How the Democrats Plan to Steal the Election
Biden and Trump have clinched the nominations of their parties for
President. Everybody is gearing up for a battle between them for the
election in November. It’s obvious that Biden is “cognitively impaired.”
In blunter language, “brain-dead”. Partisans of Trump are gearing up
for a decisive victory. But what if this battle is a sham? What if
Biden’s elite gang of neo-con controllers won’t let Biden lose?
How can they stop him from losing? Simple. If it looks like he’s
losing, the elite forces will create enough fake ballots to ensure
victory. Our corrupt courts won’t stop them. They have done this before,
and they will do it again, if they have to.
Failla, Jimmy
Best Price: $17.01
Buy New $19.68
(as of 05:32 UTC - Details)
I said the Democrats have done this before. The great Dr. Ron Paul
explains one way they did this in 2020. The elite covered up a scandal
that could have wrecked Biden’s chances:
“Move over Watergate. On or around Oct. 17, 2020, then-senior Biden
campaign official Antony Blinken called up former acting CIA director
Mike Morell to ask a favor: he needed high-ranking former US
intelligence community officials to lie to the American people to save
Biden’s lagging campaign from a massive brewing scandal.
The problem was that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had abandoned his
laptop at a repair shop and the explosive contents of the computer were
leaking out. The details of the Biden family’s apparent corruption and
the debauchery of the former vice-president’s son were being reported by
the New York Post, and with the election less than a month away, the
Biden campaign needed to kill the story.
So, according to newly-released transcripts of Morell’s testimony
before the House judiciary Committee, Blinken “triggered” Morell to put
together a letter for some 50 senior intelligence officials to sign –
using their high-level government titles – to claim that the laptop
story “had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
In short, at the Biden campaign’s direction Morell launched a covert
operation against the American people to undermine the integrity of the
2020 election. A letter signed by dozens of the highest-ranking former
CIA, DIA, and NSA officials would surely carry enough weight to bury the
Biden laptop story. It worked. Social media outlets prevented any
reporting on the laptop from being posted and the mainstream media could
easily ignore the story as it was merely “Russian propaganda.”
Asked recently by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) why
he agreed to draft the false sign-on letter, Morell testified that he
wanted to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the
election.” Morell also likely expected to be named by President Biden to
head up the CIA when it came time to call in favors.
The Democrats and the mainstream media have relentlessly pushed the
lie that the ruckus inside the US Capitol on Jan. 6th 2021 was a move by
President Trump to overthrow the election results. Hundreds of
“trespassers” were arrested and held in solitary confinement without
trial to bolster the false narrative that a conspiracy to steal the
election was taking place.
It turns out that there really was a conspiracy to steal the
election, but it was opposite of what was reported. Just as the Steele
Dossier was a Democratic Party covert action to plant the lie that the
Russians were pulling strings for Trump, the “Russian disinformation
campaign” letter was a lie to deflect scrutiny of the Biden family’s
possible corruption in the final days of the campaign.
Did the Biden campaign’s disinformation campaign help rig the
election in his favor? Polls suggest that Biden would not have been
elected had the American electorate been informed about what was on
Hunter Biden’s laptop. So yes, they cheated in the election.
The Democrats and the mainstream media are still at it, however. Now
they are trying to kill the story of how they killed the story of the
Biden laptop. This is a scandal that would once upon a time have ended
in resignation, impeachment, and/or plenty of jail time. If they
successfully bury this story, I hate to say it but there is no more rule
of law in what has become the American banana republic.” See here.
But the main way the lection can be rigged is by fraudulent “voting.”
It’s much easier to do this with digital scanning of votes than with
old-fashioned ballot boxes.
Dr. Naomi Wolf explains how electronic voting machines make it easier to steal elections:
“People could steal elections in this ‘analog’ technology of paper
and locked ballot boxes, of course, by destroying or hiding votes, or by
bribing voters, a la Tammany Hall, or by other forms of wrongdoing, so
security and chain of custody, as well as anti-corruption scrutiny, were
always needed in guaranteeing accurate election counts. But there was
no reason, with analog physical processing of votes, to query the
tradition of the secret ballot.
