From TrueTheVote:
We'd watched the mass mail out of paper ballots to highly inaccurate voter records, the harried installation of ballot dropboxes privately funded by billionaire tech magnates, and the hundreds of legislative changes, lawsuits, and consent decrees that fundamentally altered election processes. All of it came together in 2020, under the fog of COVID. It was planned. It was purposeful.
Indeed, they said as much themselves in that Time article.
Having studied election process for decades, our team was well aware of the pitfalls associated with America's uniquely insecure approach to elections. We knew that attempts to prove certain types of election malfeasance would fail, so we chose instead to focus on the grifts that would necessarily leave trackable, provable data trails.
To test our trafficking theory, we acquired over ten trillion location-based cell signals in major metropolitan areas across six states. Initially, we worked with whistleblowers and witnesses, but soon enough, the data alone told the tale. Using mobile and GPS data, we mapped the travel patterns of ballot traffickers to ballot dropboxes.
They point out that this kind of tracking has been used by the NYT and by the government in several cases, so it's well established as a commonplace way to approach this kind of issue.
So what did they find?
Our findings reveal overwhelming evidence of ballot trafficking, some of which is highlighted in the article. We have much more.
All our research, including suspected locations where ballots were delivered, processed, and distributed, along with the individual devices associated, has been submitted in the form of a formal complaint, along with all data, to the FBI. Briefings have been provided to state law enforcement and political leadership in several states. These conversations will continue to broaden in the coming days.
We've also acquired over a petabyte of video surveillance data. The quality of this video is inferior overall; lighting is bad, cameras are poorly positioned, timestamps are manipulated, key timeframes are often missing. Nevertheless, we are working video by video, using proprietary AI-based code we've written to screen the over 100,000 clips in our possession. The result? We are successfully finding video evidence that corroborates the digital data and supports the need for full investigations by law enforcement.
The problem is, of course, that 'law enforcement' has not touched it for the same reason it will not touch it: law enforcement is controlled by the winners of that stolen election, people who intend to continue to steal elections from now on. The last thing they'd want is for law enforcement to get on with investigations into this.
The exception are the nation's Sheriffs, who are independently elected officers who do not report to the centralized governments -- not mayors, not governors, not Presidents. For this reason, in major cities they are generally defunded and their funds turned over to a "City Police" department whose leadership is hired and fired by the mayor and/or city council. This keeps law enforcement pliant.
Outside the cities the sheriffs remain potent. Unfortunately, the fraud is city-based. Sheriffs still exist, and perhaps some of them can be convinced to take this up. If it can lead to arrests and prosecutions (another problem in those cities where non-prosecuting prosecutors have been solicited by left-leaning NGOs) maybe something can finally be done within the system.
It's a big lift, though, because the whole system has been turned against citizen self-government. The thieves are in charge across the board.
Excerpts of an email from the State Department to members of congress viewed by CBS News acknowledged that charter flights are still on the ground at the Mazar-i-Sharif airstrip in northern Afghanistan and have permission to land in Doha "if and when the Taliban agrees to takeoff."
Such is the situation as of Sunday. On Wednesday, however, I was on a call with a member of the air evacuation efforts and the head of a small airline not in the Middle East, brokering a way to transfer people into normal airlines following their successful flight out. Everything was in place except the money, and donors had been found -- just not quite enough as at that moment.
I infer that someone within the Biden Administration or the State Department (whom the effort had been briefing, as we would need institutional support to finalize visas in some cases) decided to try to find their own way out, and decided Qatar was the obvious choice. Telling Doha about this is equivalent to having informed the Taliban of it, because Qatar hosted them in their exile, brokered the peace talks, and is one of their chief supporters. Qatar told the Taliban, and the Taliban now have these people as hostages.
The Biden Administration is trying to convince the press that the Taliban are the bad guys here, and they certainly are among the bad guys: they're now holding Americans hostage. But the Biden administration also has a lot of blame to carry because they gave the game away. Instead of working with veteran operators they blew things up by trying to take over and run things with their regular incompetence.
What's Biden to do in the face of all these obstacles? The most important thing he can focus on at this point is keeping his party in line. He will need to lean in harder on Manchin and Sinema, giving them the support they need to retain their electoral standing while offering not-so-subtle reminders about the importance of putting on a united front to fulfill his agenda. If Democrats are perpetually stuck in a legislative logjam as the nation struggles with broken infrastructure, natural disasters, and an ongoing pandemic, there's little chance voters will give the party another shot at trying to address the many problems they face going into 2022.There's also the danger that he will be distracted by the need to solve immediate problems with visible competence and honesty. No one cares about that stuff: voters want him to create a nationwide standard of ballot fraud and undermine the nation's energy independence, STAT.
Biden also has to actively shape his message and agenda, rather than react to events and circumstances as they occur. As the going gets tough, it is easy for presidents to be caught on the wrong foot and get swept up in the noise of the moment. What great presidents learn is that focus means a great deal. Presidents have the power to keep the nation — and Congress — on track. They have the ability to keep pushing specific issues like the urgent need to protect voting rights or address climate change — even if the news cycle veers off into different directions.Keeping the news from veering off into unauthorized directions is pretty straightforward: just get the press back in line, where they're begging to be, anyway. Maybe they need more "support," too. That should help keep all those pesky voters from veering off into savaging the President's competence in the polls.
In a remarkable display of tone-deaf diplomatic naiveté, the Vice President was pictured sitting in front of a sculpture of Ho Chi Minh during a meeting with Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc at the very moment the rest of the world was comparing America’s humiliating and incompetent dilemma in Kabul with the 1975 fall of Saigon.
