reasons a rational person might question the outcome. Here are ten that come to mind, in no particular order:
Eyewitness testimony. Since November 3, hundreds of people have come forward to report that they personally witnessed various irregularities in the vote-counting process: ballots run through tabulating machines multiple times; “pristine” mail-in ballots; ballots that appeared to have been printed on different paper or filled out by machines — the list goes on.
Two questions come to mind. First, what would these witnesses stand to gain by making knowingly false claims? Many submitted actual affidavits, subjecting themselves to potential legal liability. Second, could that many people simply be mistaken? It seems unlikely.
Our own eyes. Actually, the eyewitness testimony confirms what many of us have since seen for ourselves, via security camera footage: cases of ballots being pulled out from under tables in Fulton County, Georgia, right after observers were told to go home for the night. Vans pulling up to TCF Center in Detroit, with dozens of boxes unloaded in the dead of night.We also saw, live on television, huge, sudden jumps in vote totals for Biden, in some cases accompanied by corresponding drops in Trump’s totals.
Are there innocent, plausible explanations? Perhaps. But I have yet to hear any. Mostly, we’re just told, “Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.”
Statistical anomalies. Some of the most persuasive evidence comes from mathematicians like Edward Solomon, who have conducted in-depth statistical analyses and concluded that the reported election results are highly improbable, if not impossible. Documented anomalies include repeated percentages that could not occur naturally and number sequences that appear to violate Benford’s Law, governing the standard distribution of first digits. Both are considered valid indicators of fraud in criminal cases.
Expert testimony. Along with Solomon, we also have other internationally recognized experts like Jovan Hutton Pulitzer who have put their reputations on the line — in Pulitzer’s case, by devising a method of forensically examining ballots using computer imaging. These are people who have little to gain from taking an unpopular position. That they do so openly, for no other reason than that they value the truth, speaks volumes.
Credible proponents. When pressed to choose between two sides of a controversial issue about which I’m unsure, I typically look at the proponents of the opposing views. If one side appears more honest, rational, and credible than the other, I tend to lean that way.
Beyond the experts, there are many election skeptics whose opinions I respect. Some are friends and family members; others are national figures like Garland Favorito; Matthew DePerno; and especially David Clements, on whose Herculean efforts much of this information is based.
Constitutional questions. For me, one of the biggest issues is whether or not the election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution. It appears that, in several states, it was not.
The Constitution expressly cedes authority for conducting elections to state legislatures. But in Pennsylvania, election laws were changed by the Executive Branch and then upheld by the Judiciary, over the objections of the Legislature. In my home state of Georgia, much of the election process seems to have been shaped by back-room deals between the governor and the “shadow governor,” Stacey Abrams. I don’t see how either can be constitutional.
Lack of evidentiary hearings. “But the courts have debunked all these allegations,” the left cries. Not exactly. Yes, most (but not all) of the lawsuits brought so far have been dismissed, mostly on technicalities. Very few courts have actually taken time to hear the evidence.
This brings to mind the old philosophical conundrum about the tree falling in the forest: if you have actual evidence, but the courts refuse to hear it, does it make a sound?
Democrat obstructionism. Despite all those “wins” in court, and amid absurd claims that this was “the most secure election in history,” Democrats seem oddly reluctant to allow for investigations. In fact, in Arizona and elsewhere, they appear to be in a state of abject panic, willing to do almost anything to disrupt, discredit, or delay audits.
Why, if there was no fraud, are they so adamant? Approximately half the country questions the election. Why not allow the audits to proceed and put those doubts to rest?
Big Tech propaganda. Whether or not actual fraud occurred, there’s no question Big Tech had its thumb on the scale — promoting false narratives that helped Biden (Russian collusion, the “good people” lie, accusing Trump of downplaying the pandemic) while suppressing factual reports that might have hurt him — in particular, the Hunter Biden laptop story. Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al. have essentially admitted as much — and they continue propping up the Biden administration to this day, using the same tactics.
That, folks, is propaganda—and I’m not aware of any situation in history where propaganda was necessary to promote the truth.
The smell test. Finally, there is this: the whole thing just stinks to high heaven. A sitting president earns more votes than any sitting president in history; he increases his vote totals among Blacks, Hispanics, and women; he wins 18 of 19 “Bellwether Counties,” along with Florida, Ohio, and Iowa — long the guarantors of presidential victory; his party picks up seats in the House; and he still loses?
That makes no sense. I might not be able to prove it isn’t true, but I’ll tell you this: I don’t believe it for a minute.
Using historical voting and registrations, he asks the question “if Trump huge gained on traditional Democrat strength, working Hispanics, African Americans and suburban women, then were did Biden’s historical increases come from?” Republicans? Nope, phantom votes added by electronic voting machines. There is no way that Biden legal got votes when his base was eroded to significantly in Texas. A true forensic audit will discover this and hopefully lead to the elimination of electronic voting in Texas forever.
“FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING”
— United States Supreme Court
* “Vitiates” in a legal context means negates, quashes, annuls, invalidates, revokes and abrogates
“Fraud vitiates everything.” That enduring opinion was the crux of the landmark decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the above referenced case of the 1878 case of United States versus Throckmorton.
Ipso facto, the outcome of a POTUS election that is rife with one-sided fraud and criminality is rendered null and void. Especially any result which saw the winner attain his or her victory through fraudulent means and/or criminal conduct is automatically canceled and invalid under the law.
The same U.S. Supreme Court ruling also determined that fraud vitiates contracts. An election is essentially a binding contract between the electorate and the elected. This indispensable social contract is irreparably broken through voter fraud and election cyber-crimes as the public trust is profoundly violated.
The transparent Democrat-directed election theft of 2020 has rent asunder the sacred covenant between the elected and the electors. Hence, Joe Biden’s illicitly declared victory is illegitimate and therefore annulled forthwith.
The Biden-Harris ticket has also forfeited any right to a recount or a re-run of the election because of their highly organized and premeditated fraud perpetrated to outright steal it. Remember, fraud vitiates everything.
As more details of this unprecedented vote fraud and election theft are brought to light, the Tump-Pence ticket appears to have won by a landslide. The fraudulent Biden wins in the battleground states were actually stolen from Trump, so the result is reversed but by much more than the bogus vote tallies indicate.
President Trump is, therefore, the victor of the 2020 POTUS election by default…by law…and according to the U.S. Constitution. By every indication, his electoral triumph was sealed by the will of a great majority of the American people.
Which means the President now enjoys a HUGE mandate to not only govern in an unobstructed manner, but also to expeditiously implement his urgent MAGA agenda.
