Categories
auditing Intelwars scanners Voting

Andrew Appel on New Hampshire’s Election Audit

Really interesting two part analysis of the audit conducted after the 2020 election in Windham, New Hampshire.

Based on preliminary reports published by the team of experts that New Hampshire engaged to examine an election discrepancy, it appears that a buildup of dust in the read heads of optical-scan voting machines (possibly over several years of use) can cause paper-fold lines in absentee ballots to be interpreted as votes… New Hampshire (and other states) may need to maintain the accuracy of their optical-scan voting machines by paying attention to three issues:

  • Routine risk-limiting audits to detect inaccuracies if/when they occur.
  • Clean the dust out of optical-scan read heads regularly; pay attention to the calibration of the optical-scan machines.
  • Make sure that the machines that automatically fold absentee ballots (before mailing them to voters) don’t put the fold lines over vote-target ovals. (Same for election workers who fold ballots by hand.)
Share
Categories
ACCESS Dan crenshaw Georgia Intelwars statement united airlines Voting

Rep. Dan Crenshaw tells United Airlines to ‘just shut up’ on voting rights access, points to ID policy for flying

United Airlines became the latest major corporation to weigh in on voter rights policies on Monday, after a slew of companies issued statements condemning Georgia’s recent election reform law.

But Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) wasn’t having it, and showed the airline its own ID policy before telling them to “just shut up.”

What are the details?

Last month, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed sweeping election reforms into law for his state, which included the requirement of absentee ballots being verified with a photo identification.

The legislation outraged Democrats, who called the reforms voter suppression, and several companies reacted by condemning the measure. Major League Baseball even punished the state last week by pulling its 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta.

Not to be left out of the woke corporate pandering parade, United Airlines issued a statement Monday that read:

Our mission is to connect people and united the world. We believe that one of the most effective ways to do this is to engage in the democratic process, which begins with voting — a civic duty. America’s democracy is stronger when we’re all engaged, and every vote is properly counted.

Some have questioned the integrity of the nation’s election systems and are using it to justify stricter voting procedures, even though numerous studies have found zero credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in U.S. elections. Legislation that infringes on the right to vote of fellow Americans is wrong. We believe that leaders in both parties should work to protect the rights of eligible voters by making it easier and more convenient for them to cast a ballot and have it counted.

In reaction, Crenshaw replied on Twitter with a quote that read, “Travelers 18 years of age or older are required to have a valid, current U.S. federal or state-issued photo ID that contains name, date of birth, gender, expiration date and a tamper-resistant feature for travel.”

He went on to explain, “That’s your policy, United. Pandering hypocrites. Just shut up.”

What else?

Crenshaw was not alone in blasting United’s statement, with several folks taking issue with its declared “mission.”

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway reacted to United by tweeting, “Your mission should NEVER be to oppose free and fair elections. Ever. What a vile and disgusting thing for you to do. It should be to fly me safely. Get back on mission and away from interfering with free and fair elections. Signed, Premier Gold member.”

But others defended United, with reporter Andrew Feinberg telling Crenshaw, “That’s @TSA‘s requirement, Congressman. Are you suggesting @United is somehow ‘pandering’ by complying with federal regulations governing air travel?”

Share
Categories
CNN Election integrity Intelwars Jake Tapper Mark levin voter laws Voting

‘He’s a LIAR’: Mark Levin rips Jake Tapper’s ‘contemptible and utterly corrupt’ claims on voting laws ??

“Republicans suddenly want to make it more difficult to vote.” So says CNN’s Jake Tapper and the rest of the mainstream media. But as sane politicians address voting issues that were seen in the last election, Senate Democrats are pushing hard to enact the so-called “For the People Act” or H.R. 1, a sweeping, 791-page election bill touted as “the only hope to save American democracy.”

On “LevinTV” Thursday, host Mark Levin exposed Tapper and the rest of the mainstream media for what they are: just the man behind the curtain voicing the Democrat’s anti-constitutional propaganda.

Levin played a clip from a recent episode of “The Lead with Jake Tapper” in which Tapper stated:

Texas is the latest state where Republicans suddenly want to make it more difficult to vote. They just rolled out two dozen bills that could restrict absentee ballots. They could limit voting hours, purge voter rolls faster and more.

All this to crack down on the widespread voter fraud that does not exist, a crackdown largely motivated by Donald Trump’s big election lie. Critics of these types of bills popping up nationwide call it modern day Jim Crow.

“He’s a liar. He’s a propagandist — utterly contemptible and utterly corrupt,” Levin said of Tapper. “‘Purge voter rolls’? Isn’t that sinister. As a matter of federal law, states are required to make sure their voter rolls are accurate. It’s not a matter of purging voter rolls. It’s a matter of checking those rolls up against present day residency and whether people are actually alive … this is a good thing. You want accurate rolls, don’t you?

“And how does he know ‘the widespread voter fraud that does not exist’?” Levin asked. “Why does the IRA have auditors? Why do we have an FBI that investigates fraud? Why do we have state and local law enforcement units that investigate all kinds of fraud. […] So, the only place there’s no fraud is in voting? Isn’t that amazing?

“This guy, with a straight face, is lying to everyone,” Levin added. “The only place where there’s not fraud, apparently, is where the Democrats control the cities, and the Democrats control the states. But in this nation, we have a history of voting fraud, particularly in Democrat-controlled cities. Does Chicago ring a bell? New York City ring a bell? Philadelphia ring a bell? Detroit ring a bell? They should
all ring a bell! So, [Tapper] is a liar.”

Levin went on to argue that the Democrats’ ultimate aim is to “institutionalize fraud, eliminate security measures, and advance one-party dominance.” Congress is tasked with making sure the integrity of the elections are upheld and ensuring a one-citizen, one-vote system, but they are now looking to dismantle the democratic system, spreading the narrative that if Democrats do not control the cities and states, there will be nothing but election fraud and voter suppression.

The Democrats are defining the laws at all levels of the government to take absolute electoral control and using the corrupt left-wing media to advance the narrative with half-truths. This is neither Americanism nor constitutionalism, he added.

Watch the video below for more:

.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of “the Great One” — Mark Levin as you’ve never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Share
Categories
Authentication certifications hashes Intelwars Voting

On the Insecurity of ES&S Voting Machines’ Hash Code

Andrew Appel and Susan Greenhalgh have a blog post on the insecurity of ES&S’s software authentication system:

It turns out that ES&S has bugs in their hash-code checker: if the “reference hashcode” is completely missing, then it’ll say “yes, boss, everything is fine” instead of reporting an error. It’s simultaneously shocking and unsurprising that ES&S’s hashcode checker could contain such a blunder and that it would go unnoticed by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s federal certification process. It’s unsurprising because testing naturally tends to focus on “does the system work right when used as intended?” Using the system in unintended ways (which is what hackers would do) is not something anyone will notice.

Also:

Another gem in Mr. Mechler’s report is in Section 7.1, in which he reveals that acceptance testing of voting systems is done by the vendor, not by the customer. Acceptance testing is the process by which a customer checks a delivered product to make sure it satisfies requirements. To have the vendor do acceptance testing pretty much defeats the purpose.

Share
Categories
bill Devil hell Hr 1 Intelwars mike lee Voting

Sen. Mike Lee says Dems’ new voting? expansion bill is ‘as if written in hell by the devil himself’

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is not a fan of Democrats’ so-named For the People Act of 2021, saying Wednesday that the legislation known as H.R.1 is “as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

What are the details?

Lee was asked about the federal voting expansion effort on “Fox & Friends,” where co-host Steve Doocy reminded the audience that the measure:

  • Implements mandatory automatic voter registration nationwide
  • Allows voters to substitute a photo ID with a ‘sworn written statement’
  • Expands mail-in voting
  • Restores voting rights for convicted felons, and
  • Encourages statehood for the District of Columbia

“What’s your biggest problem with the way the Democrats want to redo how we vote in America?” Doocy asked Lee.

