This past Friday morning, November 20, I altered my television news viewing preferences: now if I watch news programs, it is to Newsmax TV that I go. Not Fox. No way. Yes, I will drop in to Tucker Carlson on occasion during prime time, and maybe a few minutes of Laura Ingraham or Hannity, or the Fox “All-Stars”—although seeing the nauseously loathsome Jonah Goldberg there the other night spout a stream of unadulterated venom against President Trump literally caused me to lose my supper (Jonah’s unrestrained hatred for Trump has never been that well-hidden, nor his fealty to the Deep State; his brand of “kept whorish (neo)conservatism” is one of the major defects of what my friend Paul Gottfried calls establishment “conservatism Inc.” It now seems to increasingly dominate at Fox).
I’m not going to rehash the bizarre spat that has erupted between the Carlson program and Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell. Except to comment that I found Tucker’s insistence that Powell provide all her evidence of election fraud to his program only a week after the Trump Campaign team began their investigations to be somewhat incongruous, given his past history of continuous reporting as events develop. It seemed so out of character for Carlson to say what he did; whereas I found Powell’s response (on the Maria Bartiromo program) to be quite believable and rational: “Apparently Mr. Carlson missed the news conference today. I would continue to encourage him and all journalists to review all the materials we have provided so far and conduct their own investigations. Evidence continues to pour in, but a 5 minute television hit is not my focus now. Collecting evidence and preparing the case are my top priorities.” She added that she did not get angry as Carlson stated (it is apparent that it was not Carlson personally who contacted her, but rather a lower-level Fox staffer, who in turn reported the “anger” incident back to Carlson).
The Red Thread: A Sear...
Buy New $9.47
(as of 04:36 UTC - Details)
For a nation that has been forced to experience the fabricated Steele Dossier, the Russia Hoax, the Impeachment Charade, the Ukrainian Caper, the political use of our Intel agencies, not to mention all the other blatant (and not so blatant) attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election (which the Deep State apparatchiks consider to have been a fluke—they didn’t do enough to prevent outsider Trump from winning)—and each time with only partial data developing over time, why this insistence that everything be laid out on the table only a few days after the election?
Powell made it explicit in her detailed news conference this past Thursday, November 19, that she and the other Trump attorneys, including Jenna Ellis, Lin Wood, and Rudy Giuliani, were constrained by an incredibly immense and constantly mounting amount of evidence, and that they were attempting to piece it all together in coherent form to present judicially in a matter of only a couple of weeks (due to various certification deadlines)—a task that under the most favorable conditions would probably take many months. That’s not the kind of presentation that can be made easily, even on the Tucker Carlson Program.
Let me add: I watched the Powell-Ellis-Giuliani presser. Indeed, they did promise a lot…a very high bar to meet legally and in the courtroom of public opinion. And even with what they might gather in the few weeks or days they have, it still might not meet judicial muster, not in so short a space of time, not without a numerous investigative staff doing full-time research and sleuthing. After all, the Mueller Investigation (which spent tens of millions of dollars of tax payer dollars) took from May 2017 until March 2019 and came up with up with literally nothing despite the best efforts of thirty Democrat attorneys and their staffs laboring like worker ants.
There is incredible pressure, not just from the Left and the Democrats, but now from Republicans “to be done with this” (e.g, Marc Thiessen on Fox) to get on to a “peaceful” transition back into the arms of the Deep State…for “the sake of our democracy.”
But unlike some—think here of the recently-installed Biden-is-president-you-can’t-dissent template at Fox—I don’t have faith in the American election process, I don’t have that unquestioning faith that this election was just hunky-dory. Maybe fifty years ago, maybe when I was a boy growing up in old-fashioned North Carolina, maybe in the small town where I spent my youth. But not now…too much has happened.
Above the Law: The Ins...
Buy New $26.09
(as of 05:57 UTC - Details)
And what has come out thus far…the data that I have seen…the brief outline and analyses…all of that, again, all of that, points in one direction. Yes, Sidney Powell isn’t going to get on the boob tube and reveal her entire case—no self-respecting attorney would do that in a similar situation. Indeed, Trump attorneys have already been physically threatened by Deep State agents, to the point that police protection has been granted. Given the momentous nature of this process, is that any wonder? If the managerial elites are capable of what they have consistently done (just the portion we know about) during the past few years, are they not equally capable of far more if they understand their potential return to power thwarted by some dedicated investigative attorneys who haven’t “gotten the memo” and “drunk the cool aid”?
Think about it.
If we can suffer through what has occurred over the past four years and the growing realization that there is in fact an immense Deep State with its tentacles stretching out everywhere, that our nation is, in spite of what happened in November 2016 and the popular MAGA rebellion against the advancing control of every aspect of our lives: if we can experience that and the realization of what British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once wrote (in his novel, Coningsby, 1844)—“For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”—if we have begun to actually comprehend that, then the position of Powell, Ellis, Lin Wood, and Rudy Giuliani is entirely reasonable and extremely urgent.
Certainly, absolutely, what the Trump attorneys are saying is earth-shaking, perhaps the most significant event of modern American history. But given our recent history, all the accumulated and unimaginable skullduggery, and the obvious collapse of anything resembling “democracy,” why is it not something we can legitimately envision?
Of course, like Tucker Carlson—and millions of Trump supporters and deeply troubled Americans—I want to know more, I want to see all the damning evidence. I believe in my heart-of-hearts that indeed there is that evidence and that, if ever revealed, it might change the election result and the direction of this country. But the nature of this situation, of this crisis, requires of us some patience; time and deadlines are not on our side.
#DELETED: Big Tech&rsq...