In a perverse way, perhaps we should look at the calamitous blunderings in Afghanistan as an opportunity to demand a true turning point. Americans know that a great deal of our governmental process is now either institutionally corrupt or calcified. They want change, as evidenced by the election of Donald Trump in 2016, no matter his empty credentials in government. Lacking clearly expressed options, most don’t really know how to articulate the specifics of what that change might encompass. It’s kind of like the statement of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart many years ago that he couldn’t define pornography for you, but he knew it when he saw it. In this case, most Americans can clearly agree that what they have been seeing time and again, domestically and overseas, is not good government, despite honorable intentions among many dedicated people.Even the very best among those who come forward to serve often find that the good they came to do is stultified by distracting debates over the very premise of why the American system of government was created and whether the icons of our past were truly motivated by the words incorporated in our most revered documents. The military itself is increasingly being used by leftist activists as a social laboratory to advance extreme political agendas. Congressional oversight leans heavily toward social issues, with too many members struggling without success to focus on accountability at the very top when, for instance, good people at the bottom have to implement poorly conceived plans that might kill them.This is not an exaggeration, and it is not just what has been happening at the Kabul airport and elsewhere in Afghanistan. Those situations merely provide us a microcosm, a symbolic moment in time, that allows us to see the implications of confused or distracted leadership, military and civilian alike, motivated by political machinations. In the American political system, we have the capacity to demand that this inequity change. What we need is the will to do it.
As a trial lawyer, I both worked with and cross-examined hundreds, likely thousands, of experts in various fields. Many of them had extraordinarily impressive credentials. My experience was that experts are like everyone else. Some know what they are talking about, others don’t. Some back up their opinions with sound data and careful reasoning, while others crumble under adverse examination. Deferring to someone merely because he or she is a credentialed expert would be a terrible, and sometimes potentially suicidal, practice. Don’t do it.
People in South Australia will be forced to download an app that combines facial recognition and geolocation. The state will text them at random times, and thereafter they will have 15 minutes to take a picture of their face in the location where they are supposed to be. Should they fail, the local police department will be sent to follow up in person. “We don’t tell them how often or when, on a random basis they have to reply within 15 minutes,” Premier Steven Marshall explained. “I think every South Australian should feel pretty proud that we are the national pilot for the home-based quarantine app.”
You might say, "Look, these laws might not be constitutional in America, but this is Australia. The police clearly seem to have the power to forcibly quarantine / place the entire population under indefinite house arrest whether they are sick or not. So why, if that is already off the table, quibble about the means of the quarantine/imprisonment?"
There's still a point to be made even there about the mode of action, to whit, the government seizing your private property to use against you. This is called 'commandeering,' and in America is most famously a police power used in Hollywood movies where The Heroic Detective needs to borrow a citizen's car to chase a criminal. Those movie scenes always struck me as crazy: some guy runs up waving what might be a badge, if you had time to examine it, and orders you to immediately surrender your car (which he then drives off with rapidly).
Here the government is commandeering everyone's property in order to enforce extraordinary restrictions upon them, and they are supposed to be subject to compliance checks at whim. The police aren't usually supposed to stop you -- certainly not to frisk you -- in the absence of evidence of illegal activity. Now you owe them an immediate response proving your innocence at any time of day or night they should choose to demand one. Not only has your phone been commandeered, you are ordered to attend to it in case you might be signaled to report compliance at any 15 minute interval of the day. Not only are they commandeering your property, they're commandeering 100% of your time. In a sense they are commandeering your whole life, then, insofar as 'life' means 'the time you have to spend alive.'
A government that can commandeer your property is dangerous; one that can commandeer your life moreso. Occasionally it is a power that is used, as for example to compel jury duty; of old it was used to compel service at war (and perhaps shall be again, for who would now enlist but the youngest and least wise?). It has even been used this way in compelling your attendance at internment camps, though that action by FDR is now generally regarded as having been improper and tyrannical in the extreme.
I wonder how many policemen South Australia has. It's a big territory. (UPDATE: fewer than six thousand for a territory of almost four hundred thousand square miles, though 77% of the population lives within the metro area of the capital city.) I know cell service here is very spotty, and a policy like this would compel many officers to spend a lot of time on the road. Cell service may be better there, but they'll log a lot of hours 'following up' on those calls. The point is to keep people from encountering each other, so why not send hundreds of officers driving up and down a wide territory every day?
Headline, The Hill: "FTC looking into broken ice cream machine at McDonald's."
As I understand capitalism, economic competition with competitors should address this issue, either by drawing customers away from McDonald's franchises (I haven't set foot in one in years, though I am not a big consumer of fast food of any kind), or else by convincing McDonald's to invest in more functional technology.
Perhaps people have switched away from McDonald's over this issue, but the capitalist pressures haven't made them change their technology. As the article points out, the corporation mocks its own machinery on Twitter.
Could be ice cream was never that big a part of their success story, and they figure it's cheaper to take the hit than to pony up for more functional machines. Perhaps a nice taxpayer-funded investigation of their private business practices will lay clear the source of this national scourge. Thank goodness we have whole agencies of experts employed to do this important work.
S.B. 8 not only bans abortion at six weeks, a period of time when many people don’t know they’re pregnant, but it also deputizes citizens to enforce the ban. The law financially incentivizes private citizens to actively seek out and sue people for “aiding or abetting” women who are attempting to get abortions in the state of Texas. If someone successfully sues, they could receive a bounty of $10,000 and have all of their legal fees paid for by the opposing side.
So it's not the women themselves who can be sued, it's groups that organize to try to get them abortions after the six-week period. These can be sued by private citizens (or competing nongovernmental organizations) for 'aiding and abetting an abortion,' and cash transferred from the pro-abortion organization to the anti-abortion one.
That's a new way of weaponizing government to aid political warfare. I'd like to hear a defense of it from someone who thought it was a good idea before I decide what I think about it.