“I think I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words ‘but,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the,'” the senator replied. “Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

The Republican from Utah explained, “This takes all sorts of decisions that the federal government really has no business making. It takes them away from the states, makes them right here in Washington, D.C., by Congress — apparently in an effort to ensure and institutional, revolutionary Democratic Party of sorts. One that can remain in power for many decades to come.

“It does this by taking away these decisions,” Lee continued. “Elections in America have always been conducted at the state and local level. They are completely flipping that principle on its head so that these things can now be micromanaged from Washington. That’s wrong. That’s really wrong. It’s bad policy.”

He added, “As much as anything else, it’s wildly unconstitutional.”

You may watch Lee’s interview in its entirety below. The discussion on H.R. 1 begins at around the 2:20 mark:


Fox and Friends 7am 3/10/21 | FOX BREAKING NEWS Mar 10, 2021

www.youtube.com

H.R. 1 already passed the House in a 220-210 vote last week, and is set to be taken up by the Senate where Democrats are also in control.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted at the beginning of the month, “Despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in Republican state legislatures. Make no mistake: They must be opposed by every American who cherishes our democracy. This Senate is working to pass the #ForThePeople Act to renew democracy and our elections.”

Share
Categories
bill Devil hell Hr 1 Intelwars mike lee Voting

Sen. Mike Lee says Dems’ new voting? expansion bill is ‘as if written in hell by the devil himself’

Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee is not a fan of Democrats’ so-named For the People Act of 2021, saying Wednesday that the legislation known as H.R.1 is “as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

What are the details?

Lee was asked about the federal voting expansion effort on “Fox & Friends,” where co-host Steve Doocy reminded the audience that the measure:

  • Implements mandatory automatic voter registration nationwide
  • Allows voters to substitute a photo ID with a ‘sworn written statement’
  • Expands mail-in voting
  • Restores voting rights for convicted felons, and
  • Encourages statehood for the District of Columbia

“What’s your biggest problem with the way the Democrats want to redo how we vote in America?” Doocy asked Lee.

“I think I disagree with every single word in H.R. 1, including the words ‘but,’ ‘and,’ and ‘the,'” the senator replied. “Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill as if written in hell by the devil himself.”

The Republican from Utah explained, “This takes all sorts of decisions that the federal government really has no business making. It takes them away from the states, makes them right here in Washington, D.C., by Congress — apparently in an effort to ensure and institutional, revolutionary Democratic Party of sorts. One that can remain in power for many decades to come.

“It does this by taking away these decisions,” Lee continued. “Elections in America have always been conducted at the state and local level. They are completely flipping that principle on its head so that these things can now be micromanaged from Washington. That’s wrong. That’s really wrong. It’s bad policy.”

He added, “As much as anything else, it’s wildly unconstitutional.”

You may watch Lee’s interview in its entirety below. The discussion on H.R. 1 begins at around the 2:20 mark:


Fox and Friends 7am 3/10/21 | FOX BREAKING NEWS Mar 10, 2021

www.youtube.com

H.R. 1 already passed the House in a 220-210 vote last week, and is set to be taken up by the Senate where Democrats are also in control.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) tweeted at the beginning of the month, “Despicable, discriminatory, anti-democratic proposals are on the move in Republican state legislatures. Make no mistake: They must be opposed by every American who cherishes our democracy. This Senate is working to pass the #ForThePeople Act to renew democracy and our elections.”

Share
Categories
elections Intelwars Voting

Dem lawmaker pushes bill to force citizens to vote, would impose fines or community service for anyone who doesn’t have a good excuse for skipping out

How can coercing politically ambivalent people to vote positively impact the electoral process and actually improve democratic decision-making?

That’s a question the Wall Street Journal editorial board would like answered in the wake of a new bill proposed by a Democratic lawmaker that would mandate voting and punish scofflaws who refuse to do so with fines or community service.

What’s that now?

Connecticut state Sen. Will Haskell believes it’s time to treat voting as “not simply” a right, but a “civic duty” — much like jury duty. And as such, it’s a “patriotic obligation” for which the government should be able to punish citizens who choose not to participate.

In an op-ed for the Hartford Courant last month, Haskell explained why countries like Australia, Peru, Belgium, Brazil and Thailand are so much better than the U.S. when it comes to voting:

How do these nations consistently exceed our voter participation numbers? Their laws treat voting not simply as a right, but as a civic duty. Australia, for example, has required every citizen to vote since 1924. All adults are expected to vote, just as Connecticut citizens are expected to participate in jury duty. Such a mandate requires the government to assume the responsibility for making it easy and convenient for every citizen to vote. And all citizens understand their responsibility to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.

Maybe it’s time for Connecticut — and every state — to consider universal civic duty voting.

Much like jury duty, voting should be considered not just an opportunity but a patriotic obligation.

So Haskell’s answer is to pass legislation compelling all eligible voters to do their “duty” — or else. With the “or else” being fines or community service.

Beginning with the 2024 election, Haskell’s recently introduced bill would require all qualified voters in Connecticut to cast a ballot or offer an explanation in writing for why they did not vote, the Courant reported.

The secretary of state would be imbued with the authority to question each citizen who chose not to vote and demand an explanation. The secretary would also have the authority to determine which excuses are valid, the bill states:

[T]he Secretary of the State shall mail to all qualified electors who did not cast a ballot at the most recent state election a form inquiring as to why such elector did not cast a ballot, which form shall advise that valid reasons for not casting a ballot include travel, illness, conscientious objection or such other reason as the Secretary may prescribe[.]

Voters without valid reasons would be subject to a $20 fine or two hours of community service.

The Journal noted that Haskell has said “the purpose of this policy isn’t to impose fines,” despite the fact that that is exactly what the bill would do, “dunning $20 from busy single moms, apolitical 19-year-olds, the homeless, or anybody who didn’t care about Election Day enough to remember it.”

For the left, the paper noted, “turnout trumps all. Even basic voting requirements, like deadlines saying that mail ballots must arrive by Election Day, are now under fire for disenfranchising somebody.”

Share
Categories
Constitution Constitutional Convention Founding Principles Gender Intelwars Ratification Debates rights Voting Women

Despite What They Tell You: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women

One way some writers try to discredit the Constitution is to assert that the document’s original meaning discriminated against women.

Thus, a 2011 Time Magazine cover story claimed that “The [Constitution’s] framers gave us the idea that . . . women were not allowed to vote.” An October 13, 2020 article in The Hill added, “The very fact that [Amy Coney] Barrett accepted the president’s nomination means that there are limits to her originalism. She clearly doesn’t believe that being a woman disqualifies her from sitting on the Supreme Court.”

The author of the Time Magazine article formerly headed the National Constitution Center. The author of The Hill piece sports a “Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University, with a focus on comparative constitutional law.” Both of them should have known better.

It has been over a century since the state legislatures ratified the 19th amendment, which guaranteed female suffrage nationwide.  The amendment is worded in a way that readily provokes two questions: (1) Taken in context with previous amendments, it implies that women already voted in some states; is this true? and (2) why didn’t the amendment add the right to hold federal office?

The answers are: (1) Yes, before the amendment was ratified, women voted in many states. Where they were blocked from the polls, it resulted from a decision by state authorities. It was not dictated by the Constitution. (2) The original Constitution permitted women to hold federal office, as demonstrated by the congressional service, before the 19th amendment, of Rep. Jeanette Rankin of Montana.

In fact, the Constitution never barred women either from voting or from holding federal office. On the contrary, the document’s framers carefully avoided sex-based tests for voting or officeholding, just as they avoided tests based on race, property, or religion. Here’s the background:

When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, most state constitutions contemplated that voters and officeholders would be male. Some expressly limited voting to “male inhabitants” (New York, Massachusetts) or “freemen” (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania). The Virginia constitution provided for election to the state Senate of “the man who shall have the greatest number of votes in the whole district,” and the New York constitution described the state legislature as consisting of “two separate and distinct bodies of men.”

