patrick.net

"That's not the news I got."

Speaking about the measure of freedom enjoyed by the people in a republic or democracy, Tytler wrote, "The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors; but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people—through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by the basest corruption and bribery. But those governors once selected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch".

The following are excerpts from Eastman’s April 21 analysis for the Gatestone Institute:

• In Georgia, the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, signed a settlement agreement in March of 2020 in a suit that was filed by the Democratic Committee that essentially obliterated the signature verification process in Georgia. It made it virtually impossible to disqualify any ballots no matter how unlike the signature on the ballot was to the signature in the registration file. The most troubling aspect of it, to me, was that the law required that the signature match the registration signature. When Brad Raffensperger, who is not part of the legislature, unilaterally changed the rule from what the legislature had adopted by statute, that change was unconstitutional, not just illegal.

• Unilaterally, [the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Kathy Boockvar] got rid of a statute that election officials in Pennsylvania had been applying for 100 years to require signature verification. She then asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to approve what she had done….In other words, all of the statutory provisions that were designed to protect against fraud were obliterated in Pennsylvania. We ought not to be surprised if fraud walked through the door left open by the unconstitutional elimination of these statutes.

• To this day, there are 120,000 more votes that were cast in Pennsylvania than their records show voters who have cast votes. Think about that: 120,000 more votes than voters who cast votes. The margin in Pennsylvania was 80,000.

• Election officials in heavily Democrat counties [in Wisconsin] also set up drop boxes. They even set up what they called “human drop boxes” in Madison, which is the home of the University of Wisconsin. For two or three consecutive Saturdays before the election, they basically ran a ballot harvesting scheme at taxpayer expense with volunteers – whom I suspect were actually supporters of the Biden campaign — working as “deputized” county clerks to go collect all these ballots, in violation of state law. A lot of these came in with the witness signatures, but the address not filled in. The county clerks were directed by the Secretary of State to fill the information in on their own. In other words, they were doctoring the evidence. They were doing Google searches to get the name, to fill in an address to validate ballots that were clearly illegal under Wisconsin law. All told, those couple of things combined, more than 200,000 ballots were affected in a state where the margin victory was just over 20,000.

• Then in Michigan, we had similar things going on. We probably all saw the video of election officials boarding up the canvassing center at TCF Center in Detroit so that people could not observe what was going on. There were hundreds of sworn affidavits about illegality in the conduct of that process in Detroit. The judge, without holding a hearing on a motion to dismiss, at which the allegations of the complaint are supposed to be taken as true, rejected all the sworn affidavits from all the witnesses who actually observed the illegality, and instead credited the government affidavit – without the government witness even being subject to questioning on cross-examination.

• There was one case where one of these illegal guidances from the Secretary of State was challenged before the election. The judge ruled that it was just a guidance, and that until we get to election day to find out if the law was actually violated, the case was not ripe — and it got dismissed. Then the day after the election, when election officials actually violated the law, the case gets filed again, and the court says, “You can’t wait until your guy loses and then bring the election challenge. It’s barred by a doctrine called laches. This is the kind of stuff that the Trump legal team was dealing with in those 65 cases.

• Of the cases that actually reached the merits — there were fewer than a dozen of them, if I recall correctly — Trump won three-fourths of them. You have never heard that in the “New York Times.”

• The 65 Project was formed — I think I’ve seen reported that they received a grant from a couple of George Soros-related organizations of $100 million — to bring disbarment actions against all of the lawyers who were involved in any of those cases. The head of the organization gave an interview to Axios… and he said in his interview to Axios that the group’s goal with respect to the Trump election lawyers is to “not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms” “in order to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts” to challenge elections.

• The issue of whether non-legislative actors in the state can alter election law consistent with the Constitution remains an open issue. It should not be an open issue. The Constitution is quite clear, but there was a news account at one point reporting that John Roberts had yelled at Alito and Thomas, who had insisted they needed to take these cases. They were just like Bush versus Gore. Roberts was reported to have said, “They’re not like Bush versus Gore. If we do anything, they will burn down our cities.” Which means the impact of what had gone on in the summer of 2020 in Portland and Kenosha and all these other places, had an impact on the Supreme Court declining to take these cases.

