PP NewsBrief: 2021-05-24

We need to begin to reclaim control over the institutions which have such oversized roles in our lives. As you read this people work tirelessly to see to it that you are dumb and docile. Let's stop them.

========

Cases of heart inflammation among young people who received Covid-19 vaccine being investigated by CDC

"There have been “relatively few” cases of young people developing heart symptoms following their inoculations, but the CDC is requesting that “information about this potential adverse event” be provided to clinicians to “enhance early recognition and appropriate management of persons who develop myocarditis symptoms.”

Myocarditis is an inflammation in the heart muscle. The few dozen cases so far have involved teenagers and young adults, mostly males, who have received either the Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

...

In April, Israel’s Health Ministry also announced it was looking into a handful of cases of heart inflammation, possibly linked to the Pfizer vaccine. The cases reported had been from people aged 30 or below.

“Adverse events are regularly and thoroughly reviewed and we have not observed a higher rate of myocarditis than what would be expected in the general population. A causal link to the vaccine has not been established,” Pfizer said at the time in a statement."

========

Canada Justice Minister pushes for censorship bill and limited freedoms

"Canada’s proposed Bill C-10, which many are referring to as the internet censorship bill, recently hit a snag when the Committee on Canadian Heritage put the process of its adoption on ice pending clarification of the bill’s intent and scope.

...

One of those called on to provide additional information was Canada’s Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti, who appeared before the committee to speak about the constitutionality of Charter of Rights and Freedoms statements found in bills.

Rather than claim that Bill C-10 doesn’t limit Canadians’ rights and freedoms, the minister went down the route of explaining how such legislative outcomes can be justified and considered legitimate.

Lametti believes that parliament can affect – i.e., limit, Charter Rights and Freedoms in the process of legislation if it is determined that these limitations are “in the broader public interest.”

“This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter are not absolute but subject to reasonable limits, so long as those limits can be demonstrably justified,” he told the committee.

When a member of the committee asked for an example of when it would be justified to limit freedom of expression, the attorney general and justice minister said he was not there to give legal advice and considered the question hypothetical and potentially “very risky for him.”

...

The draft law’s provisions would give the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) the right to regulate and censor content posted online, such as on YouTube. But as Canadian press reports, three former CRTC commissioners, former vice-chair Peter Menzies included, and a federal judge have all spoken out against the bill as potentially having “unintended consequences” where it concerns the free and open internet in their country."

========

Canada’s “private” COVID Alert app wasn’t so private after all

"...reports say that the government’s App Advisory Council is exploring ways to continue using it other than as a public healthcare tool – as something that would “also support Canadians and businesses in our economic, social and mental health recovery and restoration.”

Many privacy advocates have been warning ever since new apps and policies to track people and collect their data started appearing as a necessary way to protect health, that they would not just go away once the epidemic is over, or once they are proven ineffective in performing that task, as has been the case in a number of countries.

In Canada, the Council said they are consulting with Statistics Canada about what valuable data could be collected. According to reports, it has not been disclosed what type of data is collected from Canadians who have downloaded the app.

...

In pushing for the app’s adoption last year, Trudeau said it was collecting data anonymously, but would also not rule out the possibility of implementing location tracking technology in an emergency. Last year, Toronto Mayor John Tory revealed this city was already doing that to track gatherings of people, thanks to phone operators providing “all the data on the pinging off their network on the weekend."

========

#Jab2shack? White House partners with dating apps to encourage Covid-19 vaccinations

"Nine major dating apps will be offering users ways to advertise their vaccination status and boost their chances for a match with "super likes" and "super swipes," as part of a partnership with the White House.

The premium content, which includes profile badges and stickers declaring a date-seeker's immunity to Covid-19 and various ways to boost their visibility to preferred partners, will become available next week. The US government says it has enrolled Tinder, OkCupid, Bumble, Badoo, BLK, Hinge, Chispa, Match and Plenty of Fish into its outreach program.

"According to research from OkCupid, people who are vaccinated or plan to get vaccinated receive 14% more matches than people who don't plan to get vaccinated," the White House said on Thursday explaining the rationale for the ad campaign.

