RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/04/voters-say-election-fraud-is-a-problem.php?utm_source=email&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw

America’s CEOs may believe that election integrity is unimportant, but voters across the political spectrum disagree. Rasmussen finds that 51% of voters believe that voter fraud impacted the 2020 presidential election:

A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

The question asked was: “How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?”

Voters want election integrity and don’t buy the Democrats’ claim that it is somehow too hard to vote:

Asked which is more important, making it easier for everybody to vote, or making sure there is no cheating in elections, 60% of Likely Voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating, while 37% said it’s more important to make it easier to vote.

Only 22% of voters say it is currently too hard to vote, while 34% said it’s too easy to vote, and 41% say the level of difficulty in voting is about right.

Majorities of all racial groups – 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters – say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/georgia-secretary-state-raffenspergers-amicus-brief-attempting-prevent-independent-audit-states-2020-election-results-includes-least-seven-false-accusations/

“What is Raffensperger so scared about that he would intentionally disregard the truth in his letter to the court?”

Last week we reported that Georgia’s creepy Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had petitioned the court to request that the state of Georgia not have to provide paper ballots in an audit requested and awarded by the court.

Yesterday, creative destruction media, listed seven instances in Raffensperger’s letter that are just plain false:

The brief falsely claims that Petitioners did not articulate legal justification to unseal the ballots while it totally ignores the most important point of relevant law that any court can unseal ballots for any reason under O.C.G.A. 21-2-500. If the controversies surrounding the Nov 3rd 2020 election do not justify reasons to unseal the ballots then what would?
The brief falsely portrays the lawsuit as only Open Records Request Act claims when in reality, most are Equal Protection and Due Process claims that justify unsealing of the ballots as part of discovery for evidence to adjudicate the claims;
The brief restates the oft-repeated false claims that there are overwhelming security and privacy issues involving the ballots. The ballots contain no voter identifiable information and will remain in the custody of Fulton Co. during the inspection according to the most recently filed inspection plan;

https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/pennsylvania-forced-to-remove

The state of Pennsylvania agreed to remove the names of deceased people from voter rolls, an election-integrity watchdog group announced after reaching a settlement with state officials.

The lawsuit, (pdf) which was filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation in November 2020, alleged that some 21,000 registrants who had died were still on the state’s voter rolls at the time of the 2020 presidential election. Pennsylvania agreed to compare its voter-registration database with the Social Security Death Index, and then direct all county election commissions to remove the names of dead registrants.

“This marks an important victory for the integrity of elections in Pennsylvania,” Public Interest Legal Foundation President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said in a statement in announcing the court’s decision. “The Commonwealth’s failure to remove deceased registrants created a vast opportunity for voter fraud and abuse. It is important to not have dead voters active on the rolls for 5, 10, or even 20 years. This settlement fixes that.”

The lawsuit was filed after the Nov. 3 election and when then-candidate Joe Biden took a lead over President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Commonwealth’s office certified the election.

The foundation said it found that 9,212 of the 21,000 voters had been dead for more than five years, and nearly 2,000 voters had been dead for more than 10 years.

The settlement stipulates that the “Department of State shall transmit to each county commission the names of the individuals registered in each respective county identified as deceased as a result of the comparison undertaken” with the “death data set received” from Electronic Registration Information Center that was then “compared to the full voter registration database … for the purpose of identifying persons who are ineligible to vote by reason of the registrant’s death.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17218/big-tech-threat

“Ephemeral experiences”: You might never have heard this phrase, but it’s a very important concept. These are brief experiences you have online in which content appears briefly and then disappears, leaving no trace. Those are the kinds of experiences we have been preserving in our election monitoring projects. You can’t see the search results that Google was showing you last month. They’re not stored anywhere, so they leave no paper trail for authorities to trace. Ephemeral experiences are, it turns out, quite a powerful tool of manipulation.

Are people at companies like Google aware of the power they have? Absolutely…

In a national study we conducted in 2013, in one demographic group — moderate Republicans — we got a shift of 80% after just one search, so some people are especially trusting of search results, and Google knows this. The company can easily manipulate undecided voters using techniques like this….

We have shown in controlled experiments that biased search suggestions can turn a 50‑50 split among undecided voters into a 90‑10 split, with no one having the slightest idea they have been manipulated.

Unfortunately, people mistakenly believe that computer output must be impartial and objective. People especially trust Google to give them accurate results…. They have no idea that they may have been driven to that web page by highly biased search results that favor the candidate Google is supporting.

Dwight D. Eisenhower did not talk about his accomplishments in his famous farewell speech of 1961. Instead, he warned us about the rise of a “technological elite” who could control public policy without anyone knowing. He warned us about a future in which democracy would be meaningless. What I have to tell you is this: The technological elite are now in control. You just don’t know it. Big Tech had the ability to shift 15 million votes in 2020 without anyone knowing that they did so and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace. Our calculations suggest that they actually shifted at least six million votes to President Biden without people knowing. This makes the free-and-fair election — a cornerstone of democracy — an illusion.

I am not a conservative, so I should be thrilled about what these companies are doing. But no one should be thrilled, no matter what one’s politics. No private company should have this kind of power, even if, at the moment, they happen to be supporting your side.

Do these companies think they are in charge? Are they planning a future that only they know for all of us? Unfortunately, there are many indications that the answers to these questions are yes.

One of the items that leaked from Google in 2018 was an eight‑minute video called “The Selfish Ledger.” This video was never meant to be seen outside of Google, and it is about the power that Google has to reshape humanity, to create computer software that “not only tracks our behavior but offers direction towards a desired result.”

How do we protect ourselves from companies like this?… You might have heard the phrase “regulatory capture” — an old practice in which a large company that is facing punishment from the government works with the government to come up with a regulatory plan that suits the company.