— SOTN Resident Legal Counsel
Conclusion & Caveat
This crucial declaration is actually an extremely important notification. It has been released for the benefit of each and every attorney in the USA working on the “Trump v. Biden” case. While most of those state lawsuits focus on the minutiae of Biden’s election theft, it’s critical that the President’s lawyers not lose site of the big picture presented here.
While it is essential to ferret out the facts of the Democrat’s election crime spree across the country to legally prove fraud, at the end of the day, all that matters is that “fraud vitiates everything”. Everything else is a distraction.
In other words, once any or all those intentional frauds have been proven in court, whether by judge or jury, the so-called Biden victory will be vacated for all time. Once the Democrat’s nationwide criminal enterprise has been established via successful lawsuits — even by ONE litigation — Donald Trump ineluctably wins the 2020 POTUS election.
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a loud and clear precedent ruling that “fraud vitiates everything”. The President’s attorneys and all involved law firms need to be acutely aware of this SCOTUS decision that was handed down in the landmark case UNITED STATES v. THROCKMORTON (98 US 61 – Supreme Court 1878); and which emphatically stated that “fraud vitiates everything”.
In light of this vital information, which could very well dictate the final outcome of the 2020 POTUS election, SOTN respectfully requests that this legal analysis be posted and sent out far and wide. Please disseminate this urgent notification especially throughout the Patriot Movement’s legal community—thank you!
State of the Nation
November 8, 2020
Some time ago (right after the election), I was thinking about how many people would be needed to pull of the election fraud in the 5 large municipalities / counties that we are now all familiar with: Maricopa, AZ, Fulton, GA, Wayne, MI, Philadelphia, PA, and Milwaukee, WI. You know, you always have to follow the money, and someone was hiring people to do these things. I was also perfect because, well, no one was working so, sure some extra cash, no problem.
So shortly after the election was over and we saw these massive ballot drops and vote swings, I started to estimate how many people you would need to pull of this massive fraud. Based on estimates using my background of running manufacturing operations some time ago, I came up with a figure of needing 3,000 individuals and paying out (payouts are multiple levels, because of course you had to pay off the politicians and officials too) of $198 million in my first calculation. I am certain grifters like Stacey Abrams also has a spreadsheet very similar to this one below. I am sure the numbers mind be slightly off, but you get the idea.
In looking at the numbers above you have to think in terms of military organizations. On the top are Generals, Colonels and Majors and those that do the dirty work, Privates, Corporals and Sergeants. In between you have those who manage the grunts: Staff Sergeants, Sergeant Majors; and then those who manage the Sergeants: Lieutenants and Captains. Remember, you just needed 7 locations with this form of command and control to implement a fraud of this magnitude. 400+ individuals is more than enough to have accomplished this per location.
Then we come to find out that Mark Zuckerberg poured in $300 million into these five contested municipalities. So, taking my original calculations, and then doing a little reverse engineering, we come up with new estimates. With $300 million, you can now gainfully employ 4,088 to pull of this massive heist as illustrated below. Not saying that this did happen, but man, it seems really coincidental that all these individuals help make it happen. I remember seeing a video of a mob guy in Philadelphia saying he was paid $3 million to produce 300,000 ballots. The video of Skinny Joey Merlino telling someone that what he did and would testify if offered immunity and a new identity has been taken down, but here is the information link.
See, it is ALWAYS about the money and following it. We have already seen in Georgia how Ms. Abrams, through her company, was able to grift the Georgia governor. Why? Because the both new the previous election for Governor was tainted? Maybe. I am certain if you look at the majority of people pushing back against these audits, they definitely have their hands in the money jar and they are not clean. Just another data point of interest: look for the money. Where did $300 million go, and to whom?
In this post I will look at only two types of electronic voter manipulations: vote flipping of real votes and adding phantom voters, and the effect each has on vote totals. Flipping votes is usually done with the adjudication process or even pre-programmed into the machines with fractional or weighted voting. In any case, it tends to be a fixed percentage or amount calculated prior to the commencement of voting. While in the 2020 Election it looked like this type of fraud was implemented, it was not quite enough to push one candidate over the line. Remember, fraud comes in many flavors. In addition, in deep red states, vote flipping virtually goes undetected as the outcomes are usually not affected greatly.
The second type of electronic vote manipulation is adding phantom votes, as indicated in Dr. Frank’s video. This is probably the easiest and least detectable of all electronic voter fraud because you already know how many people actually voted before the voting starts. From there you count the real votes from the calculated votes, and then assign the difference to the candidate of your choice. So, if 1,000 where calculated to vote, but only 900 voted, you have 100 phantom votes at your disposal to assigned to a candidate.
In deep red states like Texas, this form of electronic voter fraud has gone pretty much undetected until the last election, when huge swings in Democrat turnout seemed to belie the actual turnout. As stated in an earlier post (Biden’s Campaign and Results defy the Laws of Physics), it is hard to believe that a candidate that did not even visit Texas and whose policies go against most of Texan’s beliefs would have gain so much traction against a populous candidate like Trump. As such, a clarion call must be sound off to investigate the machines and tallies in Texas.
To help understand this there will be three situations that you can see how these two types of vote stuffing and switching can effect an election at the county level. For illustration I will use examples where a county is roughly equal in Democrats (Blue) and Republicans (Red), a county that is slightly more Republican than Democrat, and a county that is heavily Republican.
Now you have to remember that Dr. Frank showed how the 2010 Census was used to stuff phantom votes in each county by age group. For this illustration a fictitious county with 1,000, 60-year-old voters, who typically vote at a 70% (which is high for Texas), will be used for the three different illustrations. Remember, this vote manipulations happened in every age group in every county in Texas that has electronic voting machines.
So, in our first scenario, our Noname County is comprised of roughly 1,000 60-year-olds, and typically 70% (700) vote and about half vote R and half vote D. Using Dr. Frank’s estimation that 6% to 8% of phantom votes were injected into every age group, we selected slightly over 7%, or 50 phantom votes (it makes the math easier to follow) were injected in this scenario. In addition, we kept the actual vote flipping to 1% (7 votes). Now, please stay with me because there is some math going on, but I think you can follow me. So, you would expect that 350 votes would go to the Democrat and 350 will go the Republican is there was a clean and theft free election. Not so.
Look at the illustration below, right away 50 phantom votes are added (see increase from 700 to 750 in left panel), with 48 going to the Democrat candidate and 2 going to the Republican (this is pretty much the rates that actually happened in Georgia and Michigan). At the same time 7 votes were taken away from the Republican and added to the Democrat (center two panels below). As a footnote, vote flipping was shown in real-time on live TV during the 2020 Election night. In the aggregate (the right most panel), the Republican candidate lost 7 votes (dotted red line), but gain 2 votes with the phantom voters for a total of 345 votes (net loss of 5 votes). The Democrat on the other hand added 48 votes (dotted blue line) from the phantom votes and 7 from the vote switching resulting in a 54% to 46% margin of victory. So, yes, in Texas we have a few “swing” counties where this happened.