Although at the time people often employed the word “man” generically to signify a human being, these documents probably meant “man” in the narrower, male sense. For example, the Virginia constitution’s use of “man” was interpreted in practice to limit voting and office-holding to males.

But not all state charters were written that way. The New Jersey constitution was gender-neutral. It nowhere contained the words “man” or “men.” Rather, it granted both suffrage and the right to hold office to “all inhabitants” who met certain property requirements. It uniformly referred to officeholders as “persons.”

The New Jersey constitution did use the pronoun “he” and its variants. But of course before the PC language-manipulation project of recent years, standard English used “he” and its variants to designate either men or women. Women had their own pronouns; men had to share theirs.

Contemporaries fully recognized the New Jersey constitution as gender-neutral. That’s why women could vote in that state. They voted in such numbers that New Jersey political operatives routinely included appeals for the female vote.

The spirit of the time favored female political involvement in other states as well. Massachusetts saw sporadic female voting. During the public debates over the Constitution, women participated actively on both sides of the issue. In addition to voting for ratification convention delegates in New Jersey and perhaps elsewhere, women organized public events, mostly in favor of the Constitution. Mercy Otis Warren of Massachusetts (later a distinguished historian) contributed essays against the Constitution. And both sides apparently made written appeals to women for political support.

The delegates to the 1787 Constitution Convention were consciously writing for the ages. They surely realized that female suffrage could spread beyond New Jersey. Politics being what it is, the power to vote would encourage women to run for political office as well. The framers therefore made the document agnostic on the subject of gender. Any restrictions based on sex would have to be imposed at the state level, because the Constitution did not impose them.

The records of the convention show that gender neutrality was the dominant assumption from its early days. The Virginia Plan, the outline used to kick off the debates, was gender neutral. Judge William Paterson’s competing New Jersey Plan followed his state’s basic law by referring to participants in public affairs as “citizens,” “inhabitants” and “persons.” Only once in the New Jersey Plan did “man” or “men” appear, and that was in the phrase “body of men” to describe a presumably armed band of men defying federal law.

From the beginning, moreover, the framers accepted that representation in the lower house of the national legislature would be based on state population or wealth, rather than according to the number of males, as in states such as New Hampshire and New York.

Later in the convention, the framers did consider some gender qualifications—only to reject them. For example, in late July and early August, 1787, a Committee of Detail fashioned the convention’s resolutions into a first draft of the Constitution. Committee member James Wilson suggested that electors be limited to “freemen,” as in his own state of Pennsylvania. And his colleague Edmund Randolph’s initial outline listed “manhood” as a possible suffrage qualification.

But the committee rejected both proposals as “not justified by the [convention’s] resolutions.” When the committee draft emerged, it avoided the singular word “man” and referred to the president as a “person.”

In the interim, though, some gender specificity crept in. The Committee of Detail draft described the national legislature as consisting of “two separate and distinct Bodies of Men.” It also granted the president the title of “His Excellency,” with no provision for any “Her Excellency.” And later in the convention Pierce Butler of South Carolina proposed, and the convention adopted, a clause with a one-time appearance of the phrase “He or She.” Of course, such a phrase might suggest that where the Constitution employed only “he” (as everywhere else in the document) it meant only males.

Later in the convention, though, the delegates dropped “He or She,” thereby clarifying that “he” encompassed persons of the both sexes. The convention also delegated final drafting to a Committee of Style. Committee member Gouverneur Morris did most of the actual writing. With respect to gender, he followed the New Jersey model. The final version of the Constitution made the following changes from earlier drafts and resolutions:

  • It omitted the phrase “Bodies of Men” in describing the national legislature.
  • It avoided all use of “man” and “men.”
  • It employed only gender-neutral terms such as “person,” “citizen,” “inhabitant,” and titles such as “officer” and “elector.”
  • It deleted the power of Congress to override state laws on voter qualifications, thereby fully empowering states to enfranchise women for federal as well as state elections.

This gender neutrality was not lost on the wider public. It may have been one reason more women worked for the Constitution than against it. But gender neutrality also came under fire from the Constitution’s opponents. One essayist writing under the pseudonym “Cato” objected to the document’s allocation of Representatives by “inhabitants” rather than by male freemen. Another writer, satirizing opposition arguments, criticized the Constitution because it did not limit the president to a person “of the male gender.” The satirist pointed out that “Without [such an] exclusion” Americans might “come to have an old woman at the head of our affairs.” Of course, those sexist arguments did not prevail.

Sex-based restrictions were left to the states, and over time states gradually abolished them?a development the Constitution’s gender neutrality made possible.

A version of this article appeared in the December 27, 2020 issue of the Epoch Times.

The post Despite What They Tell You: The Constitution Never Discriminated Against Women first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
China civil disobedience democracy is mob rule Donald Trump government is slavery Headline News high stakes Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie mob rule no common ground no masters no slaves oppression Politicians rebellion revolution ruling class Trump Supporters tyranny Voting

TRUMP 2024: MAJOR CLASH! This is Escalating!

This article was contributed by Portfolio Wealth Global.

In this type of environment, we’re holding our tongues and being mindful of the words we use, since the stakes are as high as we’ve ever seen them.

Political historians and even hedge fund titans, such as Ray Dalio, have warned that the past rhymes and that America is headed towards a revolution.

Today, we want to explore a number of possible scenarios in the new American landscape:

  1. A 3rd Party: It’s clear by now that not all Republicans are hardcore Trump fans. Not all 74M Trump voters are going to remain loyal to him specifically, but many will.

If the House and the Senate, led by Democrats, vote to strip Donald Trump’s rights to run again in 2024, we believe that he would launch a media giant where he can broadcast his policies. It would be Donald Jr., who ends up running in 2024.

  1. Disengaged Americans: Many of Trump’s supporters are veterans and people that love the idea of a constitutional America, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and remaining strong in the face of China’s rise to global supremacy.

We estimate that tens of millions of Americans are more loyal to Trump’s views than to the general views of the Republican Party.

The problem with that, of course, is that creating a third party would cause this new party to split its voters with the Republicans, which, by definition, would make Democrats the biggest party by miles.

In other words, it’s a tricky situation and would require extensive effort to bring into existence a party that competes with Democrats, even though Portfolio Wealth Global doesn’t believe that Biden will run again in 2024. This means that the Democrats also need to think about who their next candidate will be.

What we mean by disengaged Americans is that we will see a country within a country. If a group of tens of millions of people refuse to trust the election results and refuse to acknowledge Biden as their president, it is an issue that we cannot over-emphasize. Democracies function only when the people give it power and respect the legitimacy of the current regime.

Most Trump supporters don’t.

  1. Zero confidence in the Media: Mainstream media is dead to Trump supporters.

This is the reason we are pretty convinced that Trump will form his own media corporation and that it might be Donald Jr., who is groomed for office.

There’s fake news and then there’s propaganda; we live in the age of both.

New media outlets will be built from the ashes of the legacy channels, in our view.

  1. Biden Years: In times past, when America was this divided, U.S.-led think tanks looked overseas and found an enemy to portray as a threat and wage war against it.

It diverts attention away from domestic issues.

It’s also possible that Biden will not resort to war, since he’s too weak to get the support needed, and will instead dish out free money to everyone in order to gain favor.

For example, Biden might wipe clean all student loan debts.

It’s unclear how America will wake up on the 21st of January, but we can assure you that 2020 altered this country forever.

The post TRUMP 2024: MAJOR CLASH! This is Escalating! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Battleground Charles J. Cicchetti contested election Courts election laws Georgia Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Ken Paxton Michigan selection States statistical test Voting voting is pointless Wisconsin

Texas Lawsuit: The Chances Biden Won In Battleground States is LESS Than 1 in a Quadrillion

A Texas lawsuit is claiming that the chances that Joe Biden won the 2020 election in battleground states are less than 1 in a quadrillion! The suit, filed in the US Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, calls for judicial intervention to ensure the integrity of the 2020 presidential election results.