The Biden administration seeks to counter a slowdown in the pace of the vaccination program, which reached a peak in April and has since declined by about half. The trend is worrisome, considering that the US has a long way to go yet to reach the target of a 70% Covid-19 vaccination rate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports over 160 million people in the country – or about 48% – have received at least one dose and nearly 127 million have been fully vaccinated.

How big an impact the new incentive given to the horny, the lonely and the bored would have on vaccination hesitancy is anyone's guess. Like many other daily issues, the vaccination campaign in the US became an arena for its culture wars, so one can easily see how a light-hearted nudge by the government to disclose what is essentially private medical information could backfire.

One can imagine the conservative outrage if, for instance, a dating app offered an "HIV-negative" badge on a profile, a comparison that can arguably be drawn in this case. And with White House involvement, having "only vaccinated, please" in Tinder bio may become viewed on the right as a political statement rather than a personal choice."

========

Gov. Ron Desantis: We have to reject open borders

"Gov. Ron Desantis (R-Fla.) recently delivered remarks at the Annual Lincoln Day Dinner in Pennsylvania, highlighting some of the major issues facing the U.S. today. Desantis said the GOP mustn’t go back to the failed Republican establishment of yesteryear.

He took aim at George W. Bush’s attempts to lobby Republicans into helping the Biden administration pass amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. The Florida Republican’s comments come amid recent polling that show Bush’s veiled attempt to revive his any willing worker policy, which proved widely unpopular among Republican voters.

Recently, Desantis further criticized the city of Gainesville, Florida after it began requiring proof of vaccination from their residents before allowing them to take off their masks. Florida Gov. Desantis said this type of enforcement violates the spirit of his emergency order, 21-81, which aims to prohibit vaccine passports. Desantis claimed pushing back against vaccine passports will ultimately protect the fundamental rights and privacies of Florida residents."

========

Meet the Censored: C.J. Hopkins, Critic of the "New Normal"

"The arrival of Covid-19 has crashed America on a paradox that reads like the plot of a bad Star Trek episode. Half the country mistakes science for a set of inflexible decrees and demands it be worshipped as a religion. The other half believes the first group is always lying and defies even its sensible dictates, in its own theology of liberation. Science, a deliberative process, is collateral damage to the battle.

C.J. Hopkins is an American playwright, novelist, and columnist living in Berlin. His writing first came to my attention shortly after the election of Donald Trump, when he was one of the first American writers anywhere to peg Russiagate and the campaign against “fake news” as a targeting mechanism, for identifying dissident groups who now needed to be monitored and perhaps censored....

...

Hopkins was no Trump fan, but his writings from the Trump era became an often hilarious review of the catastrophizing that was the mandatory posture of op-ed pages during those years. He skewered hand-wringing pundits who beginning in late 2016 predicted the end of civilization in total seriousness, from the Guardian announcing the beginning of an “Age of Darkness” and the end of “civilized order,” to Paul Krugman’s prediction “a global recession with no end in sight,” to Jonathan Chait, “after heroically vowing not to flee the country with his terrified family,” guaranteeing Trump would “shake the republic to its foundations.”

His take on the pandemic began in a similar vein. Once again, he took aim at overwrought official rhetoric, interpreting a lot of the coronavirus response as an opportunistic, authoritarian power grab by the global neoliberal project....

...

Most of all, Hopkins has been critical of the emotional tenor of propaganda around Covid-19, which treats the crisis not as a logistical problem to be solved but as a signal that people should fundamentally alter their expectations for life, lowering demands for political freedoms, making the terror of death a constant public relations fixation, and embracing a “new normal” of heightened surveillance and security rituals. “Society has been transformed into… an enormous hospital from which there is no escape,” he wrote, adding:

"You’ve seen the photos of the happy New Normals dining out at restaurants, relaxing at the beach, jogging, attending school, and so on, going about their ‘normal’ lives with their medical-looking masks and prophylactic face shields. What you’re looking at is the pathologization of society, the pathologization of everyday life, the physical (social) manifestation of a morbid obsession with disease and death."

...

