Friday, November 20, 2020

UPDATED: Ranking The Hoaxes--Restored!

Thanks to the anonymous reader who allowed me to restore this post!

We live in a time of hoaxes--knowingly abetted by our elite would be opinion shapers. I think we can all agree that the Russia Hoax was some kinda major hoax. Add in the ancillary hoaxes that grew out of it--the Ukraine Hoax and so forth--and it's easy to argue that it deserves the number one ranking.

But not everyone agrees . For example. A pathologist, virologist, and CEO of a Covid testing company in Canada just testified that Covid is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.” Nor does he simply stop there. He goes on to list a whole string of associated hoaxes:

The political hoax:

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians, it’s outrageous, this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public,” said Hodkinson.

The doctor said that nothing could be done to stop the spread of the virus besides protecting older more vulnerable people and that the whole situation represented “politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”


The social distancing hoax:

Hodkinson remarked that “social distancing is useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing,” as he called for society to be re-opened immediately to prevent the debilitating damage being caused by lockdowns.


The mask hoax:

“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever,” he said.

“Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signalling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people – I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense – seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face.”


The testing hoax:

The doctor also slammed the unreliability of PCR tests, noting that “positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection,” and that all testing should stop because the false numbers are “driving public hysteria.”

Wow! That's a pretty strong case for the Covid hoax taking a top spot in the rankings game.

But how about the Election Hoax? Shouldn't the notion that Biden won the election fair and square--the hoax unrelentingly pushed by Big Media and Big Tech--be vying for that coveted top spot?

Apparently not, based on a Rasmussen study. It seems no more than half the population have been fooled by the yammering Libs--Top Pollster Finds 47% Say ‘Likely’ Democrats Stole Election. And when you actually dig into the numbers it looks even bleaker for those who fancy that they shape public opinion:

How likely is it,” Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely voters between November 17-18, “that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure Biden would win?”

Only 50 percent said it was not likely, while a whopping 47 percent said it was likely.

Not at all likely: 41 percent.

Not very likely: 9 percent.

Somewhat likely: 11 percent.

Very likely: 36 percent.

There’s another way to look at this… only 41 percent are certain the election was not stolen from Trump.

The partisan breakdown is not exactly what I expected with 75 percent of Republicans — 75 percent! — saying it is very (61 percent) or somewhat (14 percent) likely the election was stolen.

Get this… 30 percent of Democrats — Democrats! — say it is very (20 percent) or somewhat (10 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump.

Of course 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all (61 percent) or not very (8 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump. Still, that 30 percent of Democrats who say it was stolen is pretty remarkable.

When even 30% of Libs aren't fooled, Lib opinion shapers have a real credibility problem--because they're certainly not fooling many others. And, John Nolte adds, it's probably even a bit worse:

When asked the all-important question of whether “your friends and neighbors think Trump should concede,” only 51 percent say yes, while 30 percent say no — 18 percent are unsure.

The reason the “friends and neighbors” question is important is because America’s top pollsters believe that question is a more accurate reflection of the true intent of the person being surveyed. Now that we live in an increasingly fascist country where roving bands of left-wing Brownshirts will either get you fired, or blacklist you, or physically assault you for supporting Trump,  people have become shy about telling pollsters the truth of their Trump support. So…

Let me repeat this…

Only 51 percent say Trump should concede.


UPDATE: Monica Showalter also takes note of the Rasmussen survey, and her title brought a smile to my face: Unity: A third of Democrats agree with Republicans that Trump's reelection was stolen -poll. She concludes:

It certainly explains why Biden is trying to sweet talk the electorate with his nonsense unity talk. His real game is to talk voters into believing he actually won the election.


  1. Some updates from Matt Braynard's work that I linked to here several days ago (last weekend, I believe). He and his people have been doing cold calls from the lists of early absentee voter lists that are public records in PA, MI, GA, AZ, WI, and NV. The sorts of people he has been contacting are the people who the states claim requested absentee ballots (all the states but NV require a formal request) who the state either claims used them to vote or claims had not returned them.

    The work indicates that there was a pretty massive fraud perpetrated by the Democrats in these states- both in saturating the ground with unrequested absentee ballots (or, more likely, simply claiming they mailed some of them out but actually never did, and trashing the one from Republicans who did say they requested and returned them as voters).

    They have also uncovered clear evidence of double voters and voters voting in states in which they do not reside- numbers that are significant in regards to the size of Biden's wins. Additionally, he has pointed out Wisconsin's lack of ID verfication in 200K absentee votes through a "loophole"- something that straight up looks like a fraud operation of significant scale.

    1. Thanks Yancey. This looks promising. My belief is that Trump's legal team will seek to combine this type of evidence with broader statistical analyses in pursuit of remedies for the fraud. Mutually supportive approaches.