Before the digital scanning of votes, you could not hack a wooden
ballot box; and you could not set an algorithm to misread a pile of
paper ballots. So, at the end of the day, one way or another, you were
counting physical documents.
Those days are gone, obviously, and in many districts there are digital systems reading ballots.” See here.
This isn’t the first time the Left has stolen an election. It
happened in the 2020 presidential election too. Ron Unz offers his usual
cogent analysis:
“There does seem to be considerable circumstantial evidence of
widespread ballot fraud by Democratic Party forces, hardly surprising
given the apocalyptic manner in which so many of their leaders had
characterized the threat of a Trump reelection. After all, if they
sincerely believed that a Trump victory would be catastrophic for
America why would they not use every possible means, fair and foul
alike, to save our country from that dire fate?
In particular, several of the major swing-states contain large
cities—Detroit, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Atlanta—that are both
totally controlled by the Democratic Party and also notoriously corrupt,
and various eye-witnesses have suggested that the huge anti-Trump
margins they provided may have been heavily ‘padded’ to ensure the
candidate’s defeat.” See here.
In a program aired right after Biden’s pitiful State of the Union
speech, the great Tucker Carlson pointed out that Biden’s “Justice”
Department has already confessed that it plans to rig the election. It
will do this by banning voter ID laws as “racist.” This permits an
unlimited number of fake votes:
“If Joe Biden is so good at politics, why is he losing to Donald
Trump, who the rest of us were assured was a retarded racist who no
normal person would vote for? But now Joe Biden is getting stomped by
Donald Trump, but he’s also at the same time good at politics? Right.
Again, they can’t win, but they’re not giving up. So what does that
tell you? Well, they’re going to steal the election. We know they’re
going to steal the election because they’re now saying so out loud. Here
is the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement
officer of this country in Selma, Alabama, just the other day.
[Now Carlson quotes the Attorney General, Merrick Garland:]
“The right to vote is still under attack, and that is why the Justice
Department is fighting back. That is why one of the first things I did
when I came into office was to double the size of the voting section of
the Civil Rights Division. That is why we are challenging efforts by
states and jurisdictions to implement discriminatory, burdensome, and
unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot, including those
related to mail-in voting, the use of drop boxes and voter ID
requirements. That is why we are working to block the adoption of
discriminatory redistricting plans that dilute the vote of Black voters
and other voters of color.
[Carlson then comments on Garland:]
“Did you catch that? Of course, you’re a racist. That’s always the
takeaway. But consider the details of what the Attorney General of the
United States just said. Mail-in balloting, drop boxes, voter ID
requirements. The chief law enforcement officer of the United States
Government is telling you that it’s immoral, in fact racist, in fact
illegal to ask people for their IDs when they vote to verify they are
who they say they are. What is that? Well, no one ever talks about this,
but the justification for it is that somehow people of color, Black
people, don’t have state-issued IDs. Somehow they’re living in a country
where you can do virtually nothing without proving your identity with a
government-issued ID without government-issued IDs. They can’t fly on
planes, they can’t have checking accounts, they can’t have any
interaction with the government, state, local, or federal. They can’t
stay in hotels. They can’t have credit cards. Because someone without a
state-issued ID can’t do any of those things.
But what’s so interesting is these same people, very much including
the Attorney General and the administration he serves, is working to
eliminate cash, to make this a cashless society. Have you been to a
stadium event recently? No cash accepted. You have to have a credit
card. In order to get a credit card you need a state-issued ID, and
somehow that’s not racist. But it is racist to ask people to prove their
identity when they choose the next President of the United States. That
doesn’t make any sense at all. That’s a lie. It’s an easily provable
lie, and anyone telling that lie is advocating for mass voter fraud,
which the Attorney General is. There’s no other way to read it. So you
should know that. You live in a country where the Attorney General is
abetting, in fact calling for voter fraud, and that’s the only chance
they have to get their guy re-elected.” See here.