According to a report by RT, the legal challenge focuses primarily on alleged breaches of election laws and norms by the four defendant states, it also references expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test, which points to “large-scale shenanigans.”

The mainstream media is continuing to call any claims of voter fraud “baseless,” while social media joins forces and attempts to “dispute” any of the lawsuits.

Referring to a declaration submitted by Charles J. Cicchetti, the legal filing claims the probability of Biden winning the popular vote in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin independently, given President Donald Trump’s early lead in those states is “less than one in a quadrillion, or one in 1,000,000,000,000,000.” To win the four contested states collectively, the odds for Biden drop to “one in a quadrillion to the fourth power, the lawsuit says.  –RT

According to an article published by Reason, Trump’s disappearing leads in all four battleground states can be easily explained by mail-in ballots that were counted later and were heavily in Biden’s favor.

Cicchetti isn’t the only one to give extremely bad odds to Biden either. Pollster Patrick Basham, the founder of research organization the Democracy Institute, said that the Democrat’s victory defied “non-polling metrics” that have “a 100 percent accuracy rate,” and described the election results as “statistically implausible.”

Basham claims that these “non-polling metrics” are 100% accurate and can determine how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, [and] how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion polls.”

We should see some kind of outcome from all of the election lawsuits within the next few weeks.

The post Texas Lawsuit: The Chances Biden Won In Battleground States is LESS Than 1 in a Quadrillion first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Dollar Donald Trump duplicate ballots elections fiat currency Gold Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Lawsuits left vs. right paradigm lie Precious Metals rudy giuliani Scams selections Voting

DAGGER TO THE HEART: R.I.P. GOLD!

This article was contributed by Portfolio Wealth Global.

Today’s letter is divided into two sections: the first is the update on the bloody mess that precious metals are undergoing and the second is a summary of the hearing that Rudy Giuliani and the list of witnesses reported that gave verbal accounts of their testimony about Pennsylvania’s voter irregularities.

GOLD: IS THE BULL MARKET DEAD?

In short, the answer is NO. There are several instances since December 2015 where we’ve seen similar moments to this. These are instances in which the volatility index plummets, many events conspire to bring hope, and there’s the assumption that central banks might tighten and that there’s no catalyst for precious metals. These instances come and go since you can’t get rid of the underlying issue: more currency is created by the second.

As you can see, gold fights these moments off and rallies:

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

If this one follows in the footsteps of the ones we saw in June 2019 and March 2020, watch out, bears!

As you can see, in August, the price of gold distanced from its 200-DMA so much that this sell-off was due to arrive. Taking profits in August was very smart.

Right now, our thesis is that the best course of action is a slow accumulation. The value proposition is certainly the best it’s been since March, and in terms of the mining industry itself, the validity of the sector is well intact. The trend is clear — gold is heading down.

The median all-in sustaining cost is still $975/ounce, so mining companies are still able to report strong earnings, which is the key to understanding the reason we’re about to pull the trigger on the most compelling buy-the-dip setups, in our opinion.

This is gold’s worst month in four years!

Courtesy: U.S. Global Investors

Like we wrote two weeks ago, when gold’s price was much higher, we could see gold falling all the way to $1,750. These shakeouts are the best buying opportunities in hindsight. Traders surrender and it feels bad; there’s a sense of desperation about the future’s price action. We think we’re going to see that frustration fairly soon.

TRUMP’S LAWSUITS – PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania had multiple alleged “irregularities” in the state’s vote count:

* At least 21,000 dead people on Pennsylvania’s voter rolls

* Duplicate ballots were mailed out to thousands of registered voters (Pittsburgh officials have admitted that this happened)

* A lawsuit filed against the state of Pennsylvania for having more than 800,000 inactive voters on its voter rolls

* Pennsylvania’s attorney general told Ted Cruz to “stay the hell out of” the state’s disputed tabulation of presidential election votes

* Dominion Voting Systems’ corrupt election software system was reportedly used in Pennsylvania

Along with that, Giuliani cited another set of numbers that don’t add up. Pennsylvania received approximately 1.4 million absentee or mail-in ballots. However, in the count for president, they counted 2,589,242 absentee or mail-in ballots. How will they account for the discrepancy?

“I know crooks really well. You give them an inch, and they take a mile. And you give them a mile, and they take your whole country.” These were Giuliani’s ending remarks for his opening speech.

Could all of these witnesses possibly be lying in a public hearing, making up the very specific details of what they saw and heard? The mountain of firsthand evidence can only lead informed citizens to one conclusion.

Here’s what President Trump is saying about all of this:

“The whole world is watching us. The whole world is watching the United States of America, and we can’t let them get away with it… This election was rigged, and we can’t let that happen. We can’t let it happen for our country.” – Donald J. Trump.

The zero hour cometh; we shall see if these hold up in the Supreme Court or if Biden will be inaugurated on January 21st, 2021.

The post DAGGER TO THE HEART: R.I.P. GOLD! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Economy election Fraud Headline News Intelwars Justin C. Kweder loyal Mail-in ballots Polling president rigged selection survey Trump Supporters Voting Workers

TRUMP SNEAK ATTACK: ELECTION OVERTURN!

This article was contributed by Future Money Trends. 

Is there a way for Republicans, led by Donald Trump, to lead America for another term? The answer is YES, but it’s not what you think. In a survey that was just conducted, 53% of Republican voters said they would vote for Donald if he ran again in 2024. Another 8% said they would vote for Donald Jr., which should show you that Donald Trump has a massive following – even if the lawsuits that are currently in the court system don’t pan out.

It’s not an allegiance to the Republican Party that makes us say this; Trump supporters are loyal to Donald in a special way and we believe that this movement is not going away.

In Pennsylvania, witnesses raised many issues, among them:

  • Attorney and poll witness Justin C. Kweder: “96% of the board workers were processing mail-in ballots 15 to 200 plus feet from us… The observers were not able to challenge any decision or determination being made about the processing of these mail-in ballots.” Plus, “The observers were informed that the board was going to be duplicating damaged mail-in ballots that could not be read by the scanners. I was told that there were more than 5,000 of these damaged ballots.”
  • Canvasser Kim Peterson: As the mail-in ballots were being opened, the witnesses were kept at a distance of at least “20 feet, about, and you could not see, at all, the envelope, the ballot itself, where they were stacking them, anything that was required that we were able to see.” Moreover, the monitors provided for viewing were “pathetic,” “fuzzy,” and “looked like they were using old technology.”
  • Poll watcher Leah Hoops: “What became of concern was the back room, which had no observers, no line-of-sight or transparency into the process… We were granted five minutes every two hours… The setup was sitting in a chair 20 feet from any physical ballot.”
  • Navy veteran and forensic computer scientist Gregory Stenstrom: “As an expert in this, I think it’s impossible to verify the validity of about 100,000 to 120,000 votes… What I saw, as a forensics expert, was an election process that was forensically destructive in the manner it was conducted with the envelopes being separated from the ballots and going to the other side of the room.”

What we are now seeing as likely is that President Trump will look to hedge his bets by announcing that he’ll run again in 2024, while campaigning in Georgia in the weeks ahead, in an effort to secure the Senate for Republicans.

This raises the likelihood that the White House will push Mitch McConnell to put a bill on the floor to help avoid the eviction crisis that’s sure to come in January, without rent relief.

Trump won’t want to announce his presidential race for 2024, while millions of people face evictions and a government shutdown puts one million more employees on leave and many households on the street.

We believe that the White House is pushing for a bridge stimulus bill until the president is finally announced by the electorates and the courts.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

We’re now seeing a remarkably-unsustainable market rally and, in my opinion, any negative developments which are not priced in, and any positive news which is already priced-in and doesn’t go above and beyond, could prick this balloon.

America is seeing the most unfair wealth transfer in its history; wealth gaps are so big and the difference in access to opportunities is so distinct that we see a divide that might be impossible to close in this generation or the next.

