Sunday, January 3, 2021

January 3, 2021 There’s something peculiar about the vandalism at Pelosi’s house By Andrea Widburg

 

American Thinker

There’s something peculiar about the vandalism at Pelosi’s house

An ugly story emerged on New Year’s Day: Vandals had attacked Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco house, leaving behind graffiti on her garage complaining about the stimulus bill, along with a pig’s head in a puddle of red paint. People less credulous than the media, though, noticed that the vandals were kind enough to do their dirty deed without touching the brick facing on Pelosi’s house. These may have been polite vandals, or there may be more here than meets the eye.

A local media outlet, KPIX, reported the story:

The new year brought a disturbing discovery at the San Francisco home of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, where, early Friday morning, vandals spray-painted her house and left a severed pig’s head in front of her garage.

The graffiti says “Cancel rent” and “We want everything” — possibly referencing coronavirus stimulus checks. There was also a severed pig’s head in a pool of red paint left in front of the garage door.


The original story made Antifa look simultaneously sympathetic and really bad. The good part was the “cancel rent” statement. The bad part was the vandalism itself. No civilized people want to be victims of ugly graffiti nor do they want it to happen to others, including San Fran Nan, no matter how vile her politics. Moreover, Pelosi’s position may make the vandalism a federal crime.

At first pass, the photo of the damage is very ugly. The garage door is completely covered with graffiti and the pig’s head is disturbing:


People quickly noticed something peculiar, though, about the graffiti. If you look at the upper right side, where the letter “A” in a circle appears, the circle abruptly cuts off on the far, right side, where it might have touched the bricks:

Unless the spray can coincidentally stopped spraying paint just as it got to the “three o’clock” side of the circle, it looks very much as if the graffiti artist went out of his (or her) way to protect the bricks from getting paint splashed on it, perhaps by taping off the area before spraying. This care is important because it’s easy to repaint a garage door and “notoriously difficult” to get spray paint off of a porous surface such as brick.

Likewise, the encircled “A” on the left side also has a completely vertical stripe on its “nine o’clock” side, which again looks as if someone held up a barrier to ensure that no paint got on the bricks:

When you think of your average Antifa type (these mug shots may be representative), does that Antifa guy or gal strike you as the kind of person who would carefully avoid getting any paint on bricks so as to spare Pelosi the inconvenience of getting the paint off the bricks?

It’s entirely possible that this was an Antifa effort and the person spraying paint had some residual compassion for Pelosi. But it’s also possible that this is a false flag effort. I am not offering any suggestions as to who might have raised this false flag. I note only what others have pointed out before: Something’s peculiar here. 

IMAGE: Vandalism on Nancy Pelosi’s garage. Twitter screengrab.




January 3, 2021 Proof of fraud may lie in vanishing Trump votes By Andrea Widburg

 

American Thinker

Proof of fraud may lie in vanishing Trump votes

After watching footage from the Georgia hearings, Scott Adams, who always approaches information with a healthy degree of cynicism and with his BS meter set on high, actually got quite excited. According to him, if you ignore all the noise about internet connections, pallets of ballots, and counting shutdowns in the disputed states, there is one pivotally important piece of information: Votes were subtracted from Trump. If that happens, it inevitably means someone was playing with the vote counts.

On Wednesday, I wrote about some of the more interesting information that emerged from the Georgia hearing. This included eyewitness testimony about ballots being shredded and testimony explaining the shocking import of a Georgia official stating that 106,000 ballots, out of 113,130 ballots scanned, were manually adjudicated. That meant that 106,000 ballots were destroyed and replaced with whatever the adjudicators wanted.

The same witnesses who introduced this evidence about the adjudicated ballots were also responsible for evidence showing that the computers, instead of just adding votes as they came in for each candidate, were stripping votes from Trump. Sometimes the votes went to Biden; sometimes the votes just vanished. I’ve cued up the video to start with the testimony from the Data Integrity Group, but if that doesn’t work, go to 4:38:25:



I highly recommend watching all the testimony from the Data Integrity Group because it discusses the completely bizarre anomalies in the hard data. If you don’t have the time, fast forward to 4:47:45. There, you’ll see the data showing that Trump lost votes. As the video narration says, votes should only be incremental. As votes come in, they get added, not subtracted. (Also, if you prefer to read a summary, Epoch Times has a good one.)