• About electronic voting machines? There have been three audits. Antrim County, Michigan, and one of the leading critics of voting machines and their software is a guy named J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan. He testified as the expert in litigation down in Georgia in 2018 saying these machines are not secure. They sealed his testimony and it was only released in June. It just says, “These things are susceptible to fraud by all sorts of bad actors.” One of the things we discover in that Antrim audits is that in fact, the vote logs that are supposed to be there had been deleted for 2020, not 2016, not 2012, they are still there, but 2020 had been deleted.

• They had a convention in Las Vegas, hired a bunch of geeks, computer geeks from around the country, to come to this convention and see who could hack into the machines and alter the vote codes quickest. It took people about 15 minutes. The notion that these things cannot be hacked is laughable. They have to be able to be opened if they need to be repaired. [I heard that from an MIT graduate at the time.] The question is, how to prove that they were hacked in this particular instance when they are destroying the evidence, and that is where we are.

• [W]e subsequently learned that despite [Former Attorney General William] Barr’s public statement that U.S. attorneys could investigate election illegality, anytime somebody did, he called him on the phone and order them not to.

• One of the FBI investigators who was actually getting to the bottom of this got a call that said, “Stand down.”

• You have people out there saying, “Oh, we’re investigating. Everything’s fine,” while behind the scenes ordering people not to do the investigation that would actually get to the bottom of it.

• I call it the uniparty. You can call it the deep state. You can call it the administrative state. You can call it the corrupt state, but it sees the MAGA movement as the biggest threat to its syndicators. It is going to do everything it can to destroy the people who are going to try and publicize what is going on.

(Read Eastman’s full analysis here: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20588/most-secure-election )

As mentioned in this interview, what bothers me about this is how unwilling anyone in the mainstream press is to even talk about the 2020 election. When I hear the term “election denier,” I want to rip my hair out. They loosened regulations on ballots. They changed laws in various states for mail-in voting. It was not a “normal” election.

Just so you know, I was a Biden voter. I was a true blue Democrat. And still, I believed the 2020 election was rigged by unseen hands. I could not identify them; I just knew what was happening was not a “free and fair election.” It had that same eerie feeling I get from watching the lawfare against Trump. Very powerful people manipulating a system they control.

Silencing dissent is key to their entire scheme. So many people are now afraid to speak up because they don’t want to be targeted as “extremists.”

Here is the podcast, which runs around eleven minutes...

And here is the transcript:

Tucker [00:00:00] It's now apparently a criminal offense, a felony in this country, to suggest the 2020 presidential campaign was not on the level. That crime appears to form the basis of one of Donald Trump's pending indictments. He's an election denier. But actually it's worth denying the legitimacy of that election because it was not fair. Critical information was withheld from voters through censorship and yes, by the government. That is a fact. It's also a fact that Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million to control voting in various places around the country and affect the outcome. That's not legitimate. It was also conducted in many places through electronic voting machines, and no country should ever use electronic voting machines because fundamentally they cannot be trusted. Why would you trust it? But then there's the question of outright cheating. Voter fraud. Was there voter fraud? Well, we know there was some. But was it widespread? That is a hard allegation to prove, though of course, many people believe there was widespread fraud. Well, now it turns out we know for a fact that there was. And in fact, it can be proven with a poll. Just ask people, did you personally commit voter fraud? Well, that has just been done. And the answer is a huge percentage of people asked in the poll admitted, yes, I committed voter fraud. It's remarkable. Justin Haskins is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. He joins us now with details. Justin, thanks so much for coming on. If you could just start by giving us the results, the shocking results of this poll, and we'll go from there.