Because of absentee ballots, the voting can be spread out over a long
period of time. This makes voting fraud much easier. Mollie Hemingway
has done a lot of research on this topic:
“In the 2020 presidential election, for the first time ever, partisan
groups were allowed—on a widespread basis—to cross the bright red line
separating government officials who administer elections from political
operatives who work to win them. It is important to understand how this
happened in order to prevent it in the future.
Months after the election, Time magazine published a
triumphant story of how the election was won by “a well-funded cabal of
powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working
together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and
laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of
information.” Written by Molly Ball, a journalist with close ties to
Democratic leaders, it told a cheerful story of a “conspiracy unfolding
behind the scenes,” the “result of an informal alliance between
left-wing activists and business titans.”
A major part of this “conspiracy” to “save the 2020 election” was to
use COVID as a pretext to maximize absentee and early voting. This
effort was enormously successful. Nearly half of voters ended up voting
by mail, and another quarter voted early. It was, Ball wrote,
“practically a revolution in how people vote.” Another major part was to
raise an army of progressive activists to administer the election at
the ground level. Here, one billionaire in particular took a leading
role: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
Zuckerberg’s help to Democrats is well known when it comes to
censoring their political opponents in the name of preventing
“misinformation.” Less well known is the fact that he directly funded
liberal groups running partisan get-out-the-vote operations. In fact, he
helped those groups infiltrate election offices in key swing states by
doling out large grants to crucial districts.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an organization led by Zuckerberg’s
wife Priscilla, gave more than $400 million to nonprofit groups involved
in “securing” the 2020 election. Most of those funds—colloquially
called “Zuckerbucks”—were funneled through the Center for Tech and Civic
Life (CTCL), a voter outreach organization founded by Tiana
Epps-Johnson, Whitney May, and Donny Bridges. All three had previously
worked on activism relating to election rules for the New Organizing
Institute, once described by The Washington Post as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.”
Flush with $350 million in Zuckerbucks, the CTCL proceeded to
disburse large grants to election officials and local governments across
the country. These disbursements were billed publicly as “COVID-19
response grants,” ostensibly to help municipalities acquire protective
gear for poll workers or otherwise help protect election officials and
volunteers against the virus. In practice, relatively little money was
spent for this. Here, as in other cases, COVID simply provided cover.
According to the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA),
Georgia received more than $31 million in Zuckerbucks, one of the
highest amounts in the country. The three Georgia counties that received
the most money spent only 1.3 percent of it on personal protective
equipment. The rest was spent on salaries, laptops, vehicle rentals,
attorney fees for public records requests, mail-in balloting, and other
measures that allowed elections offices to hire activists to work the
election. Not all Georgia counties received CTCL funding. And of those
that did, Trump-voting counties received an average of $1.91 per
registered voter, compared to $7.13 per registered voter in Biden-voting
counties.
The FGA looked at this funding another way, too. Trump won Georgia by
more than five points in 2016. He lost it by three-tenths of a point in
2020. On average, as a share of the two-party vote, most counties moved
Democratic by less than one percentage point in that time. Counties
that didn’t receive Zuckerbucks showed hardly any movement, but counties
that did moved an average of 2.3 percentage points Democratic. In
counties that did not receive Zuckerbucks, “roughly half saw an increase
in Democrat votes that offset the increase in Republican votes, while
roughly half saw the opposite trend.” In counties that did receive
Zuckerbucks, by contrast, three quarters “saw a significant uptick in
Democrat votes that offset any upward change in Republican votes,”
including highly populated Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb, and DeKalb counties.
Of all the 2020 battleground states, it is probably in Wisconsin
where the most has been brought to light about how Zuckerbucks worked.
CTCL distributed $6.3 million to the Wisconsin cities of Racine,
Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, and Kenosha—purportedly to ensure that
voting could take place “in accordance with prevailing [anti-COVID]
public health requirements.”