The political manias that have grown up around coronavirus want to sort people into groups that “believe” science and don’t, but the problem there is that much of the propaganda around coronavirus has intentionally blurred distinctions between scientific and political authority. A trend both in reporting and censorship involves describing any political opposition to pandemic policy as scientific denialism. People opposed to vaccine passports become “anti-vaxxers,” opponents of curfews or lockdowns become virus “deniers,” and so on. (Sometimes they are both things. But not always).

...

...For a politician, the mask is a symbol of the authority he or she has borrowed from science, and removing one is a symbol that the fear justifying emergency power has subsided. It’s hardly surprising to see a reluctance to take masks off, even when scientists say it’s fine to do so.

...

TK: The tech platforms will tell me you're spreading anti-vaxxer propaganda. What would be your response to that?

Hopkins: They're half right. Almost everything I put out on social media is technically “propaganda,” i.e, “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or damage an opposing cause” (i.e., one of the Merriam-Webster definitions of the word). That said, most people think of propaganda as misleading, and I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I am trying to urge people to question the official propaganda that the corporate media and other “authoritative sources” inundate us with on a daily basis, much of which is, in fact, misleading.

As for the “anti-vaxxer” part, (a) I have no problem with vaccines that have been thoroughly tested and approved for public use, and which people aren't being coerced into taking by the introduction of a medical segregation system, and (b) these derogatory labels, “anti-vaxxer,” “conspiracy theorist,” and “Covid denier” are meaningless. They're purely tactical terms, like the term “extremist.” Their only purpose is to demonize anyone who questions or challenges the official “New Normal” narrative.

Incidentally, “Covid denier,” the official demonization label in Germany, has a particularly horrible ring to it here, which is no accident. The government and media have intentionally equated anyone who questions or challenges the official “New Normal” narrative with anti-Semites and neo-Nazis for over a year. It’s the most effective and frightening demonization campaign I have ever witnessed, and I've witnessed a few.

...

TK: You were one of the first people to express skepticism about Russiagate. Do you see a connection between that story and this one?

Hopkins: Absolutely, same operation, different narrative. OK, I'll try to boil all this down as much as I can, so bear with me. We have to go back to 2016 ...

So, there global capitalism was, happily destabilizing, restructuring, privatizing, and debt-enslaving the entire planet, and cleaning up little pockets of resistance to global capitalist ideology, as it had been doing since the fall of the USSR, which is when global capitalism became the first unopposed globally-hegemonic ideological system in history. The War on Terror was still the primary official narrative. Then Brexit, Trump, and the whole populist backlash against globalization and wokeness that erupted in 2016. So global capitalism (or “GloboCap,” as I’ve taken to calling it) needed to adjust the official narrative to delegitimize Trump, who was (a) an unauthorized president and (b) a symbol of that populist backlash, basically, a big “fuck you” to the global capitalist establishment from the American people.

...

Essentially, what the last 4-5 years have been about is crushing resistance to GloboCap’s hegemony and ideology throughout the West, as it crushed resistance to its hegemony and ideology in the Middle East during the War on Terror. What better way to crush a populist rebellion and remind us who is really in charge than to foment mass hysteria over a clearly non-apocalyptic virus, impose a bunch of unnecessary, totalitarian “emergency measures,” cancel our constitutional rights, censor and/or demonize dissent, and otherwise transform societies into pathologized-totalitarian police states?

The extreme totalitarian phase won’t last (we're already shifting into Phase 2), but the “New Normal” is here to stay, or that’s the plan anyway. Which is not a surprise, or it shouldn’t be. GloboCap announced the transition to the “New Normal” very clearly, right at the outset, in March/April 2020, when they were still showing us fake photos of Chinese people dropping dead in the street, projecting a horrific 3.4% death rate (i.e., hundreds of millions of deaths), and otherwise carrying out the initial “Shock and Awe” phase.

OK, before somebody calls me a “conspiracy theorist,” GloboCap is not a bunch of guys in a room conspiring to do all this. Global capitalism is a system. Systems function according to their own structures and logic. What I'm talking about is not individual people conspiring (although individual people certainly do, and that is part of it). I'm talking about the logical evolution of a global-hegemonic ideological system, i.e., a system without external enemies, which has nothing left to do but consolidate power and eliminate internal resistance. If you understand the last 5-6 years (actually the last 30 years) that way, as I do, this shift to a less democratic, more ideologically monolithic, more totalitarian social structure (i.e., the “New Normal”) is not at all surprising. On the contrary, it is the next logical step."