Justin Haskins [00:01:35] Sure. So it was pretty straightforward. We asked people, a series of questions. The first of which is or one of the first questions was, did you vote in, the 2020 election? And did you vote with an absentee ballot? And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn't tell them that they were that we were asking, did you commit voter fraud? We just asked them about various behavior. So, for example, we asked, people, did you vote in a state where you're no longer a legal resident? That's a pretty straightforward question. If you're not a permanent resident of a state, you can't vote there. 17% of people, nearly 1 in 5 said yes, they did do that. We asked people, did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf? That's also illegal. You're not allowed to fill out someone else's ballot. 21% of people said yes to that question. We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf, with or without their permission. We actually put that in the poll question, and 17% of people said yes to that. So all told, it's at least and I say at least 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots involved some kind of fraudulent activity. But we didn't just stop there. We also asked everyone whether they voted via mail in ballot or not. So in-person voting as well. Do you know anyone who personally in your personal life, a friend, a family member, acquaintance? Someone from work? Has anyone ever admitted to you that they did one of these kinds of forms of voter fraud? And 10% and 11%. We asked two different questions on that said yes. People admitted to me that they committed voter fraud. And so when you take 1 in 5, if we just take the 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots could be related to fraud, and you apply that to the numbers of the 2020 election, which included more mail in voting than at any point in the history of the United States of America. What you end up with is potentially 13 million fraudulent mail in ballots. And, to put that in perspective, Donald Trump lost the election in the popular vote by about 7 million ballots. So this is a massive, massive story. If it if this poll is reflective of reality, it is proof that the 2020 election results can't be trusted. ...

20% of 2020 Election Mail-In Ballots Were Fraudulent, Investigation Finds

The shocking discovery was unearthed in a probe by The Heartland Insitute.

The nonprofit think tank worked with Rasmussen to compile data from voters who cast ballots in the 2020 election.

To gather the data, The Heartland Insitute and Rasmussen surveyed voters and asked them to confidentially admit whether they committed some form of fraud during the 2020 election.

The investigation found that one in five mail-in ballots were fraudulent.

As The Heartland Insitute notes, the issue was large enough to sway the election in Democrat President Joe Biden’s favor.

The findings of the probe were broken down during a report from Tucker Carlson.

Carlson spoke with The Heartland Institute’s Justin Haskins.

Here’s the scam.

Religious NGO’s (non-governmental orgs) like Catholic, Lutheran and other types of do-gooders collaborate with the Biden administration to take those migrants - the ones who arrive by plane - into the heartland - and register them.

The details are fascinating.

These NGOs set up addresses that seem like homeless shelters - but aren’t - they are migrant ballot registration collection points. Some are just offices in crappy strip malls.

We know because we drill into the actual address photos. Watch our videos on Omega4America.com.

The migrants show up, get a phone, gift cards worth several grand, get registered to vote.

In Wisconsin, for instance, there is a Form EL-131.

Form EL-131 says if you are homeless, check the box. You can register to vote with no supporting ID.

For you election deniers, and Republican types - read this slowly so you can comprehend this madness.

In a swing state, one of 7 that will determine the next leader of the free world - today - using Form EL-131, anyone with a heartbeat can register to vote with no ID, as long as they check the box that says “homeless.”

Or someone can do it for them! What can go wrong?

This is what the Republican Party allowed to happen - bending over and taking it - with literally zero push back.

As we find ourselves navigating through the twists and turns of another election cycle, it's easy to get lost in the sea of opinions and theories about what could possibly go wrong.

From voting machines to absentee ballots, from lawfare to NGOs, it’s hard to know where to place focus. But here's the truth: this is a 1,000 front war. Every cog in the machinery of our election process has a purpose, and every loophole or flaw can potentially impact the accuracy of the outcome.

So, what do we do about it? At True the Vote, we're advocating for what we like to call the "anti-slacktivism" approach. Sure, posting on social media can raise awareness, but when it comes to ensuring election integrity in 2024, that alone won't cut it.

Between now and Election Day, what can you realistically do to make a difference? Lots. There are concrete actions you can take now and for the next few months that will absolutely have a positive impact.