Wisconsin law says voting is a right, but that “voting by absentee
ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or
abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may
prefer not to participate in an election.” Wisconsin law also says that
elections are to be run by clerks or other government officials. But the
five cities that received Zuckerbucks outsourced much of their election
operation to private liberal groups, in one case so extensively that a
sidelined government official quit in frustration.
This was by design. Cities that received grants were not allowed to
use the money to fund outside help unless CTCL specifically approved
their plans in writing. CTCL kept tight control of how money was spent,
and it had an abundance of “partners” to help with anything the cities
needed.
Some government officials were willing to do whatever CTCL
recommended. “As far as I’m concerned I am taking all of my cues from
CTCL and work with those you recommend,” Celestine Jeffreys, the chief
of staff to Democratic Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich, wrote in an email.
CTCL not only had plenty of recommendations, but made available a
“network of current and former election administrators and election
experts” to scale up “your vote by mail processes” and “ensure forms,
envelopes, and other materials are understood and completed correctly by
voters.”
Power the Polls, a liberal group recruiting poll workers, promised to
help with ballot curing. The liberal Mikva Challenge worked to recruit
high school-age poll workers. And the left-wing Brennan Center offered
help with “election integrity,” including “post-election audits” and
“cybersecurity.”
The Center for Civic Design, an election administration policy
organization that frequently partners with groups such as liberal
billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund, designed absentee ballots
and voting instructions, often working directly with an election
commission to design envelopes and create advertising and targeting
campaigns. The Elections Group, also linked to the Democracy Fund,
provided technical assistance in handling drop boxes and conducted voter
outreach. The communications director for the Center for Secure and
Modern Elections, an organization that advocates sweeping changes to the
elections process, ran a conference call to help Green Bay develop
Spanish-language radio ads and geofencing to target voters in a
predefined area.
Digital Response, a nonprofit launched in 2020, offered to “bring
voters an updated elections website,” “run a website health check,” “set
up communications channels,” “bring poll worker application and
management online,” “track and respond to polling location wait times,”
“set up voter support and email response tools,” “bring vote-by-mail
applications online,” “process incoming [vote-by-mail] applications,”
and help with “ballot curing process tooling and voter notification.”
The National Vote at Home Institute was presented as a “technical
assistance partner” that could “support outreach around absentee
voting,” provide and oversee voting machines, consult on methods to cure
absentee ballots, and even assume the duty of curing ballots.
A few weeks after the five Wisconsin cities received their grants,
CTCL emailed Claire Woodall-Vogg, the executive director of the
Milwaukee Election Commission, to offer “an experienced elections
staffer that could potentially embed with your staff in Milwaukee in a
matter of days.” The staffer leading Wisconsin’s portion of the National
Vote at Home Institute was an out-of-state Democratic activist named
Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein. As soon as he met with Woodall-Vogg, he
asked for contacts in other cities and at the Wisconsin Elections
Commission.
Spitzer-Rubenstein would eventually take over much of Green Bay’s
election planning from the official charged with running the election,
Green Bay Clerk Kris Teske. This made Teske so unhappy that she took
Family and Medical Leave prior to the election and quit shortly
thereafter.
Emails from Spitzer-Rubenstein show the extent to which he was
managing the election process. To one government official he wrote, “By
Monday, I’ll have our edits on the absentee voting instructions. We’re
pushing Quickbase to get their system up and running and I’ll keep you
updated. I’ll revise the planning tool to accurately reflect the
process. I’ll create a flowchart for the vote-by-mail processing that we
will be able to share with both inspectors and also observers.”
Once early voting started, Woodall-Vogg would provide
Spitzer-Rubenstein with daily updates on the numbers of absentee ballots
returned and still outstanding in each ward—prized information for a
political operative.