Keep your eyes this week on the sales data from Black Friday and Cyber Monday, along with talks from the White House about the need to pass stimulus and the 2021 budget. If Trump wants to leave office (should he need to) on a positive note, strong and popular, with hopes of running again in 2024, he’ll want to do it as a hero.

The markets will celebrate this type of behavior big-time; the bubble could have 10% more to go — S&P 500 at 4,000 points could be just around the corner.

The post TRUMP SNEAK ATTACK: ELECTION OVERTURN! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
BILL OF RIGHTS contested election Deep State fair elections Headline News Intelwars James Comey John Brennan John Negroponte Lawsuits secure elections Supreme Court technocracy terror campaigns Voting War

Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care

This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute.

There’s at least one good reason to support Donald Trump’s ongoing lawsuits challenging the election results in several states: the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t want you to.

As Newsweek reported last week, “A group of more than 100 national security experts” from Republican administrations have condemned the president’s challenges to some states’ vote-counting process. These “experts” are claiming these legal efforts “undermine democracy” and “risk long-term damage” to the nation’s institutions. The signatories include people like Michael Hayden, John Negroponte, and Tom Ridge. These are the usual sort of “deep state” technocrats—for example, James Comey and John Brennan—who chime in to defend the status quo in the United States and insist it is an outrage that anyone (i.e., Donald Trump) departs from the usual way of doing things.

This alleged devotion to “democracy” and “the nation’s institutions” rings a bit odd coming from people like Negroponte and Hayden. Hayden, after all, has supported a litany of spying programs, torture, and the wholesale destruction of the human rights of both Americans and countless foreigners. Negroponte was the first director of national intelligence and has long supported spying on American citizens without a warrant. He oversaw the US-funded terror campaigns against Hondurans during the Reagan administration. Negroponte also enthusiastically supported the US’s 2003 war in Iraq which failed to achieve any of the objectives sold to the Americans as the reasons the war was a necessity.

Through scandals like the Abu-Graib debacle, unconstitutional wiretapping, torture, and ceaseless paranoid calls for an ever larger national-security state, the American foreign policy establishment has done more to undermine American democracy and institutions than Trump could ever hope for.

Yet,  these people are now speaking as if they are moral authorities on preserving the rights of Americans.

Given their clear disregard for basic human rights in recent decades, however, one suspects it is more likely that what really motivates the signatories’ denunciation of Trump’s election lawsuits is a desire to return to “business as usual.” This, after all, would make it easier for the regime to get back to dismantling the Bill of Rights, initiating new wars, and generally doing what it wants.

This becomes harder to do if millions of Americans begin to suspect that the regime isn’t as legitimate as has been long claimed, and that maybe the game is rigged against those who fail to be sufficiently friendly toward the permanent government in Washington and the so-called deep state.

But lest anyone think that investigating the integrity of American elections is a worthwhile endeavor, these national security bureaucrats resort to the usual, tired claim:

“By encouraging President Trump’s delaying tactics or remaining silent, Republican leaders put … national security at risk.”

The message is this: Dear Trump supporters, if you demand thorough legal proceedings and a careful look at this election’s outcome, then you support “America’s enemies.” We’ve heard a similar sentiment from these people before when the Bush Administration declared “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” The message now is: “either you’re with us, or you’re with the Chinese totalitarians.”

It’s the usual sort of ruse that’s been used by the US foreign policy establishment for decades, and this is only the latest illustration. This same impulse is why the Conservative movement’s longtime leader William F. Buckley called for “a totalitarian bureaucracy” in the United States so long as it served the interests of the American national security state.

What’s the Harm in Contesting the Election?

More reasonable people however, should see the value and necessity of a slow, thorough, and public legal examination of the election.

Regardless of how one feels about Donald Trump, anyone who values fair play, honesty, and the votes of legal voters should want thorough audits and investigations. The question: “how much was this election affected by fraud?” warrants serious consideration and serious investigation into how the election was conducted. After all, whenever political power is at stake, there is no reason whatsoever to assume honesty and integrity are guiding the actions of all involved.

Fraud occurs with every election, of course. Anyone who claims any election contains no fraud lives in a fantasy land, or is lying. Voter fraud exists anywhere that votes are cast. Anecdotes of fraud in this election are plentiful, from backdated ballots in Pennsylvania, to  “coaching” voters in Detroit. The question is whether or not this sort of thing is widespread enough to change the outcome. In a number of lawsuits, the Trump campaign has suggested that it has been widespread.

And there’s no harm in allowing the legal process to proceed. After all, in legal and constitutional terms, the US election process is still very much on schedule.

Contrary to what various reporters seem to think, it is not the case that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “were declared the election’s winners more than two weeks ago, after Fox News, the Associated Press and other television networks called” it. The outcomes of presidential elections aren’t declared by infotainment performers working at Fox News.

Rather, federal statutes and constitutional provisions stipulate that the Electoral College will meet in December, and the Congress will declare a winner shortly thereafter. This process is in no danger of being derailed.

It’s too bad that people like Michael Hayden don’t respect this constitutional process, but that’s just par for the course coming from someone who has been director of the CIA.

For those who actually care about some measure of accountability and transparency from government institutions in charge of running elections, there should be no problem with any presidential candidate demanding a wide variety of legal challenges. This in itself won’t solve the problem of election fraud, and it won’t make the regime respect anyone’s human rights. This wouldn’t make government by majority-rule any less problematic. But it would be helpful to gather more information on how much of a gulf lies between the perception of “free and fair elections” and the reality. And it is the very least that should be done in the wake of an election where the outcome is close, messy, and conducted by politicians who are very unlikely to have the average Americans’ interests at heart.

The post Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
BILL OF RIGHTS contested election Deep State fair elections Headline News Intelwars James Comey John Brennan John Negroponte Lawsuits secure elections Supreme Court technocracy terror campaigns Voting War

Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care

This article was originally published by Ryan McMaken at The Mises Institute.

There’s at least one good reason to support Donald Trump’s ongoing lawsuits challenging the election results in several states: the US foreign policy establishment doesn’t want you to.

As Newsweek reported last week, “A group of more than 100 national security experts” from Republican administrations have condemned the president’s challenges to some states’ vote-counting process. These “experts” are claiming these legal efforts “undermine democracy” and “risk long-term damage” to the nation’s institutions. The signatories include people like Michael Hayden, John Negroponte, and Tom Ridge. These are the usual sort of “deep state” technocrats—for example, James Comey and John Brennan—who chime in to defend the status quo in the United States and insist it is an outrage that anyone (i.e., Donald Trump) departs from the usual way of doing things.

This alleged devotion to “democracy” and “the nation’s institutions” rings a bit odd coming from people like Negroponte and Hayden. Hayden, after all, has supported a litany of spying programs, torture, and the wholesale destruction of the human rights of both Americans and countless foreigners. Negroponte was the first director of national intelligence and has long supported spying on American citizens without a warrant. He oversaw the US-funded terror campaigns against Hondurans during the Reagan administration. Negroponte also enthusiastically supported the US’s 2003 war in Iraq which failed to achieve any of the objectives sold to the Americans as the reasons the war was a necessity.

Through scandals like the Abu-Graib debacle, unconstitutional wiretapping, torture, and ceaseless paranoid calls for an ever larger national-security state, the American foreign policy establishment has done more to undermine American democracy and institutions than Trump could ever hope for.

Yet,  these people are now speaking as if they are moral authorities on preserving the rights of Americans.

Given their clear disregard for basic human rights in recent decades, however, one suspects it is more likely that what really motivates the signatories’ denunciation of Trump’s election lawsuits is a desire to return to “business as usual.” This, after all, would make it easier for the regime to get back to dismantling the Bill of Rights, initiating new wars, and generally doing what it wants.

This becomes harder to do if millions of Americans begin to suspect that the regime isn’t as legitimate as has been long claimed, and that maybe the game is rigged against those who fail to be sufficiently friendly toward the permanent government in Washington and the so-called deep state.