First, we have to start by rolling up our sleeves and getting involved in the process. Whether it's checking voter rolls using Scan.Check.Protect. or IV3, building your own local election integrity team, training to be an election worker, or developing resources for those involved in various election roles, there's no shortage of ways to contribute.

You can volunteer for tasks like absentee ballot review boards, work at polling places, or participating in logic and accuracy testing. Every role, no matter how big or small, contributes to the smooth functioning of your local elections.

Additionally, we can educate ourselves and others about the election process. Understanding how elections work and the potential vulnerabilities they face empowers us to advocate for meaningful change.

It's also essential to engage with policymakers and advocate for reforms that strengthen election integrity. Whether it's supporting legislation for more secure voting systems, or pushing for increased transparency in citizenship verification, our voices matter. By actively participating in the legislative process, we can shape the future of our elections for the better.

So, as we navigate the remaining weeks of this election cycle, let's commit to more than just talk. Let's roll up our sleeves, get involved, and make our voices heard!

Join Us for Lunch and Learns!
We're thrilled to announce an exciting new addition to our True the Vote lineup: a "Lunch and Learn" series with TTV President, Catherine Engelbrecht! 🎉

Starting this week, Catherine will be hosting live discussions every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 12:00 p.m. central time on our Onward Locals platform. These sessions will dive deep into "all things election integrity" and provide a fantastic opportunity for us to come together, learn, and engage on crucial topics that impact our nation.

Here's what you need to know:

📅 Schedule: Each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday

🕛 Time: 12:00 p.m. Central Time

📍 Where: Catherine’s Onward platform on Locals

🗣️ Host: Catherine Engelbrecht

This is a chance for you to have your voice heard, ask all your most pressing questions, and gain valuable insights. Whether you're passionate about safeguarding our elections or simply curious to learn more, these sessions are for YOU!

Remember, while participation in the "Lunch and Learn" series is exclusive to our Onward Locals platform members, signing up is easy and free! Once you're in, you'll have access to Lunch and Learns, Catherine’s Monday night podcasts, as well as plenty of other exciting content!

So mark your calendars, set your alarms, and prepare to join us for an enriching discussion each week!

See you there!

https://onward.locals.com/

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft interviewed Denver business owner Joe Oltmann on Sunday. Oltmann, the founder of FEC (Faith Education Commerce) United, revealed how he infiltrated Antifa and how during a conversation with Antifa members, he discovered “Eric from Dominion” was allegedly part of the chat during the week of September 27, 2020.

Oltmann told TGP that “Eric” was telling the Antifa members they needed to “keep up the pressure.” When one of the caller’s on a September group call asked, “Who’s Eric?” someone answered, “Eric, he’s the Dominion guy.”

Oltmann said that as the conversation continued, someone asked, “What are we gonna do if F cking Trump wins?” Oltmann paraphrased how Eric (the Dominion guy) responded, “Don’t worry about the election, Trump’s not gonna win. I made f cking sure of that!”

After Pennsylvania House Democrats passed a bill that would allow mail-in ballots to be processed before Election Day, the bill heads to the Republican-led state Senate. A Republican Senate leader expressed concerns to The Federalist that the bill’s provisions would endanger “honest, transparent and secure elections.”

HB 847 was passed along party lines, 102-99, on Wednesday and would permit county election officials to begin opening and counting mail-in ballots and absentee ballots seven days before Election Day. The results would be tabulated on Election Day.

But Chairman of the Senate State Government Committee Sen. Cris Dush said in a statement to The Federalist that the Senate had previously rejected a similar pre-canvassing provision in March due to concerns of “pre-canvassing endangering honest, transparent and secure elections which remain the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic.”

“Just like House Bill 847, this measure also failed to include proven election integrity safeguards such as constitutional Voter ID requirements or proof of citizenship for voter registration,” Dush continued. “With the next major election only months away, I will not commit to advancing any so-called election modification legislation that does not contain proven election integrity safeguards.”