========

Remember the “Fake” 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic: Manipulating the Data to Justify a Worldwide Public Health Emergency

"Remember the unusual circumstances surrounding the April 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic.

Media disinformation. An atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Corruption at the highest levels. The data was manipulated.

In July 2009, the WHO Director General predicted with authority that: “as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years — nearly one-third of the world population.” (World Health Organization as reported by the Western media, July 2009).

It was a multibillion bonanza for Big Pharma supported by the WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan.

In June 2009, Margaret Chan made the following statement:

“On the basis of … expert assessments of the evidence, the scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met. I have therefore decided to raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from Phase 5 to Phase 6.  The world is now at the start of the 2009 influenza pandemic....

...

The media went immediately into high gear (without a shred of evidence). Fear and Uncertainty. Public opinion was deliberately misled

“Swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” (Official Statement of Obama Administration, Associated Press, 24 July 2009).

“The U.S. expects to have 160 million doses of swine flu vaccine available sometime in October”, (Associated Press, 23 July 2009)

Wealthier countries such as the U.S. and Britain will pay just under $10 per dose [of the H1N1 flu vaccine]. … Developing countries will pay a lower price.” [circa $40 billion for Big Pharma?] (Business Week, July 2009)

But the pandemic never happened.

There was no pandemic affecting 2 billion people…

Millions of doses of swine flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments from Big Pharma. Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed: a financial bonanza for Big Pharma, an expenditure crisis for national governments.

There was no investigation into who was behind this multibillion dollar fraud.

...

The following article was published more than 11 years ago on August 25, 2009

...

Responding to the guidelines set by the WHO, preparations for the inoculation of millions of people are ongoing, in the Americas, the European Union, in South East Asia and around the World. Priority has been given to health workers, pregnant women and children. In some countries, the H1N1 vaccination will be compulsory.

In the US, the state governments are responsible for these preparations, in coordination with federal agencies. In the State of Massachusetts, legislation has been introduced which envisages hefty fines and prison sentences for those who refuse to be vaccinated....

The US military is slated to assume an active role in the public health emergency

Schools and colleges across North America are preparing for mass vaccinations....

...

The spread of the disease is measured by country-level reports of confirmed and probable cases.

How reliable is this data. Does the data justify a Worldwide public health emergency, including a $40 billion dollar vaccination program which largely favors a handful of pharmaceutical companies? In the US alone, the costs of H1N1 preparedness are of the order of 7.5 billion dollars....

Following the outbreak of the H1N1 swine flu in Mexico, the data collection was at the outset scanty and incomplete, as confirmed by official statements....

The Atlanta based Center for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged that what was being collected in the US were figures of  “confirmed and probable cases”. There was, however, no breakdown between “confirmed” and “probable”. In fact, only a small percentage of the reported cases were “confirmed” by a laboratory test.

On the basis of scanty country-level information, the WHO declared a level 4 pandemic on April 27. Two days later, a level 5 Pandemic was announced without corroborating evidence (April 29). A level 6 Pandemic was announced on June 11.

There was no attempt to improve the process of data collection in terms of lab. confirmation. In fact quite the opposite. Following the level 6 Pandemic announcement, both the WHO and the CDC decided that data collection of individual confirmed and probable cases was no longer necessary to ascertain the spread of swine flu.  As of July 10, one month after the announcement of the level six pandemic, the WHO discontinued the collection of  confirmed cases. It does not require member countries to send in figures pertaining to confirmed or probable cases.

...

On July 24, following the WHO July 10 decision to shift from quantitative to qualitative assessments and not to require governments to ascertain the data through lab testing, the Atlanta based CDC also announced that it had discontinued the process of data collection pertaining to “confirmed and probable cases”:

“How many cases of novel H1N1 flu infection have been reported in the United States? When the novel H1N1 flu outbreak was first detected in mid-April 2009, CDC began working with states to collect, compile and analyze information regarding the novel H1N1 flu outbreak, including the numbers of confirmed and probable cases of disease. From April 15, 2009 to July 24, 2009, states reported a total of 43,771 confirmed and probable cases of novel influenza A (H1N1) infection. Of these cases reported, 5,011 people were hospitalized and 302 people died. On July 24, 2009, confirmed and probable case counts were discontinued. Aggregate national reports of hospitalizations and deaths will continue at this time...."

