Apologies in advance, on a beautiful but not so good morning. I'm a bit read and written out from yesterday, and there's plenty of excellent analysis out there. So I'll start the day briefly by linking to two Thomas Lifson articles at American Thinker.
The importance of the first one--The election coup plot, explained--is Tucker Carlson's opening monologue, which I'll embed:
The video is of the whole show, but it's the opening monologue that's so important. Tucker is making the point that, if he were Joe Biden and wanted to be accepted as the legitimate President of the United States, he would want all the transparency possible about what's going down in this election. Instead, just the opposite is happening. It's a simple point, but powerfully made. Included in that portion of the video is a short clip of Lawrence Wilkerson speaking.
Go ahead and read about Wilkerson--he's a longtime protege of Colin Powell and an absolutely quintessential member of the Deep State. In the short interview clip, responding to the question 'What if Trump refuses to leave office?' Wilkerson openly suggests that the vast gun owning Trump base may take to the streets with their guns. In that case, he says, we'll need the military to put them down, and it will only be a question of "how much blood will be shed."
Put that in the context of all of the open statements made by the Left--especially Pelosi--about the coming election that has just past and you see the truth and significance of Tucker's words:
“Democrats have been thinking about this for a long time….”
And they know that transparency is their enemy. Tucker goes into that, the censorship that will become even more prevalent as we go on. My fear is that there is far too much at stake--not just the trillions that sundance talks about but the very existence of the ruling elite endangered by revelations of their corruption. With that at stake, they will feel unable to step back from the precipice over which they intend to hurl our constitutional order. Here's Lifson's summary:
Tucker Carlson ... laid out convincingly the path ahead by which the left, principally relying on its media and social media dominance, will attempt to install as president a man who needed fraudulent votes to win. The plot, in short, is to have the TV networks, AP, and NYT/WaPo declare the race is decided. At that point the social media censors step in and suppress all efforts – even those of a sitting president -- to uncover the fraud as conspiracy theories and an attack on democracy itself.
This open talk of shooting huge numbers of Americans in the streets if that's what it takes to win, to gain power over Americans dead or alive, instills real fear in me.
The second Lifson article is where I took my subject line from. Again, the point is simple but depressingly convincing. How is it that Republican candidates up and down the ticket did remarkably well, yet Trump lost? That's like coattails without a coat. How could that happen?
The explanation is in the Blue Wave that never happened--a flood of Dem ballots in swing states in which only the presidential box was checked. A clear indicator of fraud, of ballots being manufactured with time pressing. The result? Dem fraudsters without time to fill out complete ballots simply checked the one box that mattered most.
Without that fraud--and you can read the article for anecdotal detail--this election would have been a massive affirmation of Trump. Up and down the ticket, and a demonstration of coattails trailing behind a powerful Trumpian coat.
I shudder at the effort of repression, through censorship and canceling, that will follow a fraudulent Biden win, even given Republican gains. Pray for the country.
UPDATE: Commenter Yancey Ward has been offering some insightful comments. Just a few minutes ago, in a much longer comment, he wrote:
most states allow for a straight Republican/Democrat vote- why wouldn't people in a rush to fill out ballots at the counting office just make that selection instead?
To clarify, I offer the following, which covers most of the affected states:
Utah - abolished STV in 2020 (HB 70).
Pennsylvania - abolished STV in 2019 (SB 421) but the law did not impact the November 2019 election. In 2020 there will not be an STV option.
Michigan – abolished STV in 2016 (SB 13). In July 2016, a U.S. District Court decision found the abolishment of STV disportionally affected African-Americans and placed a preliminary injunction on enforcing the law for the 2016 election. In September 2018 the U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals said plaintiffs were unlikely to win their appeal and ordered the ban to take effect. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which denied a request to keep STV for the 2018 general election, so it was not an option for that election. However, voters passed Ballot Proposal 3 in November 2018 that amended the constitution allowing voters to cast a straight-ticket vote for all candidates of a particular political party when voting in a partisan general election, thus reestablishing STV in the state.
New Mexico – the legislature abolished STV in 2001. From 2002 to 2010, secretaries of state had administratively placed it on the ballot. In 2012, the secretary of state decided not to offer a straight-ticket option, noting that it had been repealed by the legislature. An attempt was made in the 2012 legislature to reinstate it, but it failed. In 2018 the secretary of state attempted to resinstate STV, but a petition to prevent its use was approved by the state supreme court.
Iowa - abolished STV in 2017 (HB 516).
Texas - abolished STV in 2017 (HB 25), effective in 2020.
Indiana - abolished STV for at-large races in 2016 (SB 61).
Rhode Island – abolished STV in 2015 as part of 2014 legislation (HB 8072).