Now on to a Noname County with the same 1,000 60-year-olds that vote at 70% (700 voters) which leans Red (Republican). We are using the same 7% (50) of phantom voters, but this time we will raise the vote flipping to 2% (14 votes). Again, let’s follow the math. If this were a fair election the Republican would win by a margin of 420 (60%) to 280 (40%) votes. Now with vote switching in the aggregate, the Republican candidate lost 14 votes, but gained 2 votes with the phantom voters for a total of 373 votes (net loss of 12 votes). The Democrat on the other hand added 48 votes from the phantom votes and 14 from the vote switching resulting in a very narrow 50.3% to 49.7% margin of victory. So, yes, in Texas we have a few R counties where a narrow margin was eked out, for example Tarrant County.
Finally, a Noname County with the same 1,000 60-year-olds that vote at 70% (700 voters) which is heavily Republican (60%). We are using the same 7% (50) of phantom voters, but this time we will raise the vote flipping to 3% (3% is what is estimated in 2020 to be pre-programmed into most machines which is 21 votes in this example). Again, let’s follow the math. If this were a fair election the Republican would win by a margin of 420 (60%) to 280 (40%) votes. Now with vote switching in the aggregate, the Republican candidate lost 21 votes, but gained 2 votes with the phantom voters for a total of 401 votes (net loss of 19 votes). The Democrat on the other hand added 48 votes from the phantom votes and 21 from the vote switching resulting in a narrowing of the Republican’s victory to 53.5% to 46.5%. So, instead of a 20 point victory, the Republican won by a 7 point margin. Evidence shows that this scenario happened in multiple deep red counties in Texas during the 2020 Presidential Election.
So let’s take a real world example in a county in Texas, Collin. Please remember that the average percentage turnout has been 69% in last 5 Presidential Elections (since 1996) in Collin county. The graphic below is taken from Dr. Frank’s analysis of Texas counties. The green vertical line is 61-year-olds in Collin. Typically, 6,900 61-year-olds vote in Collin (green vertical line with green circle), but in 2020 with the injection of phantom voting using the 2010 Census and a per-installed algorithmic key (with a coefficient of 0.999), that number increased to 8,100. So there are 1,200 phantom 61-year-old voters that can be allocated (most likely to the Democrat) in Collin. Let’s be not so generous and say only 80% went to Biden. That is an additional 960 votes added to Biden, and 240 votes for Trump.
Let’s make this real clear. This example is only one county with one age group. This resulted in a massive injection of phantom votes cast in Collin county to the tune of tens of thousands of illegal ballots. What is known as fact that an algorithmic key was used in every electronic voting machine in every county in Texas. That hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots were cast most likely for Democrats due to the anomalies favoring them. So, Texas what you going to do? Just let this fraud stand? Trump did not win Texas by 7 points, he won by 20 to 25 points, it is just the machines and those who has access to them made it look like Texas, deep Red, is now going Blue. We can either grab this bull by the horns, or get buried in its dookie.
Caveat: I have not verified these numbers om Collin county. I encourage the reader to do so.
So, people keep saying, where is the proof of election fraud? Well if we take the way-back machine to November 3rd and 4th, 2020 we have real-time evidence of votes being switched on live broadcasts. What is amazing is that no one seems to think this is a problem? Really? Hum. If you want to see evidence of the red flag of electronic voter fraud all we need to do is go to the video. (to see video click picture below).
Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.
Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this elections, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.
Dominion Early History
Dominion Voting System Corp., was founded in Canada in 2002-2003 with an openly progressive mission – to develop electronic voting software which would not just process ballots, but also “mobilize voters” – a popular slogan of the Left.
It is not clear what products or services the company has developed. It found almost no buyers, until Obama was elected in 2008. In 2009, New York ordered a few dozens of systems from it. In 2010, Obama’s DOJ (Holder – Mueller) took the EVS unit, purchased from Diebold, away from the market leader ES&S, and gave it to Dominion. This gift included the installed base of about 30% of the US electronic voting systems (EVS) market. Within two weeks, Dominion also acquired Sequoia, which was formally spun from Smartmatic, but ties between these two companies remained. Smartmatic is a UK based EVS vendor, whose software was used by Chavez to “win” the Venezuelan referendum in 2004. Smartmatic’s unit Sequoia faced troubles in the US. Those troubles quickly ended when its assets were purchased by Dominion.
Thus, the new Democratic party created a pocket pet corporation, gave it the lion share of the US electronic voting systems market. Dominion is ideologically aligned with the Democratic Party, owes it everything it has, dependent on it for most of its business, and needs it in power to avoid prosecution for corruption. Sounds like a conflict of interest.
Using electronic voting machines has always been controversial. The pros for electronic voting – saving working time of the ballot counters – are minuscule. The cons however are infinite. Because software is inherently complex, non-transparent, and volatile, there is always a risk of significant errors. There are also suspicions and doubts about election results. The complexity of software and hardware on which voting machines run has been continually increasing, aggravating these concerns.
At the beginning of 2009, there were four major US EVS suppliers: ES&S, Premier (a unit of Nixdorf-Diebold), Sequoia (linked to Smartmatic), and Hart Intercivic. The market size was a few hundred million dollars a year and growing. EVS vendors competed among themselves and against traditional pen and paper voting. There were no barriers to entry for other competitors, other than government’s regulations.
Electronic voting, which sounded like a good idea in the 1980s is so no more. Electronic voting machines and their vendors were under criticism for many years. In 2007-2008, this criticism materialized in the SEC, DOJ, and states lawsuits against the voting machines vendors. Diebold was catching flack for having a prominent Republican party supporter among their top executives. It spun its EVS unit as a separate company Premier, and was looking for a buyer. The existing vendors were burdened with liabilities, including DOJ investigations. This opened up an opportunity for the Obama administration.
Technical Vulnerabilities of EVS Systems
The voting software developers can easily insert code, changing numbers in favor of or against one candidate. No hacking is necessary. The malicious code can be designed to pass tests and to be triggered only at the time of a real election, automatically or manually. Both case are possible even the the machine is disconnected from the internet and has no ordinary I/O devices. The malicious code can be activated manually in real time by inserting a ballot or another paper with a pre-defined QR or image code. An audit of the source code is necessary, but not sufficient. Dominion software runs on Windows, and the malicious code can be hidden in any part of the operating system. Malicious code can be hidden in the firmware, too.