Instead of collecting data –which would have provided empirical backing to its assessments on how the H1N1 virus was spreading– the CDC announced that it had developed a model “to try to determine the true number of novel H1N1 flu cases in the United States”.

“The model took the number of cases reported by states and adjusted the figure to account for known sources of underestimation (for example; not all people with novel H1N1 flu seek medical care, and not all people who seek medical care have specimens collected by their health care provider)….

Why did CDC discontinue reporting of individual cases? Individual case counts were used in the early stages of the outbreak to track the spread of disease. As novel H1N1 flu became more widespread, individual case counts became an increasingly inaccurate representation of the true burden of disease. This is because many people likely became mildly ill with novel H1N1 flu and never sought treatment; many people may have sought and received treatment but were never officially tested or diagnosed; and as the outbreak intensified, in some cases, testing was limited to only hospitalized patients. That means that the official case count represented only a fraction of the true burden of novel H1N1 flu illness in the United States. CDC recognized early in the outbreak that once disease was widespread, it would be more valuable to transition to standard surveillance systems to monitor illness, hospitalizations and deaths. CDC discontinued official reporting of individual cases on July 24, 2009...."

...

Reports from Britain by prominent physicians (to the author) suggest that doctors and epidemiologists in the UK are being threatened. They risk being fired by the National Health authorities if  they speak out and reveal the falsehoods underlying the data as well as government statements.

It is essential that physicians, epidemiologists and health workers speak out through their respective associations and refute the statements of government health officials who are tacitly acting on behalf of Big Pharma, as well as denounce the manipulation of the data. It is also important to warn the public on the dangers of untested H1N1 flu vaccines.

What we are dealing with is a big lie. A process of generating fake data which is then used to justify a nationwide vaccination program.

The political and corporate interests behind this Worldwide public health emergency must be the target of citizens’ actions.

This public health emergency is not intended to protect humanity.

The World is at the crossroads of a major economic and social crisis. The Worldwide public health emergency serves to divert public opinion from the real crisis which is affecting the World’s people. This crisis is characterised by rising poverty and unemployment and the collapse in social services, not to mention a a US-NATO multitrillion dollar high tech “war without borders” which includes the preemptive  “first strike” use of nuclear weapons.

The dramatic causes and consequences of the “real crisis” which in real sense threaten the future of humanity must remain unheralded. Both the Economic Crisis and the Middle East Central Asian war are the object of routine and persistent media distortion and camouflage. In contrast, the H1N1 swine flu –despite its relatively mild and benign impacts– is depicted as major “Save the World” endeavor."

========

Election Integrity: Look Ahead America’s ‘The Georgia Report’

"Look Ahead America, the non-partisan, non-profit organization that came to life following the uncertainty of the 2020 General Election, continues its mission to get answers to questions surrounding election integrity in the United States. On Apr. 19, Executive Director Matt Braynard announced the release of The Georgia Report, which he says “proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the deserved winner of the state of Georgia’s presidential electoral votes in the 2020 General Election is unknowable.”

...

As reported by UncoverDC, Georgia like several other key battleground states, exhibited many instances of election fraud. Voter registration is one such instance. Like most states, it is illegal in Georgia for voters to register using a residential address where they do not live. However, using extensive methods described in the report, the VIP identified 1,056 individuals in Tranche 1 that registered illegally to vote.

Tranche 2 explored the National Change of Address (NCOA) database maintained by the United States Postal Service (USPS). The USPS is responsible for matching the EABCINV database against the NCOA. Braynard and his team identified 15,700 individuals who, more than a month before the 2020 General Election, filed permanent, out-of-state residency changes. Again, using comprehensive procedures detailed in the report, the VIP concluded with 95 percent certainty that 6.5 percent of these votes were cast illegally. When projected to the 15,700 individuals identified above, the report calculates 10,651 illegally cast ballots in this category.