Amazingly, Spitzer-Rubenstein even asked for direct access to the
Milwaukee Election Commission’s voter database: “Would you or someone
else on your team be able to do a screen-share so we can see the process
for an export?” he wrote. “Do you know if WisVote has an [application
programming interface] or anything similar so that it can connect with
other software apps? That would be the holy grail.” Even for
Woodall-Vogg, that was too much. “While I completely understand and
appreciate the assistance that is trying to be provided,” she replied,
“I am definitely not comfortable having a non-staff member involved in
the function of our voter database, much less recording it.”
When these emails were released in 2021, they stunned Wisconsin
observers. “What exactly was the National Vote at Home Institute doing
with its daily reports? Was it making sure that people were actually
voting from home by going door-to-door to collect ballots from voters
who had not yet turned theirs in? Was this data sharing a condition of
the CTCL grant? And who was really running Milwaukee’s election?” asked
Dan O’Donnell, whose election analysis appeared at Wisconsin’s
conservative MacIver Institute.
Kris Teske, the sidelined Green Bay city clerk—in whose office
Wisconsin law actually places the responsibility to conduct
elections—had of course seen what was happening early on. “I just don’t
know where the Clerk’s Office fits in anymore,” she wrote in early July.
By August, she was worried about legal exposure: “I don’t understand
how people who don’t have the knowledge of the process can tell us how
to manage the election,” she wrote on August 28.
Schweizer, Peter
Best Price: $3.51
Buy New $11.26
(as of 12:00 UTC - Details)
Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich simply handed over Teske’s authority to
agents from outside groups and gave them leadership roles in collecting
absentee ballots, fixing ballots that would otherwise be voided for
failure to follow the law, and even supervising the counting of ballots.
“The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the
ballot curing process. Please let them know when you’re available,”
Genrich’s chief of staff told Teske.
Spitzer-Rubenstein explained that the National Vote at Home Institute
had done the same for other cities in Wisconsin. “We have a process map
that we’ve worked out with Milwaukee for their process. We can also
adapt the letter we’re sending out with rejected absentee ballots along
with a call script alerting voters. (We can also get people to make the
calls, too, so you don’t need to worry about it.)”
Other emails show that Spitzer-Rubenstein had keys to the central
counting facility and access to all the machines before election night.
His name was on contracts with the hotel hosting the ballot counting.
Sandy Juno, who was clerk of Brown County, where Green Bay is
located, later testified about the problems in a legislative hearing.
“He was advising them on things. He was touching the ballots. He had
access to see how the votes were counted,” Juno said of
Spitzer-Rubenstein. Others testified that he was giving orders to poll
workers and seemed to be the person running the election night count
operation.
“I would really like to think that when we talk about security of
elections, we’re talking about more than just the security of the
internet,” Juno said. “You know, it has to be security of the physical
location, where you’re not giving a third party keys to where you have
your election equipment.”
Juno noted that there were irregularities in the counting, too, with
no consistency between the various tables. Some had absentee ballots
face-up, so anyone could see how they were marked. Poll workers were
seen reviewing ballots not just to see that they’d been appropriately
checked by the clerk, but “reviewing how they were marked.” And poll
workers fixing ballots used the same color pens as the ones ballots had
been filled out in, contrary to established procedures designed to make
sure observers could differentiate between voters’ marks and poll
workers’ marks.
The
plan by Democratic strategists to bring activist groups into election
offices worked in part because no legislature had ever imagined that a
nonprofit could take over so many election offices so easily. “If it can
happen to Green Bay, Wisconsin, sweet little old Green Bay, Wisconsin,
these people can coordinate any place,” said Janel Brandtjen, a state
representative in Wisconsin.
She was right. What happened in Green Bay happened in Democrat-run
cities and counties across the country. Four hundred million Zuckerbucks
were distributed with strings attached. Officials were required to work
with “partner organizations” to massively expand mail-in voting and
staff their election operations with partisan activists. The plan was
genius. And because no one ever imagined that the election system could
be privatized in this way, there were no laws to prevent it.
Such laws should now be a priority.” See here.
Let’s do everything we can to publicize the steal. That way, we have a chance to prevent it.
The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/03/lew-rockwell/how-the-democrats-plan-to-steal-the-election/