If a state wants to take risks and to rely on testing and the source code audit, they should be conducted with the participation of technically competent representatives of both parties. If the system passes testing and auditing, the machine image must be securely stored. All supplied machines must have exactly the same hardware and the software as the audited system.
As far as I know, thorough tests and source code audits are conducted very rarely, if at all. Further, the vendors are not required to use only the audited image, and are allowed to update the software almost at will. That means that election commissions are forced to blindly trust the vendors. Blind trust is always wrong and invites abuse. But even “trust but verify” is applicable only to trustworthy vendors. Dominion Voting is the opposite of trustworthy.
The only real solution to the vulnerability of EVS is not to use them at all. Manual ballot counting has no software vulnerabilities, and is much cheaper. Virginia appears to be the only state that decided to use only manual ballots.
How Dominion went from nothing to everything in two weeks
In September 2009, ES&S acquired Premier , without any objections from the DOJ. But in March 2010, the Obama’s DOJ (Eric Holder – Robert Mueller) forced ES&S to “sell” Premier’s assets to Dominion, but to keep its liabilities. In addition, ES&S was forced to license to Dominion some of its software, in perpetuity and free of charge. The pretext for the DOJ action was antitrust.
This is how the assets transfer was structured, per DOJ  (March 8, 2010).
“WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it will require Election Systems & Software (ES&S) to divest voting equipment systems assets it purchased in September 2009 from Premier Election Solutions Inc. in order to restore competition. The assets to be divested include the means to produce all versions of Premier’s hardware, software and firmware used to record, tabulate, transmit or report votes, including the Assure 1.2 system, and a license to better serve disabled voters. The department said that today’s settlement will restore competition in voting equipment systems in the United States… “
“In order to restore competition” sounds funny, because the same document also required ES&S to not compete against the buyer (with exceptions).
“… the acquisition substantially reduced competition as it combined the two largest providers of systems used to tally votes in federal, state and local elections in the United States. ES&S’s acquisition of Premier made ES&S the provider of more than 70 percent of the voting equipment systems in the United States. The department said that because the cash value of the deal between ES&S and Premier was $5 million, far below the mandatory reporting threshold for mergers under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, the department’s investigation of the transaction did not begin until the companies had combined their assets and dismantled many of Premier’s operating divisions.”
Sounds like a poor pretext. The DOJ has been investigating these companies even before the merger, and was aware of it. Further, the DOJ does not allege that the merger has not been reported. Even so, why not simply demand unrolling the merger? The DOJ provides a poor excuse to demand divestiture rather than a normal unrolling.
“Under the terms of the settlement, ES&S must divest all of the intellectual property associated with all versions –past, present and in development –of the Premier voting equipment systems to another company. ES&S also must divest all Premier tooling and fixed assets, as well as inventory of parts and components. In order to allow the divestiture buyer to better serve disabled voters, ES&S must also grant a fully paid-up, irrevocable, perpetual license to use the AutoMARK, ES&S’s ballot marking device for which Premier had a limited license prior to the acquisition. The buyer of the divestiture assets will have the right to modify and improve both Premier products and the AutoMARK.”
Thus, the Obama’s DOJ stripped ES&S not only acquired Premier assets, but also coerced it to license rights to its pre-merger product.
“ES&S must sell the divestiture assets to a buyer approved by the department.”
This is not selling. This is confiscation multiplied by corruption.
“The settlement prohibits ES&S from bidding on new voting equipment system contracts using the Premier equipment. [transferred to Dominion]”
Wait, didn’t they say that the purpose was to increase the competition?
“The department also required that ES&S grant the divestiture buyer an opportunity to compete to provide services to Premier customers currently under contract with ES&S, giving customers the option to switch to the divestiture buyer or to remain with ES&S … ES&S also must provide access to knowledgeable Premier employees and agree to offer a supply agreement to allow the divestiture buyer time to establish its own manufacturing of voting equipment systems.”
The approved divestiture buyer, Dominion Voting, is not mentioned in this press release. But this quote shows that the DOJ has already determined the “approved buyer,” and knew that it had no manufacturing base.
After the “Sale”
Dominion announced the acquisition of the Diebold products on May 19, 2010  and the acquisition of Sequoia Voting assets on June 4, 2010 . Dominion also hired much of its personnel, probably retaining ties to extremely sketchy Smartmatic. Sequoia/Smartmatic systems had been used in the Venezuela 2004 referendum, which Hugo Chavez “won”. Smartmatic is a British company with Hugo Chavez ties, headed by “Lord” Malloch-Brown (former UN Deputy Secretary-General, UNDP, UNHCR, VP of Soros’ Quantum Fund, and Vice Chair of Soros’ Open Society Foundation) , and linked to electoral scandals all over the world .
In August 2019, the rough breakdown of the EVS market in the US was (per Brad Feldman):
10% Hart Intercivic
0% Dominion Voting
Less than a year later, after the “antitrust” actions of Obama’s DOJ, it became:
40% ES&S (restricted in competing against Dominion)
10% Hart Intercivic
Thus, the DOJ’s actions did the exact opposite of its words.
An elections system vendor should be non-partisan, in a demonstrable way. Dominion is not just partisan, but hyper-partisan in favor of the Democrat party, or even its pocket vendor.
Dominion has many more ties to the Democrat party and its prominent supporters in the US and abroad, which are not covered in this article.
Software Development in Serbia
Dominion develops much of its software in Belgrade, Serbia. Russia is a close friend to Serbia, if not its only one. If anybody sincerely thought that Putin wanted to hack American elections, their first location of interest would be the offices of Dominion Voting in Belgrade, rather than the Trump Tower in New York.
By the way, Serbian and Russian languages use the Cyrillic alphabet. Most letters have the same Unicode encoding in Serbian and Russian (the Basic Multilingual Plane, range 0410-04FF). If any election officials found Cyrillic text on a Dominion voting machine in 2016, it was probably left by its developers in Serbia.
This is the Agreement between Michigan & Dominion, including specs of many Dominion products (PDF, 161 pages). Wi-fi connection and even a dial up modem are offered as an option.
Some of the companies referenced here as foreign based or foreign originating re-registered in the US.
 Marcos warns of ‘another Smartmatic situation’ – Smartmatic was accused of election fraud in the 2016 elections in Philippines
 Smartmatic in Wikipedia, November 9, 2020 (not verified)
 Sequoia Voting Systems in Wikipedia, November 9, 2020 (not verified)
 Lord Malloch Brown in Wikipedia, November 8, 2010 (not verified)
 Dominion Voting Systems Corp – discussion of Dominion’s ideology and highly partisan offers
via Science Defies Politics
Documents that Georgia’s largest county submitted to state officials as part of a post-election audit highlight significant irregularities in the Atlanta area during last November’s voting, ranging from identical vote tallies repeated multiple times to large batches of absentee ballots that appear to be missing from the official ballot-scanning records.