In Tranche 3, the VIP examined EABCINV to out-of-state subsequent registrations (OOSSR). After comprehensive matching against numerous databases, they identified 4,926 ballots in this category. With 95 percent confidence, they concluded that 17.4 percent, or 840 ballots, were cast illegally with a margin of error of 5.7 percent.

...

Limitations of time, the inability to access the necessary government databases, and budget constraints made it impossible for the VIP to analyze Tranche 4, 5, and 6. Nevertheless, the report explains:

"Given our findings in these samples, there appears beyond a reasonable doubt that one will find many more illegally cast ballots in the tranches that we could not examine due to limits of manpower, time, budget, and access. In nearly all cases, the state government, if it chose to, could research these tranches that we could not as it has a full arsenal of tools at its disposal (full dates of birth, voter registration records, etc.)."

...

Under the pretense of the pandemic, the unprecedented changes to voting practices across the nation wreaked havoc on the November election. After examining multiple faults in the election, Look Ahead America has listed in their report critical policy objectives that it believes will restore the public’s trust and confidence in future elections and restore faith in our electoral system. Each objective holds the following key requirements: (1) eliminates vulnerabilities in our election system, (2) is in harmony with current state and federal laws and established legal precedence, (3) practicality of implementation. The following is a summary of recommendations provided by Look Ahead America and can be found in detail in their report:

--A single machine-readable thumbprint on the affidavit envelope of an absentee ballot will limit the ability of an individual other than the voter of record to cast that ballot and allow for easy detection of multiple ballots cast by one voter.

--Mandated and Public Voter List Hygiene to ensure the list of registered voters contains only those legally eligible to cast ballots. The findings will appear in the publicly available voter lists, allowing citizen organizations to ensure only legally cast ballots are counted.

--Ban on the Use of “Black Box” Voting Equipment. Only election equipment that uses open-source software and design available for inspection and review by the public and technology organizations will be allowed.

--Appointment of a Citizens Elections Supervisory Committee. Members will have access to the election process and will be responsible for documenting the lawful execution of the election at every level.

--Creation and Sufficient Funding for a Dedicated Voter Fraud Investigation Division within the State’s Attorney General’s Office

--Equitable Distribution of Private Contributions to Election Operations. While private individuals and corporations may choose to sponsor improvements to election operations with direct donations of funding or material to government election agencies, these contributions may not target geographically (e.g. by district or precinct) and must be distributed equally throughout a state based on voter populations."

I don't like the thumbprint idea, I'm not sure we need machines at all (we seemed to count votes without machines at one point and so we could do it again), and I don't think there's any good argument for allowing private funding of elections.

========

Most Americans don’t agree with the massive pandemic data grab

"According to a recently published study, most Americans are uncomfortable with their digital health data being used to fight the pandemic. While the data may be of benefit to governments, the privacy risk appears to be too significant to ignore.

The study was conducted last July and responses were collected from 3,547 adults in the US. The study focused on how people felt about the use of digital health data to fight the pandemic, like the use of the Apple and Google exposure notification app for tracking, or a smart thermometer manufacturer sharing temperature records with public health bodies.

Regardless of the data sharing scenario, most people were not comfortable with the sharing of their data.

“I was surprised a bit about the degree of skepticism when the potential benefits are so high,” said the author of the study, David Grande, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

...

According to Grande, people are more cautious about the collection of health data. Additionally, health data collection is more apparent than the collection of personal data for advertising purposes. Besides, ad companies do not ask direct questions revealing that they’re collecting data. That said, any kind of personal data can be used to gain insights into your health, especially since data can be used to analyze your behavior and mood.

“I suspect that if we ask people direct questions about many commercial uses of their data that are currently taking place, we would see much greater resistance to those,” Grande said. “It’s just that many of those other uses aren’t so visible to consumers.”"

========

National Guard leaves US Capitol grounds after nearly 5-month deployment, Capitol to remain closed to public

"The troops will begin the full withdrawal from the Capitol grounds on Sunday, retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré, who is leading a review of the Capitol’s security, confirmed to CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ in an interview aired on Sunday.

