|November 19, 2020|
Good morning! Today's newsletter includes:
- "KRAKEN" UPDATE: Let Powell and Giuliani make their case
- Georgia election update
- The spiritual side of our lives really does matter
- Curiouser And Curiouser
- Party of Tolerance Update
"KRAKEN" UPDATE: LET POWELL AND GIULIANI MAKE THEIR CASE (UPDATED)
The most striking thing about Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani’s press conference on Thursday is the immediate dismissal it got from most of the media.
Look at what they were alleging: wholesale election fraud, stealing a presidential election right under our noses in the world’s great democratic superpower, reducing the “shining beacon on a hill” to a mere penlight. There has been nothing like this in the history of our country. The media can’t risk looking at it; they instinctively know that, like looking straight at the sun, it would cause them permanent injury.
But if this is true, it explains a lot of very strange anomalies we’ve seen in the vote.
Russell Ramsland, co-owner of Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG), which specializes in election fraud detection, has looked at the Michigan vote and claims it’s a “physical impossibility.” According to a story in NationalFile.com, Ramsland served in the Reagan administration and has worked for both MIT and NASA. His must be one of the thousands of sworn affidavits Giuliani was referring to on Thursday. Ramsland swore he had determined --- no question --- that vote tampering took place in Michigan and that given "significant anomalies and red flags," the results could not possibly have happened otherwise.
He addressed the vulnerabilities of Dominion Voting Systems, saying that experts had already known about these and written about them extensively. He called the system logs essentially “unprotected,” meaning that any alterations to the tabulations would be undetectable. He said anyone with an elementary knowledge of computer systems could “arbitrarily add, modify or remove log entries, causing a log event to take place."
His colleague, Dr. Andrew Appel, described how a hack could easily be accomplished: creating a memory stick and then “7 minutes alone with [the machine] and a screwdriver.”
Here's one red flag: “There are a stunning 3,276 precincts where the presidential votes cast compared to the estimated voters...ranges from 84 percent to 350 percent...[revealing] 431,954 excess ballots.” This is one of the problems Giuliani was talking about. At least 19 townships/precincts have more votes than registered voters, some WAY more.
The biggest red flag is those “spikes” that Giuliani also mentioned. The spikes are “strongly indicative of a manual adjustment, either by the operator of the system...or by outside actors.” This is what convinced Ramsland that a crime did occur. “In the data are 4 spikes totaling 384,733 ballots allegedly processed in a combined interval of only 2 hours and 38 minutes. This is physically impossible given the available equipment at the 4 reference locations.”
However, other computer security experts have disputed Ramsland’s qualifications as an election systems expert and say he’s promoted vote fraud claims before without producing evidence. He has also claimed that vote tallies were uploaded to a database outside the US controlled by a company called Scytl. Both Scytl and Dominion denied that, with Dominion saying it would be illegal under US election law for Scytl to control votes cast and tabulated in the US.
Ramsland also allegedly made an error in an affidavit filed by Lin Wood in his Georgia case, confusing some districts in Minnesota for Michigan districts.
These kinds of mistakes, disputes and conflicts can’t be in a legal filing when you’re asking a court or legislature to throw out thousands of votes. Just because something COULD have happened, or seemed to happen doesn’t, in itself, prove that it DID change the outcome of the election. Anecdotal or statistical anomalies aren’t enough; you need solid evidence. Besides, how do you prove alterations were made by the thousands, perhaps millions, if the experts say they’re “undetectable”? The thought of making such a case, especially to people whose natural reactions range from dismissive to hostile to murderous, is daunting. Powell and her team have just a few days to build their case and have it heard, and it will have to be ironclad to get anyone to hear it.
Alan Dershowitz thinks the effort might be worth it in Pennsylvania.
That’s why Tucker Carlson’s remarks about Powell not coming on his show Thursday evening might have been misplaced.