The revelations come as a state judge has taken the extraordinary step of ordering absentee ballots in the county unsealed so that a private audit led by lawyer Bob Cheeley can examine the actual papers and resolve discrepancies. Cheeley told Just the News on Wednesday the evidence he has seen so far points to “election tabulation malpractice.”
A second state official said the shoddy nature of the Fulton County paperwork left open the possibility fraud or other misconduct occurred. “An audit is only as good as the data that’s input, and in this case Fulton County’s records are so problematic I’m not sure a reasonable person can trust them,” the official said. “When you add in the reports of ballots magically appearing under tables or being moved out of the counting center, there are legitimate outstanding questions.”
June 17, 2021
America’s voting system is in trouble. To do its job, it needs to produce clear and trustworthy outcomes. It’s not enough to produce a winner and loser. The losers have to believe that they lost fair and square, and the public has to have enough confidence in the system to be skeptical when sore losers claim fraud.
We don’t have that right now. To get there, we need paper ballots, voter ID, and open counting – plus a bit of self-restraint among our political class. Across much of America, voting is now done by computerized devices. Computers have many advantages: They’re fast, they’re easy to program (compared with changing printed ballots), and they produce rapid results that can be quickly reported.
But they also have problems. One is that to trust a computer, you have to trust the people who wrote its software, and everyone else who may have had an opportunity to change that software. Devices that connect to the Internet also raise the risk that people on the other side of the world might change the software or the results.
Since 2020, such worries have often been dismissed as right-wing propaganda, but just before the election USA Today published a roundup of concerns about electronic voting that cited numerous computer scientists. Conclusion: “All election systems are for the most part black boxes: proprietary software and hardware jealously guarded by the handful of companies selling them. But state reviews and court cases opening up DRE [direct-recording electronic] systems of all makes and models for examination have for years flagged problems.”
“The whole community of computer scientists is mystified why election officials will not listen to experts about technology but will listen to the vendors” selling and maintaining it, said computer scientist Duncan Buell of the University of South Carolina.
Prior to the 2020 election, several prominent Democrats, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Ron Wyden, sent a letter citing reports of vote-switching by machines manufactured by Dominion Systems. They wrote: “These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.”
They were right. Whether or not voting machines were actually compromised, if people can’t trust them, they’re no good. So, we need something more trustworthy. How do we do that?
Paper ballots, voter ID, and open counting, for a start. Paper ballots aren’t fraud-proof, but they have several advantages over electronic voting machines. First, they can’t be hacked by someone in Minsk or Guangdong. To change a paper ballot, you need physical access.
What’s more, while you can change a vote tally in a computer by flipping some bits – and bits are interchangeable – paper ballots capture more information than simply votes for or against a candidate. Erasing original votes is likely to leave some residue.
Creating large numbers of fake ballots is also harder. Computer votes have no identifying characteristics. Details of handwriting, ink color, and so on make each paper ballot unique. If you mass-produced completed ballots, it would be much harder to make them look genuine; a Xerox machine wouldn’t do the job.
Of course, votes need to be genuine. Voter fraud is itself a species of voter suppression. If a fraudulent voter casts a ballot, that ballot neutralizes the vote of a legitimate voter who chose a different candidate.
Many states (including mine, Tennessee) require a photo ID to vote, as is the custom around the world. Voting by mail is frowned upon. In Europe, 63% of countries ban mail-in ballots except for citizens living abroad; another 22% ban mail-in ballots even for overseas citizens. Most countries that allow mail-in ballots require people to show an ID to obtain one. Some countries – including those where the U.S. has tried to boost democracy, such as Afghanistan and Iraq – have gone further, marking voters (remember the famous “purple finger” photos?) to prevent repeat voting.
The goal is simple: one person, one vote – with both person and vote authenticated.
I’m not the only one to endorse paper ballots. After the Democrats’ Iowa caucuses debacle last year, where a smartphone voting app failed miserably, the New York Times ran a piece headlined “The only safe election is a low-tech election.”
And as Senator (now Vice President) Kamala Harris noted, “Russia can’t hack a piece of paper.”
Of course, to be trusted, votes must also be counted fairly. I recommend an open count at each polling place. Counting votes on the spot would eliminate problems with ballots being “lost” on the way to a central counting facility or being “discovered” in the trunk of a car during the count. Everything should be done out in the open.
There should also be accountability for voting officials. Votes lost or found? You lose your job. The responsibility is vital, and there should be serious consequences for failure or dereliction.
Finally, we need a better political culture. Politicians were once unwilling to challenge elections for fear of looking like sore losers. That has changed. From the “hanging chad” recounts in 2000 to the Diebold conspiracy theories of 2004 to claims of a “hacked election” in 2016 to the ongoing hysteria about the 2020 election, charges of fraud, made by major political figures, have become normal.
This may help fire up the base and generate media clicks, but it’s destructive – and it undercuts the credibility of any genuine charges of fraud that may emerge. True, reforming our political culture, which I regard as deeply dysfunctional, may be asking too much. All the more reason to support paper ballots, voter ID, and open counting on-site. Adopting these methods would do much to promote political trust, and political legitimacy, in a nation sorely in need of both.
Remember the days with CNN actually did investigative journalism and reported the news before they became the Communist Narrative Network? Well, way back in 2006 they proved two things: First, Smartmatic / Dominion machines were owned by Venezuelans, and secondly, you could run unlimited ballots through a machine.
Incredibly, after the 2020 election, CNN labeled Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Donald Trump “conspiracy theorist” for even mentioning our voting machines ties to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. They even went as far as labeling the concept of “voting machine fraud” a “conspiracy theory.” The only problem was… CNN previously reported on our voting machines being tied to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez as well as our voting machine’s ability to commit election fraud.
Remember those red flags of electronic election fraud. The mainstream media thinks it is a sophisticated modern digital propaganda weaponized against the American people, they are simply in the business of telling lies, hiding the truth, and controlling the narrative. We now know this, and thank you CNN for your investigative journalism and showing America that you are no longer newsworthy.
While many of the issues of electronic election fraud seem to be far, far away from Texas in the swings states of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in order to see how electronic voter fraud took place in Texas you have to look at the largest Red county in the country to see how the election was manipulated. As mentioned earlier in the video Scientific Proof, Dr. Frank was able to prove that voter rolls were all mysteriously all increased to allow the Democrats the ability to add phantom voters without anyone being the wiser. Not only did the vote manipulation consist of altering in person voting totals, it dealt with mail-in ballots and absentee ballots. As this tweet from November 5, 2020 indicates, that a traditionally red county swung to blue by 427 votes although the outcome for the state of Texas did not change, but it did. This county actually had a massive amount of votes flipped.