The troops are heading home as the Capitol Police, despite reports of their ranks being severely depleted, did not request an extension of the mission past the May 23 deadline, the DC National Guard spokesman told the media earlier this week.

The National Guard has been in the nation’s capital two months longer than originally planned. The troops were scheduled to leave on March 12, but the Capitol Police asked the Pentagon to extend the deployment, drawing criticism from the National Guard Association, which blasted the continuing presence of soldiers in the city as “completely inappropriate at best, illegal at worst.”

...

Honoré also called on the Senate to pass a $1.9 billion bill, aimed at strengthening security at the Capitol. Around $700 million in the bill is earmarked to pay the Capitol Police, the DC police, and the National Guard, while $200 million would be used to establish a ‘quick reaction force’ to support Capitol Police in case of a future emergency.

...

While the bill’s fate remains uncertain, Honoré argued that the extra funding is essential to secure the grounds. “The longer they think, the less secure the Capitol will be,” he said."

Well I will admit I expected them to stay far longer. It's always nice to be wrong about something like this.

========

Pentagon to surveil social media of US Service Members

"The new US administration is reportedly planning to reverse course on a previous policy not to spy on members of its own military by monitoring political opinions they express on social media.

In the past, this type of surveillance was not used out of fear that it might infringe on service members’ First Amendment rights, but now that the Biden administration is making combating “domestic extremism” one of its main narratives, that is changing.

According to The Intercept, which said it had access to relevant internal Defense Department documents and spoke to a source with direct knowledge, a pilot program is in the works to continuously screen behavior on social media of the members of the military, looking for any concerning signs, in the context of opinions espousing domestic extremism.

According to the same source, the Pentagon plans to outsource this job to a private surveillance company – most likely Babel Street – and thus bypass the First (and Fourth) Amendment.

Babel Street is already selling controversial products to US law enforcement, who use its services as a method of circumventing government requirements, like warrants. Babel Street buys and sells massive amounts of phone location data, and some of the previous clients have been the Secret Service and US Special Operations Command.

...

...an email from the House Armed Services Committee sent later said it was their understanding that the DoD intends to use social media screening as an additional vetting tool, rather than one for ongoing surveillance.

“That said, Secretary Austin has been clear about his intentions to understand to what extent extremism exists in the force and its effect on good order and discipline. We look forward to hearing the results of the stand down and the Department’s plan to move forward,” the email said."

========

Oligarchy and the Polls

"Most of the debate on opinion polling in the United States is over whether the polls accurately measure public opinion and whether they reliably represent those measurements to the public. These are legitimate concerns, and there is good reason to suspect that many polls use flawed methods or selective data to arrive at their results. But to attack political polling by disputing the accuracy of its findings is to implicitly concede the legitimacy of the current role that polling plays in our democracy.

Even more problematic than the polls’ reliability is the fact that they are a means by which media entities and advocacy groups influence public policy. As such, we must question whether polls should play any meaningful part in democratic governance at all. Fixating on the accuracy of the polls skips over the question of whether empirical polling is a good thing for our democracy. And it isn’t.

The sort of polling that is common in America today is a relatively new phenomenon. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of polling: predictive polling (sometimes called “horse-race polling”) and what I refer to as prescriptive polling. The predictive polling surveys the public in an effort to predict which candidate will win an upcoming election. Historian and former Librarian of Congress, Daniel Boorstin, identifies the early 19th century as the time when the first American straw poll (ad hoc ballot polling) was conducted, but he notes that these polls were usually unscientific and unreliable. Modern forms of predictive polling can be traced back to when Alf Landon was widely favored to defeat Franklin Delano Roosevelt for the presidency back in 1936. The Literary Digest’s straw poll, based on ten million questionnaires mailed to its readers, was taken as a strong sign of an impending victory for Landon. This poll, and most others, were wrong. George Gallup, a professor of journalism and a newcomer to the polling game at that time, was not only one of the few pollsters who predicted a Roosevelt win, he also correctly predicted the degree of error in the models that anticipated a Landon victory.