But lest anyone think that investigating the integrity of American elections is a worthwhile endeavor, these national security bureaucrats resort to the usual, tired claim:

“By encouraging President Trump’s delaying tactics or remaining silent, Republican leaders put … national security at risk.”

The message is this: Dear Trump supporters, if you demand thorough legal proceedings and a careful look at this election’s outcome, then you support “America’s enemies.” We’ve heard a similar sentiment from these people before when the Bush Administration declared “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” The message now is: “either you’re with us, or you’re with the Chinese totalitarians.”

It’s the usual sort of ruse that’s been used by the US foreign policy establishment for decades, and this is only the latest illustration. This same impulse is why the Conservative movement’s longtime leader William F. Buckley called for “a totalitarian bureaucracy” in the United States so long as it served the interests of the American national security state.

What’s the Harm in Contesting the Election?

More reasonable people however, should see the value and necessity of a slow, thorough, and public legal examination of the election.

Regardless of how one feels about Donald Trump, anyone who values fair play, honesty, and the votes of legal voters should want thorough audits and investigations. The question: “how much was this election affected by fraud?” warrants serious consideration and serious investigation into how the election was conducted. After all, whenever political power is at stake, there is no reason whatsoever to assume honesty and integrity are guiding the actions of all involved.

Fraud occurs with every election, of course. Anyone who claims any election contains no fraud lives in a fantasy land, or is lying. Voter fraud exists anywhere that votes are cast. Anecdotes of fraud in this election are plentiful, from backdated ballots in Pennsylvania, to  “coaching” voters in Detroit. The question is whether or not this sort of thing is widespread enough to change the outcome. In a number of lawsuits, the Trump campaign has suggested that it has been widespread.

And there’s no harm in allowing the legal process to proceed. After all, in legal and constitutional terms, the US election process is still very much on schedule.

Contrary to what various reporters seem to think, it is not the case that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “were declared the election’s winners more than two weeks ago, after Fox News, the Associated Press and other television networks called” it. The outcomes of presidential elections aren’t declared by infotainment performers working at Fox News.

Rather, federal statutes and constitutional provisions stipulate that the Electoral College will meet in December, and the Congress will declare a winner shortly thereafter. This process is in no danger of being derailed.

It’s too bad that people like Michael Hayden don’t respect this constitutional process, but that’s just par for the course coming from someone who has been director of the CIA.

For those who actually care about some measure of accountability and transparency from government institutions in charge of running elections, there should be no problem with any presidential candidate demanding a wide variety of legal challenges. This in itself won’t solve the problem of election fraud, and it won’t make the regime respect anyone’s human rights. This wouldn’t make government by majority-rule any less problematic. But it would be helpful to gather more information on how much of a gulf lies between the perception of “free and fair elections” and the reality. And it is the very least that should be done in the wake of an election where the outcome is close, messy, and conducted by politicians who are very unlikely to have the average Americans’ interests at heart.

The post Was the Election Free and Fair? The American Foreign Policy Establishment Doesn’t Care first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
DISINFORMATION essays Intelwars national security policy Voting

Undermining Democracy

Last Thursday, Rudy Giuliani, a Trump campaign lawyer, alleged a widespread voting conspiracy involving Venezuela, Cuba, and China. Another lawyer, Sidney Powell, argued that Mr. Trump won in a landslide, the entire election in swing states should be overturned and the legislatures should make sure that the electors are selected for the president.

The Republican National Committee swung in to support her false claim that Mr. Trump won in a landslide, while Michigan election officials have tried to stop the certification of the vote.

It is wildly unlikely that their efforts can block Joe Biden from becoming president. But they may still do lasting damage to American democracy for a shocking reason: the moves have come from trusted insiders.

American democracy’s vulnerability to disinformation has been very much in the news since the Russian disinformation campaign in 2016. The fear is that outsiders, whether they be foreign or domestic actors, will undermine our system by swaying popular opinion and election results.

This is half right. American democracy is an information system, in which the information isn’t bits and bytes but citizens’ beliefs. When peoples’ faith in the democratic system is undermined, democracy stops working. But as information security specialists know, outsider attacks are hard. Russian trolls, who don’t really understand how American politics works, have actually had a difficult time subverting it.

When you really need to worry is when insiders go bad. And that is precisely what is happening in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. In traditional information systems, the insiders are the people who have both detailed knowledge and high level access, allowing them to bypass security measures and more effectively subvert systems. In democracy, the insiders aren’t just the officials who manage voting but also the politicians who shape what people believe about politics. For four years, Donald Trump has been trying to dismantle our shared beliefs about democracy. And now, his fellow Republicans are helping him.

Democracy works when we all expect that votes will be fairly counted, and defeated candidates leave office. As the democratic theorist Adam Przeworski puts it, democracy is “a system in which parties lose elections.” These beliefs can break down when political insiders make bogus claims about general fraud, trying to cling to power when the election has gone against them.

It’s obvious how these kinds of claims damage Republican voters’ commitment to democracy. They will think that elections are rigged by the other side and will not accept the judgment of voters when it goes against their preferred candidate. Their belief that the Biden administration is illegitimate will justify all sorts of measures to prevent it from functioning.

It’s less obvious that these strategies affect Democratic voters’ faith in democracy, too. Democrats are paying attention to Republicans’ efforts to stop the votes of Democratic voters ­- and especially Black Democratic voters -­ from being counted. They, too, are likely to have less trust in elections going forward, and with good reason. They will expect that Republicans will try to rig the system against them. Mr. Trump is having a hard time winning unfairly, because he has lost in several states. But what if Mr. Biden’s margin of victory depended only on one state? What if something like that happens in the next election?

The real fear is that this will lead to a spiral of distrust and destruction. Republicans ­ who are increasingly committed to the notion that the Democrats are committing pervasive fraud -­ will do everything that they can to win power and to cling to power when they can get it. Democrats ­- seeing what Republicans are doing ­ will try to entrench themselves in turn. They suspect that if the Republicans really win power, they will not ever give it back. The claims of Republicans like Senator Mike Lee of Utah that America is not really a democracy might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

More likely, this spiral will not directly lead to the death of American democracy. The U.S. federal system of government is complex and hard for any one actor or coalition to dominate completely. But it may turn American democracy into an unworkable confrontation between two hostile camps, each unwilling to make any concession to its adversary.

We know how to make voting itself more open and more secure; the literature is filled with vital and important suggestions. The more difficult problem is this. How do you shift the collective belief among Republicans that elections are rigged?

Political science suggests that partisans are more likely to be persuaded by fellow partisans, like Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, who said that election fraud wasn’t a big problem. But this would only be effective if other well-known Republicans supported him.

Public outrage, alternatively, can sometimes force officials to back down, as when people crowded in to denounce the Michigan Republican election officials who were trying to deny certification of their votes.

The fundamental problem, however, is Republican insiders who have convinced themselves that to keep and hold power, they need to trash the shared beliefs that hold American democracy together.

They may have long-term worries about the consequences, but they’re unlikely to do anything about those worries in the near-term unless voters, wealthy donors or others whom they depend on make them pay short-term costs.

This essay was written with Henry Farrell, and previously appeared in the New York Times.

Share
Categories
Cybersecurity infrastructure Intelwars national security policy Voting

More on the Security of the 2020 US Election

Last week I signed on to two joint letters about the security of the 2020 election. The first was as one of 59 election security experts, basically saying that while the election seems to have been both secure and accurate (voter suppression notwithstanding), we still need to work to secure our election systems:

We are aware of alarming assertions being made that the 2020 election was “rigged” by exploiting technical vulnerabilities. However, in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent. To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise.

That said, it is imperative that the US continue working to bolster the security of elections against sophisticated adversaries. At a minimum, all states should employ election security practices and mechanisms recommended by experts to increase assurance in election outcomes, such as post-election risk-limiting audits.

The New York Times wrote about the letter.