So here is the rundown and if you look at my post about electronic voting red flags: Red Flags for Electronic Election Fraud you will see all the familiar indicators that fraud was taking place in Tarrant County. Below are some of the highlights of the 2020 Election in Tarrant County, Texas.
- Trump is ahead on November 4th but the mail-in ballots just keep coming and Voila! They flip the largest red Urban County in the USA.
- Several Tarrant County Precincts recorded more than 100% voter turnout (big increase in voter turnout red flag)
- As of November 6th there were an estimated 28,016 defective (Runbeck) ballots that had been or needed to be adjudicated (high failure rate red flag)
- There is an increase in “registered” voters that almost perfectly matches the adjudications (Phantom Voters red flag)
Then there is a statistical anomaly on the “increase” in voters going primarily to one candidate as highlighted below. That “just enough” new voters were added to flip the county for Biden (which is another big red flag).
Then there is the coup de grâce, where the predicted voter turnout as demonstrated by Dr. Frank matches exactly with with the “electronic tally” says it did. In fact, it does not. Many of the votes cast are not real and machines again have electronically stuffed the ballot box. This is how you do it, add “phantom votes” and weight them heavily to one candidate.
Again, what makes this significant is that to most people this will go undetected. Why? Because it did not flip Texas, but did flip a big, traditionally red county blue. It did it not by the voters, but by the machines. This is just one of the ways the Democrats thought they would flip Texas. Luckily, Trump voters came out in such large numbers, that it did not happen, but it will in the near future if we do not get forensic audit done in a last Tarrant County.
You are watching the planned demolition of the American Oligarchy (or the corrupt make-believe two-party system). It is about all the swamp creatures being uncovered. Not all actors in this freak show are willing participants. Many are trapped by their own crimes and associations of truly corrupt individuals.
The Art of War is about knowing the enemy and reducing their freedom of action until the only path left to them, is the one you want them to take.
Very easy to predict Maricopa Officials would deny, deny, deny and hope for no audit (based on past cheating that was never investigated although known.)
Maricopa Board of Supervisors are STILL holding back routers, SPLUNK records, and more. Like the Mafia: “never confess, never back down!” Who does that sound like (Hillary)?
Think about the optics of their position AFTER full evidence of ballot fuckery is truly out. Who are they going to call then? Nancy? Soros? Ghostbusters?
Will they (the fraudsters) pretend to be shocked and suddenly appear to cooperate? Will they turtle up and plead the 5th? Will they keep hoping the Deep State is going to bail them out?
When will they figure out this time is not like the past, the outcome is not the same, and very different players are pulling the strings?
GAME OVER YOU LOSE
Thanks for playing
Former Army Captain of Military Intelligence, Seth Keshel (https://twitter.com/SKeshel), breaks down the election data in Maricopa County.
Arizona has historically been a Republican state.
Since WWII, Arizona has only voted for a Democrat for President twice, 1948 and 1996. Maricopa has not voted for the Democrat since 1948.
John Kerry added 118,166 votes in Maricopa in 2004.
Barack Obama added 97,677 votes in Maricopa in 2008.
Hillary Clinton added 100,619 votes in Maricopa in 2016.
Joe Biden added 337,867 votes in Maricopa in 2020.
Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes. So if as little as 0.5% of the 2.1 million ballots in Maricopa are illegal or invalid ballots for Biden then you have a state for the first time in the history of the United States that would have been wrongfully awarded in the American electoral college. And if it happened in Maricopa, you can be sure that it happened elsewhere.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D) explains why the full forensic audit is vital to restoring election integrity in America
Here is a video about a US Senator from Oregon warning us about electronic voting machines vulnerabilities to hacking. He states the ONLY way to prove that any election if valid is to do a full forensic audit. Here are some of his quotes:
“The vast majority of 10,000 election jurisdictions nationwide use election management systems that run on old software.. ripe for exploitation by hackers.. PA, WI, MI, FL, IA, IN, AZ, & NC among others are all at risk. Even GA, which passed legislation to buy new voting machines is on track to buy equipment that suffers from the significant cyber security weakness.”
“Our elections weren’t secure last week and they sure as heck aren’t secure this week and anybody who says otherwise is either selling you voting machines or simply has a malicious intent towards our elections.”
“At one point in the I.C., both sides seemed to agree that no votes were changed in the 2016 election. And, I said, the experts I talk to say that until you have a forensic analysis of a vote, until you got in there and scrub the whole system, you can’t really say that.”
Here is a link to the video: http://www.auditthevotetexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Electronic%20Voting%20Hacks.mp4
Granted, this video is PRIOR to the 2020 Elections, but it is no less compelling and true. ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING CAN BE HACKED, PERIOD
With electronic machine voting also comes the higher possibilities of fraudulent vote counting and vote tallies. It starts with the public not being allowed to access the software that controls the voting machines or to do a pre-election stress test of the veracity of a voting system. Although companies say they designed their software to ensure against fraud, due to the proprietary nature of their software and a lack of transparency into the workings of the machines, the public has no idea of how the voting software works or if it is really secure against malicious attacks or internal manipulation of votes or vote totals. Under these conditions, it would be simple for the company to configure their software to produce fraudulent results. And as we are finding out, there is no guarantee that vendors are supplying machines with the best interest of the voters’ or that deliver accurate election results.
And that leaves us with numerous red flags concerning vote and vote totals manipulation. Electronic voting can and has changed votes en mass. If implemented correctly, these changes could be undetected. The software can be programmed to only flip, alter or add a few hundred or few thousand votes at the precinct level. But taken to the extreme over an entire State, changes might be in the hundreds of thousands of votes, as we saw in the 2020 Election, that negatively effected the outcome.
So, when a complete forensic audit is conducted some major red flags are expected to become evident which indicate electronic voter fraud. These red flags are high ballot error rates, terminals connected to an outside public network, unscheduled software updates to terminals, weighted or fractional (decimal) voting, decrements in voting totals and flip totals, ghost or phantom voting, deletion of voting records or server logs, large unusual increases in aged voting (usually seniors), and margins of victories identical over multiple precincts. These are outlined in more detail below.
STEALING an ELECTION🚨
As we got closer to the 2020 election, it seems corporate media was really getting scared that Trump would win, and pushed their narrative that he was going to cheat bigly and STEAL the election. What the corporate media did not know, it was the DEMs who put the fix in. No one let them in on the plan, apparently. Just a shit load of fraud that I do not know if it will ever get corrected or prosecuted. Crimes were committed, but just like the democrats to consistently sweep it under the carpet when their side does it. Oh, and the cheating was yuge and Biden is the Cheater and Thief.