West Virginia – abolished STV in 2015 (SB 249).
North Carolina – abolished STV in 2014 as part of 2013 legislation (HB 589).
Wisconsin – abolished STV in 2011, effective for November 2012 elections. STV will remain available for UOCAVA voters.
New Hampshire – abolished STV in 2007.
Missouri – abolished STV in 2006.
Illinois – abolished STV in 1997.
South Dakota – abolished STV in 1996.
Georgia – abolished STV in 1994.
On the discrepancies between Senate and Presidential vote, it can only be ascertained in a specific way, and this is this is one thing that can be calculated in a recount:
ReplyDeleteSimply count how many voters only filled out the Presidential line, and then count how many voted for Trump and how many voted for Biden. I would argue that any discrepancy a beyond 2 to 1 is very firm evidence of fraudulent votes.
I make this point, Mark, because the numbers being thrown around in the twitter and blogverse- about this issue are not really conclusive- it is entirely possible that the people not choosing a Senate candidate could easily be split between Trump and Biden voters- you can only determine the ratio by actually finding all the ballots with only votes for President and then separating those by the choice at the top.
I sent this as an e-mail to the Trump team, but I don't know if they will ever see it. I assume they have experts in this who are going to look at it. If they do look at it, I suspect we are going to find that Biden voters only chose to vote for President at 100 to 1 rate or higher- the absolute numbers could be in the 10s of thousands (but see my caveat in the next paragraph). If the ratio is under 10, then it probably doesn't make a whole of difference because you are probably only talking about a few thousand in each state.
Here is the problem, though- most states allow for a straight Republican/Democrat vote- why wouldn't people in a rush to fill out ballots at the counting office just make that selection instead? Incidentally, though, you can count those types of ballots, too.
I think there are actually something less than a half-dozen states that allow straight party tickets this year.
DeleteTom S.
The video is gone.
ReplyDeleteTech companies that should provide equitable service have committed more and more FLAGRANT acts of INTERFERENCE as this has unfolded.
People are angry,and the censorship makes them madder.
They do provide equitable service: it's just that some service is more equitable than other service.
DeleteTom S.
Why else would the Dem establishment vociferously oppose commonsense (and globally common) practices like voter ID requirements? What’s even more stunning is the GOP establishment’s utter capitulation on such questions.
ReplyDeleteAh, then excellent, Mark. Let's do some recounts and count those top of the ticket votes right now.
ReplyDeleteI should have waited 10 minutes to post the comment I added to a earlier thread. It would have been more appropriate here.
ReplyDeleteTom S.
I'll bet that in "I clear indicator of fraud", you meant "A clear indicator of fraud".
ReplyDelete"This open talk of shooting huge numbers of Americans in the streets...."
Yeah, I had seen such talk elsewhere, e.g. at
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/transition-integrity-project-execution/ .
I'd presumed, that Podesta-led Transition Integrity Project was well-known, so I forgot to post here about it.
Insofar as the Right failed, to ensure widespread knowledge of this Podesta etc. plot, it's now urgent, for the truth on such plotting to be rubbed into the noses od moderate liberals.
As I posted here a day or so ago, my sense of things is, that both sides are trying to create a narrative, that will shake the unity (of "moderates") w/in the other side, to force that other side to concede.
I'm starting to doubt, that the Dems can get anything likely to split key "moderates" from DJT.
Whereas, I have hope, that DJT has ammo which can split moderates from Biden on this, among which could be (dare I hope) Barr/ Durham announcing big busts of the DS, and (dare I hope?) the MSM's complicity.
But if moderate liberals are kept ignorant (e.g. by Sil. Valley) of key info (e.g. this Podesta etc, plan), these folks may be kept totally in line, forever.
"far too much at stake--not just the trillions... but the very existence of the ruling elite endangered by revelations of their corruption.
DeleteWith that at stake, they will feel unable to step back from the precipice over which they intend to hurl our constitutional order."
I've been warning here of that (for, what, months?).
It should've been obvious to Barr, that these factors would lead them to stop at nothing, to sabotage a DJT victory.
Today Zman summarized things as follows:
"When the crooks rig the election, they plausibly claim that it was the will of the people. After all, the people were dumb enough to participate in the charade....
If in the next election, turnout is 30% and the Democrats win with 110% of the vote in Michigan, even the crooks will have to acknowledge that the whole thing is just a ridiculous sham."
"Video unavailable
ReplyDeleteThis video has been removed by the uploader"
Try to act surprised.
Perhaps Larry Wilkerson is unaware of Soviet invasion/occupation simulations and the specific fail point the few "successful" plans encountered.
ReplyDelete