When you are talking about, for example, “breaking up” Google, all this means is that we will force them to sell off a couple of the hundreds of companies they have bought…. the major shareholders are enriched by billions of dollars, and the company still has the same power and poses the same threats it does today….

[W]e were, in effect, doing the same thing to them that they do to us and our children 24 hours a day. Imagine that we were, in effect, looking over the shoulders of thousands of real people (with their permission), just as the Nielsen Company does with its network of families to monitor their television watching.

Imagine if these tech companies knew that they were being monitored — that even the answers they are giving people… were being monitored. Do you think they would risk sending out targeted vote reminders to members of just one political party? I doubt it very much, because we would catch them immediately and report their manipulation to authorities and the media.

What can we do? In my opinion, the solution to almost all the problems these companies present is to set up large‑scale monitoring systems and to make them permanent — not just in the United States, but around the world. Because monitoring is technology, it can keep up with whatever the new tech companies are throwing at us, and however they are threatening us, we can get them to stop.

I am envisioning a new nonprofit organization that specializes in monitoring what the tech companies are showing to voters, families, and children — protecting democracy and the autonomy and independence of all citizens. There might also be a for‑profit spinoff that could serve as a permanent funding source for the nonprofit. The for‑profit spinoff could provide commercial services to campaigns, law firms, candidates, researchers, and many others.

And there’s another way to completely eliminate the threats that Google poses to democracy and humanity…. our government could quickly end Google’s monopoly on search by declaring that the database Google uses to generate search results is a “public commons,” accessible to all. It is a very old legal concept, and it is a light-touch form of regulation. It would rapidly lead to the creation of thousands of competing search platforms, each appealing to different audiences.

“Ephemeral experiences”: You might never have heard this phrase, but it’s a very important concept. These are brief experiences you have online in which content appears briefly and then disappears, leaving no trace. Those are the kinds of experiences we have been preserving in our election monitoring projects. You can’t see the search results that Google was showing you last month. They’re not stored anywhere, so they leave no paper trail for authorities to trace. Ephemeral experiences are, it turns out, quite a powerful tool of manipulation.

Are people at companies like Google aware of the power they have? Absolutely… In emails leaked from Google to the Wall Street Journal in 2018, one employee says to others, “How can we use ephemeral experiences to change people’s views about Trump’s travel ban?” There is that phrase, “ephemeral experiences.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/election_fraud_hotspots__10_of_the_data_are_70_of_the_fraud.html

The more our team looked at the 2020 election fraud from publicly available records, the more it appeared to have similar characteristics to property casualty insurance fraud.

Beginning in November, like many citizens, we witnessed election fraud possibilities any sentient person would investigate.  Having backgrounds in fraud detection, particularly in the property casualty insurance business, Medicaid fraud, and cyber fraud, gave us a curiosity that never dissipated.

Our interest is 100% in data analysis.  That means looking at the actual votes, the addresses, the information about ballots reported to Secretaries of State.  While there are all kinds of other fraud, the best way to light it up is with data analysis.

Not just the statistical stuff with the graphs and Greek symbols, but old fashioned rows and columns.  Nothing illegal, just the same public data Google uses to profile someone for new running shoes.

If Jesse Morgan did drive a tractor trailer truck with 100,000 ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, how can we find out?  Chris Wray and our hardy pals at the FBI may not want to open that truck’s back door, but we do – with database analysis.

Every one of those ballots has a person’s name and address.  The ballot is cast, illegally for sure, and counted.  The local government is involved as well as the U.S. Postal Service officials at that particular location.  That makes this sovereign, industrial election fraud.

They can hide the truck.  They can claim it never happened.  They cannot hide the record of the ballot. 

Imagine yourself trying to fake 100,000 ballots.  Even with some of your pals, lots of them, sitting around tables with pizza and Cokes and #2 pencils, it’s daunting.  Every ballot needs to tie to an address.  Each ties to a name.  This is fraud infrastructure. 

https://www.newsweek.com/why-big-tech-censored-our-podcast-touching-2020-election-irregularities-opinion-1579647

Amid congressional Democrats’ push—via the dishonestly named “For the People Act”—to make universal and permanent the extraordinary election integrity-threatening measures of the 2020 election, while hypocritically unseating Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-2) after her duly certified November victory, their Big Tech adjuncts continue censoring speech that runs afoul of that election’s Official Narrative.

My colleagues at the Claremont Institute’s The American Mind publication found this out when they tried to publish a podcast on YouTube that my company helped script and produce—only for the Google-owned video platform to remove it outright.

Ironically, or perhaps not, the mini-audio documentary, titled “The Ruling Class Strikes Back,” chronicled the myriad ways in which our political establishment—and its sundry allies in Big Tech, woke capital, the corporate media and across the other commanding heights of society—worked relentlessly during the 2020 election to marginalize, silence and rout dissenters from their progressive orthodoxy.

Their tactics, of course, included suppressing news, information and opinion frowned upon by the Ruling Class.

NEWSWEEK NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP >

Such illiberal efforts are only accelerating and expanding in 2021—supercharged using the pretext of the Capitol Riot—manifesting in the Wokeification of the military, muzzling of contrarian media figures and the impending execution of a war on “domestic violent extremism” that could sweep up half the country.

What was so wrong about the American Mind podcast?

One portion of it scrutinized the dubious aspects of the 2020 election—that is, the podcast touched on what is now a quintessential third rail.

In a generic email to us, YouTube reminded that it is “a safe space for all.” By questioning aspects of the 2020 election, the podcast allegedly violated that space. Without pointing to precisely how it did so, the social media platform added: “Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.”

Never mind that the podcast made no such claims.