The Hill: Voting machines pose a greater threat to our elections than foreign agents (Oct 2, 2019)
CBS: Why voting machines in the U.S. are easy targets for hackers (September 19, 2018)
Salon: New “hybrid” voting system can change paper ballot after it’s been cast (Mar 28, 2019)
AP: Exclusive: New Election systems use vulnerable software (July 13, 2019)
Newsweek: Election Hacking: Voting-Machine Supplier Admits It Used Hackable Software Despite Past Denials (July 17, 2018)
TechCrunch: Senators demand to know why election vendors still sell voting machines with ‘known vulnerabilities’ (Mar 27, 2019)
RollingStone: John Oliver Breaks Down Faulty Election Machine Security on ‘Last Week Tonight’ (November 4, 2019)
WaPo: The Cybersecurity 202: U.S. voting machines vulnerable to hacks in 2020, researchers find (Sep 27, 2019)
New York Times: America’s Elections Could Be Hacked. Go Vote Anyway (October 19, 2018)
MIT Tech Review: 16 million Americans will vote on hackable paperless machines (Aug 13, 2019)
AJC: In high-stakes election, Georgia’s voting system vulnerable to cyberattack (Oct 23, 2020)
What always amazes me is why no election officials from the states looked into the “anomalies” of votes being flipped in their states. Looking at the quotes from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Governor, you can see why fraud was so easily overlooked and even enabled. These are criminal acts. This does NOT even account for all the pallets of ballots brought into PA as well.
This video presentation (see link at bottom of this post) was done by a team of data scientists and programmers with experience working for the US Navy, the CIA, the National Counter-Terrorism Center, and a Big-Four Accounting Firm.🔻
There were 423,116 votes subtracted from Trump in the Pennsylvania data. (that means he received votes, and someone just had them deleted, not in error, but deliberately)
If you look at the data for Allegheny County, 145,000 absentee votes were deleted for Trump. Over 27,000 votes were also removed from Trump’s election day votes.
In Chester County, Trump loses over 41,000 votes from his election day vote totals and nearly 50,000 votes from his absentee vote totals. In total, over 91,000 votes are subtracted from Trump.
In Lehigh County, Trump receives an initial 66,179 votes which are then taken away from his vote total.
Again, this is something that should *NEVER* occur in an additive voting process.
People always ask why nothing ever happens with all the fraud we present❓
Take a look at the words of these elected officials in Pennsylvania:
“A Trump presidency would significantly weaken the US, driving us into a lengthy recession. Using the title ‘President before the word ‘Trump’ really demeans the office of the presidency…”
“Pennsylvania had a fair and secure election free of intervention, and our commonwealth will not tolerate these senseless attempts to silence the voices of millions of Pennsylvanians. It’s time to accept reality and move on.”
“It’s January 2, 2021, and this is a reminder that no amount of frivolous, meritless legal filings, chest-thumping by sycophant congressmen or tweets by the sitting president is going to change the fact that in 18 days Joe Biden will be sworn in as our new President.”
“I said the other day and I’ll repeat. I don’t know if they need a surgeon to repair their spines or a psychiatrist to examine their heads but something is wrong with these people that are willing to follow Donald Trump as far as he is trying to take them.”
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, Governor Tom Wolf, and Attorney General Josh Shapiro have made it very clear that they have no interest in looking into where these 423,116 errors on election day went.
After seeing the data provided and the comments of Pennsylvania’s leadership, do you believe a free and fair election was carried out? Do you think that these elected officials will pursue an unbiased investigation into these findings to ensure that the votes of their constituents were counted
This presentation have never been debunked nor refuted. It is just the facts.
Pennsylvania was Stolen – Here is the Evidence
The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 stage play Gas Light, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944. In the story, the husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes. The play’s title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions. The wife repeatedly asks her husband to confirm her perceptions about the dimming lights, but in defiance of reality, he keeps insisting that the lights are the same and instead it is she who is going insane. (sound familiar?)
Today we are living in a perpetual state of gaslighting. The reality that we are being told by the media is at complete odds with what we are seeing with our own two eyes. And when we question the false reality that we are being presented, or we claim that what we see is that actual reality, we are vilified as racist or bigots or just plain crazy. You’re not racist. You’re not crazy. You’re being gaslighted.
New York State has twice as many deaths from the Wuhan Flu than any other state, and New York has accounted for one fifth of all Wuhan Flu deaths, but we are told that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has handled the pandemic better than any other governor. But if we support policies of Governors whose states had only a fraction of the infections and deaths as New York, we are called anti-science and want people to die. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
We see mobs of people looting stores, smashing windows, setting cars on fire and burning down buildings, but we are told that these demonstrations are peaceful protests And when we call this destruction of our cities, riots, we are called racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
We see the major problem destroying many inner-cities is crime; murder, gang violence, drug dealing, drive-by shootings, armed robbery, but we are told that it is not crime, but the police that are the problem in the inner-cities. We are told we must defund the police and remove law enforcement from crime-riddled cities to make them safer. But if we advocate for more policing in cities overrun by crime, we are accused of being white supremacists and racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
The United States of America accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. The vast majority of the immigrants are “people of color”, and these immigrants are enjoying freedom and economic opportunity not available to them in their country of origin, but we are told that the United States is the most racist and oppressive country on the planet, and if we disagree, we are called racist and xenophobic. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
Capitalist countries are the most prosperous countries in the world. The standard of living is the highest in capitalist countries. We see more poor people move up the economic ladder to the middle and even the wealthy class through their effort and ability in capitalist countries than any other economic system in the world, but we are told capitalism is an oppressive system designed to keep people down. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
Communist countries killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Communist countries strip their citizens of basic human rights, dictate every aspect of their lives, treat their citizens as slaves, and drive their economies into the ground, but we are told that Communism is the fairest, most equitable, freest, and most prosperous economic system in the world. How can that be? So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
The most egregious example of gaslighting is the concept of “white fragility”. You spend your life trying to be a good person, trying to treat people fairly and with respect. You disavow racism and bigotry in all its forms. You judge people solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. You don’t discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But you are told you are a racist, not because of something you did or said, but solely because of the color of your skin. You know instinctively that charging someone with racism because of their skin color is itself racist. You know that you are not racist, so you defend yourself and your character, but you are told that your defense of yourself is proof of your racism. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.
Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American politics. It is the exact opposite of what our political system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, and not the truth and intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So, trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust your eyes over what you are told. Never listen to the people who tell you that you are crazy, because you are not, you’re being gaslighted.
Sophocles said: “What people believe prevails over the truth.”