    2. Looks like Braynard was censored by GoFundMe so moved to site below, and has received more $ than he requested. I just donated. (better than just sitting and worrying):

  2. It's interesting to discuss these matters, but keep in mind that we should know much more about them a year from now.

    We are living through puzzling events that historians will study and debate for decades.

    1. "...historians will study and debate for decades."

      If Harris/Biden takes office I wouldn't bet on it. Under the chapter head "2020 Presidential Election" will be the statement, "Nothing to see here. Move along." Woe unto the State Historian, like the Soviet Union all historians will be functionaries of the State, that attempts a peek under the Party's skirt.
      Tom S.

  3. Some of the highlights from Braynard's analysis:

    Among those who said they did request ABS and returned it (and state did not record getting back):

    AZ / 355 / 50.01%
    GA / 257 / 44.08%
    MI / 242 / 32.61%
    PA / 463 / 41.86%
    WI / 325 / 20.00%

    Unreturned Absentee Analysis Complete
    Those whom the state reported sending abs but not getting back:
    State / Did Not Request An ABS / Percent of Sample
    AZ / 906 / 44.20%
    GA / 142 / 18.39%
    Michigan / 256 / 24.20%
    Pennsylvania / 556 / 32.60%
    Wisconsin / 383 / 18.12%

    For clarity, in PA, it is analysis of just Republicans who are claimed to be absentee requesters, in the other states it isn't filtered for party registration. Perhaps in the final report, Braynard will break it out by party membership on Monday.

    Again, all the electronic nonsense is likely a distraction from the actual theft method- the Democrats simply created an excess of up to 10 million absentee ballots across the country, and used that excess to pad Biden's margin in all 50 states.

    1. Dominion Voter Systems backed out of testifying before the Pennsylvania House State Govt Committee today.

  4. In an interview, Braynard did mention that his work is being shared with the Trump legal team.

    If they want to overturn these results, it will require a court order to redo the verification of the absentee ballot signatures. This is how you uncover the real fraud- you don't spread stories about Dominion, Scytl, or Smartmatic without hard evidence that such fraud even took place- you uncover it by demonstrating that the Big Democratic counties in the swing states (and probably in all the other states, too) simply counted any absentee ballot that came through the mail, signature, no signature, forged signature etc. We already literally know Clark County, NV did this- they have admitted that they tuned the verification software down to a meaningless level, and all the other data available on rejection rates strongly suggests that Biden gained at least 3% margin in absentee voting, which is around 2% in the total vote at a minimum.

    1. Yancey, are you an attorney who has done trial work? If so ypu would know that courts accept evidence of all kinds including hearsay which has so many exceptions it almost swallows the rule. A civil case requires only a preponderance of evidence. More likely than not. On what basis do you assert that the claims about the foreign based servers etc made by Powell and Wood and others have no evidence? In sone respects, a smart trial lawyer might conclude that the servers and software election fraud ARE the game as they indicate such widespread criminality that the only remedy is to refuse certification and allow the House to hold a contingent election per the Constitution. Expert testimony, mathematical proofs, and physical evidence may prove far more persuasive than a hundred affidavits or witnesses talking about stuffing ballot boxes.

  5. It is important to remember some of Project Veritas' work on the people Democrats had sent out buying up absentee ballots. This was part of the operation- 2020's version of the walking around money on election day, but with absentee ballots.

    Think about all the stories that were being published on twitter from the renters who were receiving mail in ballots in the names of all the people who ever lived at the address. What do you think happened to all those ballots?

    Another question- what has happened to all the security envelopes that bear the signatures of the voters and witnesses when required? I imagine a lot of those no longer exist, which would also indicate fraud.

  6. Time for some well-earned snark from Don Surber:

    Cucker Tarlson sells out

    As Fox News slides into its new CNN lite format, some conservatives are in denial. But Tucker, they cry. They will boycott the rest of Fox -- except for Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. That's like giving up alcohol for Lent except for beer, wine, and bourbon. Its prime time shows are its biggest moneymakers. Giving up Cavuto or some other minor show means nothing to Fox. The big money is in prime time. That is why they call it prime time.
    And Carlson is laughing at his conservative viewers now. Last night, Carlson crapped on Sidney Powell for not going on his show and proving the president's case. Who does he think he is? Chief Justice Tucker Carlson?

    1. Not a good look for Carlson...

    2. I'll predict (my name is Cassander, after all...) that Tucker's attempt to redeem himself on his shown tonight fails, too.

      Smugness doesn't sell...

    3. He was foolish. For all we know those servers contain all sorts of stuff that Trump's team has no need to know. The computer forensics guys need to sort out, and as Powell implied to Carr, that'll take a good week. That's reasonable, and to demand that Powell present highly specific evidence at this point is UNreasonable. I'm willing to take her word.