Buy New $28.00
(as of 04:48 UTC - Details)
Well-known cultural critic and author Roger Kimball sums up what many of us feel these days, using an illustration from Roman history. Like us all he is impatient, but also cognizant that so much is at stake and that Powell and company have their very livelihoods and reputations in the history books riding on what they produce: “I really do not know what is going to happen,” he writes. “The clock is ticking, loudly. Sometimes it seems that Trump would need a miracle akin to the ‘miracle of the lightning’ or the ‘miracle of the rain’ that saved Marcus Aurelius and his generals in their battles against revolting German tribes in the early 170s AD…they were about to succumb when [they were] snatched…from ignominious defeat. Those dei ex machina were stunning, unpredictable, salvific. Can Donald Trump count on something similar? No. Could it nonetheless happen? You betcha.”
*****
I’ve collected literally dozens of articles and items on this election, too many to send out all at once…including several concerning the very strange and highly suspicious actions of the disappearing executives of Dominion Voting Systems, whose machines were used in as many as thirty states and are easily programmable and hackable. But I’ve selected three today, which I urge you to read and ponder. They address the sheer improbability, given what we know, of a Biden victory.
First, I pass on a short analytical piece by Nick Chase in The American Thinker (November 12). Once again I quote Disraeli, who once said (also attributed to Mark Twain), “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Chase’s article is just one of many delving into the stupefying statistical improbability of what happened on November 3 and subsequently.
Examining the code, internet geeks conclude ‘Trump’s win was yuuuge’ November 12, 2020
By Nick Chase
Around 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 4, when I went to bed, Trump was leading in the vote count in two Midwest swing states I was closely watching, Wisconsin — about 2%, and Michigan — about 3%, well on his way to an “unexpected” election victory nationwide.
Trumpocalypse: The End...
Best Price: $13.90
Buy New $15.99
(as of 04:55 UTC - Details)
Around 4:30 A.M., I woke early and decided to catch up on the election results on my iPhone, being careful not to wake my wife. Imagine my surprise to see that, overnight, Trump’s lead had shrunk to less than 1% in Wisconsin and about 1.5% in Michigan. But what really startled me was that Biden’s raw vote total had increased substantially in both states, and Trump’s raw vote total had not changed at all!
That is an enormous red flag for fraud being committed, and I knew right away that the Democrats, who had failed at dislodging Trump from office by impeachment, were now going to deny him victory by stealing the election. Further confirmation came when I saw the pictures and video of mystery bags and boxes being dragged into Detroit’s TCF Center at 4 A.M., followed by the windows in the room being boarded up and by the ejection of Republican poll-watchers.
Well, the election theft appears to be complete, with the corrupt media declaring Biden president-elect, and lefties dancing in the streets (unmasked!) with joy.
So I asked myself, by how much did Trump actually win this election if the fraudulent votes are not included?
Fortunately, the internet geeks have been busy massaging the election data for statistical anomalies, and today (Nov. 11), I got my answer (partly) from information posted via The Gateway Pundit by blogger “PedeInspector” (whom I will refer to as “Pede”).
Perhaps you saw the video of a network Election Night broadcast made by a person (not identified), also posted on The Gateway Pundit, which showed a sudden switch of votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania the night of Nov. 3. I took two screen shots from that video. Before the switch: [access the above link to see these screen shots]
After: [access the link]
You can see that, almost instantly, 19,958 votes were stolen from Trump, and 19,958 votes were added to Biden’s total. The timestamp on the video (not shown in my pictures) is 10:23 P.M. (CST).
The Case for Trump
Best Price: $13.41
Buy New $12.19
(as of 03:21 UTC - Details)
Well, this video also intrigued “Pede,” and he (or she) went to work. Pennsylvania uses Dominion voting systems, which forward their data to Edison Research, which then Javascript-encodes it and sends it on to the New York Times and the networks. So “Pede” downloaded the Edison data for Pennsylvania from the New York Times at this address and analyzed it to locate all similar vote switches, as well as for votes that just went missing. (Although I’ve given you the link, I wouldn’t bother opening it, because it’s just a big pile of Javascript code that’s incomprehensible to the naked eye unless you know your Javascript.) In the Javascript code, “Pede” located the specific code that changed the voting percentages for Trump and Biden:
Even if you’re not a computer programmer, you can still see that the code changed the percentages shown in my pictures from Trump 56.6%, Biden 42.0% to Trump 56.0%, Biden 42.6%. (The code that caused the switch of 19,958 votes is buried elsewhere in the Javascript code. The “votes” shown are total votes cast, including for minor parties, and are not useful information here.) The timestamp on these events is Nov. 4, 4:07 A.M. GMT (10:07 P.M. CST Nov. 3) and Nov. 4, 4:08 A.M. GMT (10:08 P.M. CST Nov. 3). The 15-minute gap before this switch showed up on the TV is likely due to a delay in updating the Pennsylvania info at the network.
Now, I know nothing about “Pede,” but as you can see, the vote switch was shown on TV, and “Pede” located that percentage switch in the code, which means that “Pede” is working with real data and has the skills needed to identify the code and expose the anomalies. My experience has been that geeky internet bloggers are a hell of a lot more honest than most any politician, and I think we can safely proceed on the assumption that the research “Pede” has done is offered in good faith. (The only clue to “Pede’s” identity is that “Pede” refers to the events as “Nr. 187” and “Nr. 188”, using the European abbreviation for “number” instead of the American “No.” which suggests that “Pede” was born or educated overseas.)
As “Pede” puts it, “I made a script to run through the data and gather all instances where votes switched from Trump to Biden. ‘Lost Votes’ means that the total amount of votes counted decreased by that amount throughout the counting.”