It was this data that got Scott Adams all fired up:

Adams explains that the engineers got involved in studying the data and that engineers tend to cut through the smoke and emotion and get to the heart of the matter. And for Adams those vanishing votes are the heart of the matter:

Here’s what they did -- and you haven’t seen it yet but when I describe it, you’re actually going to feel something physically, so get ready for this. You’re going to feel this physically. They simplified. They simplified here. They brought it down to one question. Here’s the question: Is there ever a reason that the cumulative vote count could turn negative under normal non-hacked conditions? Because it did so, that’s the part that I think they’ll be able to show with no doubt about it.

[snip]

You can see that the total the cumulative total went negative for Trump. [snip] By the way, so I’m not saying I saw it. This is the claim that exactly the same amount -- not approximately but exactly the same number -- that immediately went to Biden at the same time.

[snip]

Now here’s the important part: They took the whole ball of allegations . . . down to one verifiable question. They did that. That’s your Kraken. Your Kraken isn’t big. Your Kraken is that simplification.

Adams’s point is a good one. While there’s every reason to believe that Biden could not possibly have won as he did, there are so many theories about how Biden got more votes than Trump did: Cemetery votes, imaginary voters, ballots repeatedly fed through scanners, adjudicated votes, votes shuttled through Germany and Rome, weighted votes, etc.

I’m certain all those theories are correct, but many are difficult to prove. Some are hard to prove because the Democrats refuse to release or have destroyed (and are still destroying) the evidence. Others are hard to prove because they leave no evidence (as with the adjudications that destroy the original ballots).

But vote subtraction is what is: If we accept that the Data Integrity Project people looked at the correct data and made the correct analyses, Trump lost votes. That’s impossible. Voters don’t cast negative votes; they cast only positive votes.

The only way to lose votes is if someone manually entered the computer databases and took them away from him. There’s your fraud, and it was fraud in numbers more than sufficient to ensure a “Biden victory” in Georgia. QED.

It’s becoming apparent that Trump, aware of the fact that the courts are cowards and the media will hide from Americans all evidence of election fraud, is planning to use the January 6 Congressional assembly to count Electoral College votes as his platform to make his case. Let’s hope that this irrefutable evidence of fraud is part of the case he makes.

IMAGE: Trump’s lost votes. YouTube screengrab.




January 3, 2021 A former Army Intelligence Captain shares a boatload of election oddities By Carol Brown

 

American Thinker

A former Army Intelligence Captain shares a boatload of election oddities



On New Year’s Day, an interview on Pure Social TV (lots of new media cropping up these days) featured Seth Keshel, former Army Intelligence Captain. It focused on numerous election patterns that bucked historical trends.

Keshel is smart, serious, detail oriented, and gets right to the heart of things. He also uses simple graphics to support his points.

YouTube video (cropped)


General Michael Flynn tweeted out a link to the video yesterday stating:

Exceptional presentation by a statistical genius on the election outcome @SKeshel offers PureTalk w/ host @RealDougWade. In 21 Minutes, you’ll understand why @realDonaldTrump won the election.

About a month ago Keshel was interviewed on OAN. Meanwhile, it appears that he only just opened a Twitter account and is overwhelmed with followers.

A gifted warrior has burst onto the scene.

The video is 20 minutes long and well worth watching and sharing.

 




January 3, 2021 If the Supremes don't act soon, John Roberts will end up the scapegoat By Douglas Herz

 

American Thinker

If the Supremes don't act soon, John Roberts will end up the scapegoat


The numbers simply do not add up.  In the 2000 general election, Al Gore had two chances to make his case before the Supreme Court for voter fraud in one state — Florida — on the flimsiest of evidence (hanging chads and the like).  In 2020, Donald Trump has had zero chances to argue his several cases for voter fraud in multiple states via unprecedented serious violations of election law: lax law enforcement, compromised voting machines, and multiple ballot-counting deceits.  So the Democrats get two chances with the Supremes to overturn the vote in a single state with a single example of possible fraud, while Republicans get no chances in many states with multiple fraud mechanisms.  It doesn't add up.  In fact, it stinks to high heaven.  The double-standard in the Democrats' favor is breathtakingly hideous.

The Supreme Court had better get off their useless Trump-hating behinds and start ruling on general election fraud ASAP, or there will be hell to pay. 

The chief justice is in dire peril of ruining the reputation of his Court if he continues to hide while our Constitution is being trampled by corrupt Democrats.  He had better act, and soon.  If he does nothing, the American people will believe he is a voter fraud enabler.  Without a fair hearing for Republicans, he will be the first to be blamed for the failure of the Trump team to get judicial traction.

John Roberts ought to ponder what that means.





Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *