Democrats and Republicans: You are being played
Democrats and Republicans: You are being played
This article showcases the work of Josh Mitteldorf around election integrity. But first ...
I live in a deeply blue area of Massachusetts, a state that is blue to begin with. Last week I took up a conversation with a stranger at a local restaurant. She was a retired school teacher and registered Democrat. I asked her what she thought of the assassination attempt on former President Trump last month.
“It was staged. That was obviously ketchup on his ear and hands!”
When I reminded her that audience members were wounded by real bullets (one of them mortally) she said:
“Too bad the guy missed.”
She was looking forward to the upcoming election now that Harris was leading the ticket. When I asked her if she thought it was fair that VP Harris did not have to lift a finger to earn her spot as the Democratic nominee, she appeared confused. I reminded her that the President refused to engage in any primary debates a year ago and now he was conveniently abdicating a month before the national convention.
“Why have a primary when nobody else was running?”, she asked. I reminded her that RFK Jr. wanted to debate the incumbent.
“Kennedy? I watched a video of him once. Had to turn it off. I can’t stand his voice.”
Given Biden’s disastrous performance on the debate stage in June I asked her if she thought he would have been able to defeat a challenger, even one with spasmodic dysphonia one year ago.
“It doesn’t matter. We have to make sure the next president is NOT Trump. He and his supporters are deplorable. Trump is a threat to Democracy!”
Was she aware of the allegations brought against the Biden administration with regard to coercing social media platforms to censor content that was critical of their handling of the pandemic (Murthy vs Missouri)?
Was she aware of the codification of mis/mal and disinformation as acts of domestic terrorism by the DHS under the current administration?
Did she believe that it was sensible to continue to support a war against a nuclear superpower in Ukraine using conventional weapons? Was she aware that the current administration was involved with destroying the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany to incentivize the most powerful country in the E.U. to supporting us in this war?
She wasn’t. It didn’t matter to her.
Trump is particularly skilled at getting under the skin of Democratic voters, especially when liberal leaning media focusses on his bombastic public statements, braggadocio and middle-school name calling. We have become a deeply divided country.
But in their increasingly desperate efforts to restore decorum and statesmanship to the “highest office in the land”, have never-Trumpers sacrificed their own superior temperament? I came across this interesting sociological experiment while contemplating this question:
What happens when you wear the wrong T shirt at a political event
It’s a video of what happened when a young man wearing a Trump T-shirt goes to a Democratic rally and then what happens when he wears a Biden T-shirt at a Trump event. Admittedly when the subject entered a Trump event with a Biden T-shirt he hinted that his support of the POTUS was disingenuous. However the acrimony of never-Trumpers towards Trump supporters was unmistakable and in my own experience, very real and probably widespread.
And so, we march forward to November 5 when all will get resolved peacefully and fairly.
Or so we think.
The History of Election Fraud in the United States
My friend and collaborator on other topics, Josh Mitteldorf, PhD is an astrophysicist, author, college level instructor, musician and, it so happens, a long-time researcher into election fraud/integrity.
He recently gave a talk at the Brownstone Supper Club in Philadelphia and shared his commentary in this recent article on his own substack:
It’s a long but fascinating summary of the history of election interference that goes back to the 19th century in the US and highlights his own foray into the subject beginning in 2004. I highly recommend reading it, re-reading it and then reading the earlier articles he has written on the topic which are also linked.
Mitteldorf introduced the subject:
“The story I bring to you this evening starts with the introduction of electronic voting in 2002. After that, Republicans started manipulating elections from a distance, using software, and the Democrats didn’t do anything to stop or even to expose them. It’s an ultimate irony that Trump is the one who tried to bring charges of election theft to the American public, and the election integrity field carries the stigma of Trump’s reputation. Just as anyone who asks for evidence of vaccine safety is “antivax” and anyone who questions the CO2 narrative is a “climate denier”, and anyone who questions the narrow interpretation of Darwin is a “science denier” — we have now become “election deniers”.”
Josh says a lot in his opening salvo against the sensible elements of our society. How does dismissing concerns around vaccines make them safer? Why would raising questions about election integrity undermine the democratic process? Such an attitude is only logical if the intent is to hide vaccine harm and perpetuate election fraud.
How can a small group of citizens expose corruption in our election process if votes are tabulated behind closed doors or “in the pitch black of cyberspace”? You’re going to have to read to find out and decide for yourself.
Here are some of the more intriguing arguments…
Evidence points to interference by the GOP but liberal media won’t report it
Exit polls are the public’s best guardian against election fraud. Interestingly, the majority of official vote counts in the 2004 Bush vs. Kerry election favored the Republican candidate compared to what initial exit polls predicted. The shift away from the exit poll results towards the GOP was 2.7%. Given the large number of contests it would have been astronomically unlikely this would have happened by chance alone.
Mitteldorf reminds us that that election hinged on the outcome of the contest in Ohio where Kerry was ahead by 100,000 votes at midnight. Then, the Ohio Secretary of State’s computer went down for two hours. When it came back on line, Bush was ahead by 100,000. In this case, the shift away from exit polls was a whopping 11%.
Mitteldorf and collaborators presented the evidence in a letter to the New York Times a few days later. To their shock and dismay, the Times turned around and published a hit piece on their research without ever interviewing the key contributors to their findings. He recounts:
“This was a first for me…the first time in my life that I had personal evidence that the Times had falsified a news report. And falsified on behalf of Republicans. WtF? Why would the Times be going against common sense, against statistics, against some if its own columnists to declare that the election was honest? In a piece that could only favor Republicans and one of the most reviled presidents in memory?”
The point here is that you don’t have to trust the analysis of Mitteldorf et al to see that the NYTimes was more interested in hiding evidence of election fraud than exposing it in the interest of preserving our democratic process. For me, this is powerful evidence that we have a Uniparty which is determined to offer us the illusion of choice.
Fox News coughs up $787,000,000 to avoid exposing election fraud in court
The NYTimes is not alone is hiding the truth about election manipulation. You may recall that last year Tucker Carlson, Fox’s most popular face, was sent on his way because, we were told, he made false claims about voting irregularities on his show.
Please read this article from Mitteldorf which exposes the facts around this matter:
Carlson had the best ratings of any show host on legacy media when he was asked to leave in the spring of 2023. Carlson had always been given a lot of latitude by his editors. He crossed political barriers and gave voice to once Democratic rising star Tulsi Gabbard, and “fringy” but lifelong Dem Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He also was willing to attack the immensely powerful Pharmaceutical cartel in the midst of a pandemic. Yet his employment with Fox remained unthreatened.
Interestingly, it was his coverage of former President Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Juliani who claimed that he had unequivocal evidence of election fraud in the 2020 contest against Biden which put Carlson in hot water with his employer.
It was this story which prompted voting machine manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems to file a defamation law suit against Fox News for suggesting that their product was defective. The judge offered a partial summary judgement in the case in favor of Dominion. The judgement was for over 3/4 of a billion dollars, forty-five times the peak annual revenue of this private company.
Beyond the inordinately enormous judgement against the media company was the fact that Fox declined to defend itself in court where the burden would have fallen upon the plaintiff, Dominion, to prove that their machines were not defective and impenetrable to hacking. As Mitteldorf argues, this would have been an impossible task for Dominion.
Why would Fox roll over and pay such a sum? Couldn’t they afford a good lawyer?
The most reasonable answer is that if Dominion couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their voting machines were reliable, the results of the 2020 election would be in question and more importantly, weaknesses in our election process would be exposed.
The message was clear: it doesn’t matter if you are the Times or Fox News, you may never ask questions about election integrity, or else. The real question is, who is sending this message?
Whoever it is, they have the power to tell the NYTimes what “news is fit to print” and demand that Fox News pay hundreds of millions of dollars for allowing a President’s attorney to comment on their airwaves.
I was sitting in a cottage off the coast of Maine last year with some old, dear friends. They are deeply entrenched in the NYT, and obviously take their marching orders from The Paper of Record. I used to be aligned with them—we were anti-war, pro-democracy, believed in the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution… One friend said to the group, “if you had a magic bullet that would kill one person, who would it be?” “Putin” was one knee-jerk response, “DeSantis” another. I was dumbstruck. One might disagree with DeSantis’ policies, but to want him dead? This is what the “Liberal Left” has become—a bunch of cowards who want a magic bullet to careen around killing everyone they disagree with, while they hide behind the Strong Man du jour. I am still anti-war, and pro-Constitution. The only thing that’s changed in my life are the monikers people use to identify themselves.
Come to Greece. A lot more people are aware of the almost complete absurdity of the american presidential theatre. Not as deluded by the mind control, the blinding myth of american exceptionalism and other psychological operations that have been relentlessly deployed on americans for the last sixty or more years. For example, most people that I randomly discuss politics with are well aware that JFK's death was a coup, that the official story of 9/11 is a scam, etc. Most people here are incredulous what a joke America has become: The land of the deaf, dumb, and blind. But other than that, how was the meal?