And that’s what the media are trying to exploit.
HACKING an ELECTION🚨
After Nov. 3, 2020 the corporate media told you it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to hack an American election. But before Nov. 3, the corporate media told you it was *EASY* to hack an American election. Wonder what changed? Nothing… it is still easy to hack an election even after a bill was passed to do so. Guess what, nothing in that bill was about computer security, so there you have it. This list is just outlining how easy it is to hack a machine post the 2016 elections (um, when Trump won, bigly), not so much how vulnerable an election would be with a coordinated attack on these systems.
In any case, here is an EXTENSIVE listing of articles from predominately left-leaning corporate media sites stating emphatically that hacking an election is not only possible, but has been ongoing for some time. It is amazing the hypocrisy of these alleged news organizations to change their tune when it was totally obvious that Joe Biden got elected due to extensive hacking from primarily the Chines Communist Party and the leftist that colluded with them. Titles and links follow.
Politico: How to Hack an Election in 7 Minutes (Aug 5, 2016)
FOX: Princeton Professor demonstrates how to hack a voting machine (Sep 18, 2016)
PBS: Recounts or no, U.S. elections are still vulnerable to hacking (December 26, 2016)
CNET: Defcon hackers find it’s very easy to break voting machines (July 30, 2017)
CNN: We watched hackers break into voting machines (Aug 11, 2017)
NYT: I Hacked an Election. So Can the Russians. (April 5, 2018)
Axios: There’s more than one way to hack an election (July 3, 2018)
Bloomberg: Expensive, Glitchy Voting Machines Expose 2020 Hacking Risks (Nov 8, 2019)
NBC: ‘Online and vulnerable’: Experts find nearly three dozen U.S. voting systems connected to internet (Jan 10, 2020)
Guardian: Hack the vote: terrifying film shows how vulnerable US elections are (Mar 26, 2020)
MotherJones: Researchers Assembled over 100 Voting Machines. Hackers Broke Into Every Single One. (Sep 27, 2019)
WaPo: Hackers were told to break into U.S. voting machines. They didn’t have much trouble. (Aug 12, 2019)
USA Today: Will your ballot be safe? Computer experts sound warnings on America’s voting machines (Nov 2, 2020)
Vice: Critical US Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online (Aug 8, 2019)
SA: The Vulnerabilities of Our Voting Machines (Nov 1, 2018)
Slate: America’s Voting Systems Are Highly Vulnerable to Hackers (Feb 22, 2018)
Salon: Hackers can easily break into voting machines used across the US (August 14, 2019)
CNN: Watch this hacker break into a voting machine (Aug 10, 2019)
PBS: An 11-year-old changed election results on a replica Florida state website in under 10 minutes (Aug 12, 2018)
|One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.
Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”
Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”
Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thought-crimes.
You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (“Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz”) is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official “New Normal” ideology … the “Covid Deniers,” the “conspiracy theorists,” the “anti-vaxxers,” the dreaded “Querdenkers” (i.e., people who “think outside the box”), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We’re now official enemies of the state, no different than any other “terrorists” … or, OK, technically, a little different.
As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), “the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists.” Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-vaxxers” have “targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism,” and have “attacked police officers” and “defied civil authorities.”
Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the “Storming of the Capitol,” “Covid-denying” insurrectionists “scaled the steps of Parliament” (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called “Storming of the Reichstag” was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this “Steps-of-the-Reichstag” protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I’m just a “conspiracy theorist.”
According to Al Jazeera, the German Interior Ministry explained that these querkening “extremists encourage supporters to ignore official orders and challenge the state monopoly on the use of force.” Seriously, can you imagine anything more dangerous? Mindlessly following orders and complying with the state’s monopoly on the use of force are the very cornerstones of modern democracy … or some sort of political system, anyway.
But, see, there I go, again “being anti-democratic” and “delegitimizing the state,” not to mention “relativizing the Holocaust” (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the “Infection Protection Act,” which bears no comparison whatsoever to the “Enabling Act of 1933.”
This isn’t just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The “New Normal” War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it’s just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland Security “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” (and the “liberal” corporate-media propaganda machine), “democracy” remains under imminent threat from these “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other such “grievances fueled by false narratives” including “anger over Covid-19 restrictions.”
These Covid-denying “violent extremists” have apparently joined forces with the “white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving “Putin-Nazis” that terrorized “democracy” for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn’t actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians’ desks is pretty much exactly the same as “terrorism.”
Or whatever. It’s not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary “Russian assets,” “white-supremacist militias,” “Covid-denying extremists,” “anti-vax terrorists,” and “apocalyptic plagues.” When you’re rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the shit out of people.
As Hermann Goering famously explained regarding how to lead a country to war (and the principle holds true for any big transition, like the one we are experiencing currently):
“[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Go back and read those quotes from the German Interior Ministry and the DHS again slowly. The message they are sending is unmistakably clear. It might not seem all that new, but it is. Yes, they have been telling us “we are being attacked” and denouncing critics, protesters, and dissidents for twenty years (i.e., since the War on Terror was launched in 2001, and for the last four years in their War on Populism), but this is a whole new level of it … a fusion of official narratives and their respective official enemies into a singular, aggregate official narrative in which dissent will no longer be permitted.
Instead, it will be criminalized, or it will be pathologized.
Seriously, go back and read those quotes again. Global capitalist governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that “objection to their authority” will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives. Such dissent will be deemed “dangerous” and above all “false.” It will not be engaged with or rationally debated. It will be erased from public view. There will be an inviolable, official “reality.” Any deviation from official “reality” or defiance of the “civil authorities” will be labelled “extremism,” and dealt with accordingly.
This is the essence of totalitarianism, the establishment of an inviolable official ideology and the criminalization of dissent. And that is what is happening, right now. A new official ideology is being established. Not a state ideology. A global ideology. The “New Normal” is that official ideology. Technically, it is an official post-ideology, an official “reality,” an axiomatic “fact,” which only “criminals” and “psychopaths” would deny.
I’ll be digging deeper into “New Normal” ideology and “pathologized totalitarianism” in my future columns, and … sorry, they probably won’t be very funny. For now I’ll leave you with two more quotes. The emphasis is mine, as ever.
“These extremists have not yet been held accountable, so they continue to escalate violence against the body public … We must now summon the political will to demand that domestic terrorists face consequences for their words and actions. Our democracy and our lives depend on it … They’ve been building alliances with white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and [others] on the far right …”
And here’s Peter Hotez in Nature magazine:
“The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States. Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counter-offensive.”
We’ll be hearing a lot more rhetoric like this as this new, more totalitarian structure of global capitalism gradually develops … probably a good idea to listen carefully, and assume the New Normals mean exactly what they say.