He understandably wants to see the proof, we ALL NEED to see the proof, but the clock is ticking and she’s got work to do. Tucker said he would’ve given her the whole hour, even the whole week, but I’m thinking maybe she doesn’t have that kind of time. Just because she doesn’t show her hand doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a good one and is saving it for court. Keeping it close to the vest is likely her strategy.
Giuliani did go on HANNITY Thursday night for one segment, talking about coordination among ten Democrat-controlled cities. If that’s the case they’re planning to make in the next week or two, they’ve got their work cut out for them. That does sound like conspiracy theory if you don't have hard evidence. But John Solomon claims to have some, from prominent mathematician Steven Miller.
Those in media who reflexively say there’s “no evidence” need to look at some of that. (Force yourselves.) But for now, what we have is bits and pieces in multiple states, so we might feel like the blind men trying to describe an elephant.
The point is, we need to give Powell and her team a few precious days. Lack of time is the main challenge that legal expert Jonathan Turley says they have. What’s really critical is not what Powell says tonight on TV but the case she presents in a courtroom, before a judge --- or, it's hoped, a panel of justices.
If it turns out she was just blowing smoke –- which would be highly out of character for her –- THEN she deserves criticism from all sides. Goodness, her career and reputation will be ruined if she’s doing that, and she knows it.
Powell, Giuliani and their team are already enduring vicious criticism and threats of violence from Trump’s wacko adversaries. It got so bad for one Trump attorney in Philadelphia that she was placed under protection and allowed by the judge to withdraw from the case.
Linda Kerns wrote on November 16 that she'd “been subjected to continuous harassment in the form of abusive emails, phone calls, physical and economic threats, and even accusations of treason --- all for representing the President of the United States’ campaign in this litigation.”
As we've reported, the anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project, which has hundreds of thousands of social media followers, has suggested that people target Trump attorneys, and to my knowledge neither Joe “the unifier” Biden nor any other Democrat leaders have denounced them. They bullied the law firm Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur into withdrawing from the Philly case. Kerns is the attorney who took over the case, and now SHE has withdrawn as well. This is an attempt to deprive Trump of legal representation. It's also mob rule.So let’s give Trump’s legal team some space while they put their case together, as is their right. They’ve got enough to deal with and an almost superhuman deadline. But when it's completed, it will have to be built as solid as a tank if they expect it to go anywhere.
GEORGIA ELECTION UPDATE
U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg rejected attorney Lin Wood’s s lawsuit over changes in the ballot signature laws.
Judge Grimberg, a Trump appointee, called the suit “creative” and said it would disenfranchise more people (potentially 1.3 million who voted absentee) than has happened since the Jim Crow era. The Trump campaign was not a party to this suit; Wood was suing as an individual voter, claiming he personally had been harmed, which did not fly with the judge.
Surprisingly, Wood himself didn’t even speak in court; he was represented by attorney Ray Smith. He has reportedly filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
THE SPIRITUAL SIDE OF OUR LIVES REALLY DOES MATTER
When I was growing up, my bedtime ritual always included a fairy tale that started with “Once upon a time...” and ended with the comforting words we all remember: “And they lived happily every after.” As a child of the optimistic 1950s, I dreamed that life might be like that: whatever obstacles, dangers or perils might come my way, in the end, I would live happily ever after.
There were certainly plenty of struggles along the way, but I have to say that things did eventually work out even more happily than I could have imagined, from a career that I love to a wonderful family, including the world’s greatest grandkids. But sadly, for many people, “living happily ever after” does seem like an unobtainable fairy tale. Why is that happy ending seemingly out of reach for so many people?
Of course, there are always factors beyond our control, like health problems and accidents. None of us can ever know if our birthday or Christmas celebration was the last we’ll ever enjoy. We have no way of knowing when it will all end, only that someday, it will (that’s why it’s said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes.)
Well, I can’t help you with your taxes, but I do have a bit of advice that I think will make death less frightening and greatly increase your chances of living “happily ever after.”