The second was a more general call for election security measures in the US:

Obviously elections themselves are partisan. But the machinery of them should not be. And the transparent assessment of potential problems or the assessment of allegations of security failure — even when they could affect the outcome of an election — must be free of partisan pressures. Bottom line: election security officials and computer security experts must be able to do their jobs without fear of retribution for finding and publicly stating the truth about the security and integrity of the election.

These pile on to the November 12 statement from Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the other agencies of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee. While I’m not sure how they have enough comparative data to claim that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” they are certainly credible in saying that “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”

We have a long way to go to secure our election systems from hacking. Details of what to do are known. Getting rid of touch-screen voting machines is important, but baseless claims of fraud don’t help.

Share
Categories
affidavit approving Board of Canvassers Bullies certifying contested election Detroit election fraud Election Results Headline News Intelwars Michigan Voting Wayne Country

In Shocking Reversal, Wayne County Election Board Republicans Rescind Certifications; Claim Family Threatened

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. 

In a stunning development out of Wayne County, Michigan – two GOP members of the Board of Canvassers have rescinded their certifications of the Nov. 3 vote, claiming they were bullied into approving the election results in the state’s most populous county, which includes Detroit and surrounding areas.

Wayne County Board of Canvassers Chair Monica Palmer (R, left) talks with Vice Chair Jonathan Kinloch before the board’s Nov. 17, 2020 meeting in Detroit (photo: Robin Buckson via The Detroit News)

Their initial refusal to vote placed the Board in a 2-2 deadlock, putting in jeopardy the state’s ability to certify Joe Biden’s win. Hours later, the two flip-flopped and agreed to certify. Now, they’re taking it back.

I rescind my prior vote to certify Wayne County elections,” wrote Monica Palmer in a sworn affidavit, who along with fellow GOP board member William C. Hartmann refused to certify the election on Tuesday. The two fell under intense pressure from the left – with Palmer claiming that her family was threatened (via Just The News). The two were also doxxed over social media.

Hartmann, in a similar affidavit, wrote “I voted not to certify, and I still believe this vote should not be certified.” He added that he and Palmer “were berated and ridiculed by members of the public and other Board members.”

“The public ostracism continued for hours…” he continued – next describing how he was told by Wayne County attorney, Janet Anderson-Davis, that “discrepancies [in the vote] were not a reason to reject the certification, and that he only voted to certify “based on her explicit legal guidance.”

“Later that evening, I was enticed to agree to certify based on a promise that a full and independent audit would take place,” he said – only to learn on Wednesday that state officials had reneged or would otherwise not honor the audit.

As JustTheNews‘ John Solomon notes, “It was not immediately unclear whether the Tuesday night compromise was binding or could be changed, or whether the two members’ decision to announce their rescinded votes would stop Michigan state officials from proceeding to name electors.”

 

The post In Shocking Reversal, Wayne County Election Board Republicans Rescind Certifications; Claim Family Threatened first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Exclusive Exclusive voting Intelwars Steven Crowder Voting

Steven Crowder says this is why more than 150-thousand Michigan votes could be suspect

Steven Crowder presented exclusive election results data from the Wayne County, Michigan, website and exposed what he believes resulted in more than 150-thousand votes being cast by anonymous voters.

In order to certify election results, votes are reconciled by verifying that the number of ballots cast in each precinct matches the number of registered voters in each precinct. This year, COVID-19 related health concerns prompted many voters to cast their votes by mail. With the high volume of mail-in votes cast, Wayne County election officials established vote counting centers where all mail-in ballots were tallied.

According to Crowder, mail-in ballots that were counted at vote counting centers rather than precinct polling stations were unable to be counted against the total number of registered voters.

Crowder said that Wayne County’s website showed thousands of mail-in votes were cast by non-registered voters. Therefore, Crowder believes that based on public records, it’s impossible to see the total number of ballots cast in each county precinct because those ballots were tallied in separate centers and not logged against the precinct’s voter registration.

“There is no way to know [accurate results] without knowing the total registered voters,” Crowder said.

Here’s Crowder with the breakdown.


EXCLUSIVE: Michigan’s IMPOSSIBLE 173K Anonymous Votes!? | Louder With Crowder

www.youtube.com

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
academic papers Blockchain Cybersecurity Intelwars national security policy Voting

On Blockchain Voting

Blockchain voting is a spectacularly dumb idea for a whole bunch of reasons. I have generally quoted Matt Blaze:

Why is blockchain voting a dumb idea? Glad you asked.

For starters:

  • It doesn’t solve any problems civil elections actually have.
  • It’s basically incompatible with “software independence”, considered an essential property.
  • It can make ballot secrecy difficult or impossible.

I’ve also quoted this XKCD cartoon.

But now I have this excellent paper from MIT:

“Going from Bad to Worse: From Internet Voting to Blockchain Voting,” by Sunoo Park, Harvard Michael Specter, Neha Narula, and Ronald L. Rivest

Abstract: Voters are understandably concerned about election security. News reports of possible election interference by foreign powers, of unauthorized voting, of voter disenfranchisement, and of technological failures call into question the integrity of elections worldwide.

This article examines the suggestions that “voting over the Internet” or “voting on the blockchain” would increase election security, and finds such claims to be wanting and misleading. While current election systems are far from perfect, Internet- and blockchain-based voting would greatly increase the risk of undetectable, nation-scale election failures.

Online voting may seem appealing: voting from a computer or smart phone may seem convenient and accessible. However, studies have been inconclusive, showing that online voting may have little to no effect on turnout in practice, and it may even increase disenfranchisement. More importantly: given the current state of computer security, any turnout increase derived from with Internet- or blockchain-based voting would come at the cost of losing meaningful assurance that votes have been counted as they were cast, and not undetectably altered or discarded. This state of affairs will continue as long as standard tactics such as malware, zero days, and denial-of-service attacks continue to be effective.

This article analyzes and systematizes prior research on the security risks of online and electronic voting, and show that not only do these risks persist in blockchain-based voting systems, but blockchains may introduce additional problems for voting systems. Finally, we suggest questions for critically assessing security risks of new voting system proposals.

You may have heard of Voatz, which uses blockchain for voting. It’s an insecure mess. And this is my general essay on blockchain. Short summary: it’s completely useless.

Share
Categories
Dominion systems election Good morning mug club Intelwars Steven Crowder Voting

Everything we know about DOMINION systems voting machines

Steven reviews the weekend violence in D.C. at the pro-Trump march, and then turns to examine the use of Dominion systems voting machines in the 2020 election. Finally, he looks at the science on catching COVID twice and whether the “experts” were right in the outrage over Rand Paul’s recent comments.

Use promo code LWC to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Steven Crowder?

To enjoy more of Steven’s uncensored late-night comedy that’s actually funny, join Mug Club — the only place for all of Crowder uncensored and on demand.

Share
Categories
ballots contested election division Donald Trump Election 2020 Election law Evidence experts Headline News Intelwars invalidating votes Joe Biden Lawyers left vs. right paradigm lie Lou Dobbs parties Pennsylvania rudy giuliani Tom Wolf voters Voting

Trump’s Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Says Roughly 650,000 Unlawful Ballots Were Cast In PA

Rudy Giuliani, one of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, alleged on November 11 that roughly 650,000 unlawful ballots were cast in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Giuliani told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that the lawsuits being filed by Trump’s reelection campaign might show that as many as 900,000 invalid ballots were cast in the battleground state.

Speaking with Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs, Giuliani claimed that “almost none” of the hundreds of thousands of ballots were observed by Republican poll watchers. State election law requires the presence of poll watchers from all parties, according to a report by ZeroHedge.

“What’s being said in the mass media, that we have no evidence, is a complete, absolute lie, just like they’ve been lying for years,” Guiliani said. 

On Monday, Governor Tom Wolf’s office said in a statement that ballot watchers from all parties have had observers throughout the process and that “any insinuation otherwise is a lie.” A few days earlier, Giuliani said that the Trump campaign may have sufficient evidence to change the election results in the state of Pennsylvania.