For decades, our nation has been focused on personal pleasure. The message drummed into everyone by pop culture is “If it feels good, do it.” It’s fostered a culture of self-centeredness that led to Baby Boomers being nicknamed “The Me Generation.” Today’s young people have been dubbed “iGen” because many are so fixated on self and selfies that even their gadgets’ names all start with “I.” Advertising bombards us with the message that life is all about me and all about now. Such messages of immediate self-gratification may sell products and services, but they cause us to sell our souls if we follow this philosophy to its logical conclusion.
At some point in life, we all experience events that shake up our routine, much like the agitator in a washing machine shakes loose the grime in our clothes. We may not want or enjoy such experiences, but they’re necessary to force us to focus on the frailty of life and the certainty of death. They also force us to begin asking what really matters and why.
If we react to setbacks based solely on what feels good right now, we greatly lower our chances of enjoying a happy future. But if we believe there is even a remote possibility that our actions have lasting implications beyond the immediate, both within and beyond our lifetimes, it should cause us to think differently, live differently, and leave a different kind of legacy.
Without apology, I believe that the spiritual side of our lives really does matter. To believe otherwise is to define humans as little more than animated protoplasm, going through the motions of life for no particular purpose. I prefer to believe there’s more to us than flesh and blood. If we possess a soul capable of living beyond our lifetimes, then the seeds we plant in this life will yield fruit forever. If you believe those things, the ultimate becomes more important than the immediate.
When we decide to live beyond our lifetimes, our responsibilities to the next generation will outweigh our roles in our current jobs. More important than the money we’re paid for our work is what we will become as a result of our work. Our character will become more important than the careers we follow.
For all of us, life began “once upon a time.” Unlike the fairy tales, however, it’s up to us to make the choices that determine whether the last line of our life stories will read, “And they lived happily ever after.”
(Adapted from the book, “Rare, Medium or Done Well: Make the Most of your Life.” https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/168397302X )
CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER
The Federalist lists five historical trends that all pointed to a Trump reelection victory, but shockingly, in this election, they somehow didn’t.
Also, this isn’t admissible evidence in court (not that most of the media would even look at that, if it were positive for Trump), but the Wall Street Journal noticed one more eye-popping anomaly about the election.
Certain counties are called “bellwether counties” because their votes have consistently reflected the winner of the national election. Out of 3,000 counties nationwide, only 19 have predicted the winner in every election since 1980. This year, that four-decade record inexplicably came to a crashing halt when 18 of those 19 counties somehow failed to reflect the alleged Biden juggernaut and voted for Trump. And it wasn’t even close: on average, Trump won them by 16 points. Biden won only Clallam County, Washington, and by just 3 points.
One county, Vigo County, Indiana, correctly predicted the winner in every race since 1882 save for two, in 1908 and 1952, when it went for the losing Democrat. This year, county polls showed a virtual tie, but Vigo County voted for Trump by nearly 15 points.
(In another bellwether list of 58 counties that have picked correctly since 2000, Trump won 51 by an average of nearly 15 points. Biden won only seven by an average of 4 points.)
A caveat: these 19 counties are mostly rural, lower income and white, so you’d expect them to fall in the Trump camp. But they’re also more likely to switch parties, which is why they tend to pick up national trends, like an alleged swing toward Biden. Oddly enough, that “trend” failed to materialize in nearly 95% of these counties. What was the difference between them and the counties where Biden surged into the lead?
Maybe these counties finished counting their votes before 4 a.m.
PARTY OF TOLERANCE UPDATE
Teachers in Burbank, California, have been told they have to stop assigning five classic novels to students due to complaints of racism. They include Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird,” long considered one of the greatest anti-racist books of all time.
One of the complaints against the books was that a white student who called a black student the “N-word” claimed to have learned it from one of the books. It’s interesting that he didn’t learn it from any of the thousands of rap songs that he probably has on his cell phone, but from a book that I bet he didn’t want to have to read.
BIBLE VERSE OF THE DAY