According to an unofficial vote count from the Pennsylvania Department of State, Biden has received 3.35 million votes to Trump’s 3.31 million votes. Percentage-wise, Biden has 49.7 percent, compared to Trump’s 49.1 percent.

Pennsylvania is going to fight every single attempt to disenfranchise voters,” the governor’s office added. “We will protect this election and the democratic process. Pennsylvania will count every vote, and we will protect the count of every vote.”

Giuliani said during a Fox News interview on Sunday that the lawsuits being filed by the Trump campaign might reveal up to 900,000 invalid ballots cast across the entire state of Pennsylvania. He didn’t make clear on Wednesday whether that statewide figure would be affected by the count he mentioned for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by themselves.

The Associated Press (mainstream media) declared former Vice President Joe Biden the victor of the presidential election on Saturday. The Trump campaign insists that the call has been premature. –Washington Examiner

Real Clear Politics: “The Media Should NOT Have Called This Election!”

 

The post Trump’s Lawyer Rudy Giuliani Says Roughly 650,000 Unlawful Ballots Were Cast In PA first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Cybersecurity DISINFORMATION Intelwars Voting

2020 Was a Secure Election

Over at Lawfare: “2020 Is An Election Security Success Story (So Far).”

What’s more, the voting itself was remarkably smooth. It was only a few months ago that professionals and analysts who monitor election administration were alarmed at how badly unprepared the country was for voting during a pandemic. Some of the primaries were disasters. There were not clear rules in many states for voting by mail or sufficient opportunities for voting early. There was an acute shortage of poll workers. Yet the United States saw unprecedented turnout over the last few weeks. Many states handled voting by mail and early voting impressively and huge numbers of volunteers turned up to work the polls. Large amounts of litigation before the election clarified the rules in every state. And for all the president’s griping about the counting of votes, it has been orderly and apparently without significant incident. The result was that, in the midst of a pandemic that has killed 230,000 Americans, record numbers of Americans voted­ — and voted by mail — ­and those votes are almost all counted at this stage.

On the cybersecurity front, there is even more good news. Most significantly, there was no serious effort to target voting infrastructure. After voting concluded, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Chris Krebs, released a statement, saying that “after millions of Americans voted, we have no evidence any foreign adversary was capable of preventing Americans from voting or changing vote tallies.” Krebs pledged to “remain vigilant for any attempts by foreign actors to target or disrupt the ongoing vote counting and final certification of results,” and no reports have emerged of threats to tabulation and certification processes.

A good summary.

Share
Categories
ballots Bitcoin chaos counts COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Delusional democracy elections experts Forecasting Gold Government Intelwars markets plandemic propaganda Religion scamdemic selections Silver statism system. false Voting

ANY MINUTE NOW: Has Biden Won – VIOLENCE NEXT?

This article was contributed by Portfolio Wealth Global.

Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do! If these instances mentioned below even closely resemble reality, Biden’s victory lap is premature:

  1. A state stops counting and upon resumption, Biden’s tally surges.
  2. A USPS worker was arrested while bringing three absentee ballots from Canada into the U.S. – claims he took a wrong turn.
  3. Software glitches across the board. By the way, some of these software systems can be hacked online.
  4. Backdated envelopes.

For the sake of democracy and the American way, we hope these prove to be false or over-exaggerated, but we can’t deny that there are many Trump supporters who now doubt the official count.

When Trump tweeted “I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT,” it took him four minutes to reach 40K likes. When he tweeted “Joe Biden should not wrongfully claim the office of president. I could make that claim also. Legal proceedings are now beginning!” he received over 600K likes. These represent probably 10% of the people who genuinely believe this election was not conducted fairly, so, in reality, we believe millions of Americans are now convinced these results to be real.

This may become a legal battle and I’m pretty sure that markets won’t like that in the least.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see above, the media, in our opinion, will begin to report that a massive third wave of hospitalization and death cases has begun. With the elections currently tilting towards Democrats, all fingers will be pointed towards Trump (perhaps globally).

Biden’s security has been greatly enhanced, with a wide no-fly-zone over his home.

Germany has openly condemned President Trump’s behavior as dangerous and within his own party, he is under pressure to concede and to hand over the baton.

I am going to keep you posted on developments, perhaps even on a daily basis, since circumstances are changing so quickly.

For now, let’s recap what we got:

  1. Precious metals enjoyed an historic week of gains.

  1. Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency that we mentioned and highlighted right here in this newsletter when its price was less than $600/coin is now worth $16,000. This represents a 26.6x appreciation!
  2. Societe Generale, a very famous French bank, has calculated that QE programs have suppressed interest rates in the United States by a dramatic number.

This, of course, has served to widen the wealth gap, bring about societal unrest and lead to a debt bubble.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

If bonds were not purchased by the Federal Reserve, they argue, the S&P 500 would be 1,800 points and the NASDAQ 100 would be worth around 5,000 points.

The proof is in the pudding.

  1. Lastly, because of the gain in the price of gold, which appears to have bottomed around $1,860 and silver, which appears to have bottomed just below $23.00, the sector has been recovering and mining shares are up noticeably.

The post ANY MINUTE NOW: Has Biden Won – VIOLENCE NEXT? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
ballots Bitcoin chaos counts COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Delusional democracy elections experts Forecasting Gold Government Intelwars markets plandemic propaganda Religion scamdemic selections Silver statism system. false Voting

ANY MINUTE NOW: Has Biden Won – VIOLENCE NEXT?

This article was contributed by Portfolio Wealth Global.

Lucy, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do! If these instances mentioned below even closely resemble reality, Biden’s victory lap is premature:

  1. A state stops counting and upon resumption, Biden’s tally surges.
  2. A USPS worker was arrested while bringing three absentee ballots from Canada into the U.S. – claims he took a wrong turn.
  3. Software glitches across the board. By the way, some of these software systems can be hacked online.
  4. Backdated envelopes.

For the sake of democracy and the American way, we hope these prove to be false or over-exaggerated, but we can’t deny that there are many Trump supporters who now doubt the official count.

When Trump tweeted “I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT,” it took him four minutes to reach 40K likes. When he tweeted “Joe Biden should not wrongfully claim the office of president. I could make that claim also. Legal proceedings are now beginning!” he received over 600K likes. These represent probably 10% of the people who genuinely believe this election was not conducted fairly, so, in reality, we believe millions of Americans are now convinced these results to be real.

This may become a legal battle and I’m pretty sure that markets won’t like that in the least.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see above, the media, in our opinion, will begin to report that a massive third wave of hospitalization and death cases has begun. With the elections currently tilting towards Democrats, all fingers will be pointed towards Trump (perhaps globally).

Biden’s security has been greatly enhanced, with a wide no-fly-zone over his home.

Germany has openly condemned President Trump’s behavior as dangerous and within his own party, he is under pressure to concede and to hand over the baton.

I am going to keep you posted on developments, perhaps even on a daily basis, since circumstances are changing so quickly.

For now, let’s recap what we got:

  1. Precious metals enjoyed an historic week of gains.

  1. Bitcoin, a cryptocurrency that we mentioned and highlighted right here in this newsletter when its price was less than $600/coin is now worth $16,000. This represents a 26.6x appreciation!
  2. Societe Generale, a very famous French bank, has calculated that QE programs have suppressed interest rates in the United States by a dramatic number.

This, of course, has served to widen the wealth gap, bring about societal unrest and lead to a debt bubble.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

If bonds were not purchased by the Federal Reserve, they argue, the S&P 500 would be 1,800 points and the NASDAQ 100 would be worth around 5,000 points.

The proof is in the pudding.

  1. Lastly, because of the gain in the price of gold, which appears to have bottomed around $1,860 and silver, which appears to have bottomed just below $23.00, the sector has been recovering and mining shares are up noticeably.

The post ANY MINUTE NOW: Has Biden Won – VIOLENCE NEXT? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share