While predictive polling remains common in election season, it is daily overshadowed by the second kind of polling: prescriptive polling, which purports to represent the range of opinion on a particular political issue and show how widely held each perspective is in the larger population. This type of polling was the sort that Gallup saw as having the most utility in a democracy. In the years after the FDR win, he refined his methods, increased his accuracy, and became the most familiar name in American polling.

...

...Polling on the issues is often justified by the argument that we must know where the public stands so that the government can implement its policy preferences. Gallup viewed the frequent sampling and measuring of public opinion on the matters of the day as the only way elected officials could reliably know the will of the people they represent. Without scientific polling, he says with his co-author Saul Forbes Rae, there is no way to be sure that “the people have really spoken; the dictator […] can never be certain whether he is hearing the people’s voice or the echo of his own.”

...

Pollsters like Gallup modified democracy in the modern era, reinventing what public opinion means, how it is expressed, and what role it plays in the process of governance. Sophisticated, scientific methods of polling the public gave rise to an administrative vision of democracy: one that reduced the role of the common people to the expression of preferences (in elections and polls) and empowered government officials to put those preferences into practice. Although this new model was advanced on the grounds that it increased the political power of the average citizen, it has actually expanded the power of people in positions of institutional and governmental authority, over and against the power of the demos—the mass of common people referenced in the term democracy.

The importance that Gallup and Rae attached to the “voice” of the people and their ability to “speak” is relatively new. Polling represents one method for allowing the will of the people to be spoken, but this method would have been strange to the citizens of earlier democratic societies. The ancient Greek democracy, for instance, had a much different concept of public opinion, which they called doxa, or endoxa (roughly translated: “common belief”). Aristotle, perhaps the most prominent Greek theorist of doxa, defined it as the things that are evident to everyone. In The Topics, he explains that because the ideas that fall into the category of doxa are widely held to be true, they represent a kind of knowledge that lies silently below public debate on policy concerns: he claims that a view that is “generally accepted” requires no debate, but instead is readily recognized as the accepted opinion.

Because beliefs that qualify as doxa are almost universally accepted, they do not need to be spoken. By the Aristotelian definition, then, a claim that would fall into the category of doxa in today’s America might be something like “individual rights are important.” We argue about what those rights should be, what limitations ought to be imposed on those rights, and how to adjudicate competing rights-based claims, but never about whether or not rights should exist. Given that virtually everyone agrees that individual rights are important, no one really needs to say so. In other words, doxa is that which goes without saying.

...

But everyday Americans tend to disagree with the scholarly opinion that doxa should remain silent; they tend to favor Gallup’s view and often argue not only that public opinion must be spoken, but that it must be heeded by elected officials. In many ways, the popularization of Gallup and Rae’s vision for the role of public opinion has increased tensions between the American masses and the elite. On issues where people had assumed widespread public agreement, polling sometimes reveals that the consensus was an illusion, a revelation that frequently encourages divisions along party and class lines. Thus, previously “settled” ideas become new sites of contestation: it was only twenty years ago that a bipartisan majority favored the construction of a border wall, a measure that is now routinely lambasted as pointless (at best) or racist (at worst). In another example, the previously accepted legal accommodations for those whose religious beliefs conflicted with certain laws have now come under attack, with people calling for an end to the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to wed gay couples.

...

...Gallup, Lippmann, and others propagated a new model that insisted upon an explication and quantification of public opinion. Those measurements, approximated through polling, came to embody the “voice” of the people, which was then packaged and distributed through mass media channels. Initially, the publication of polling data was justified on the grounds that it served to inform our representatives what our preferences were. Increasingly, though, both the polling itself and the circulation of the resulting data reflects an effort to influence public opinion rather than just measuring it.

...

Some might assume that Gallup believed that polling would empower the common people, but he actually had a fairly low opinion of the average citizen. In an essay called “The Absorption Rate of Ideas” (1955), Gallup complains that the public makes “an almost studied attempt […] to avoid anything informative,” before lamenting that, “The sad part of it is that many persons who attended high school and college are as ignorant about the happenings of the world as those who never went beyond grade school.”

Gallup’s patronizing elitism remains the dominant mindset among the powerful in America today. From the (usually unstated) perspective of the elite, our democracy should work as follows: events happen, and then experts in journalistic and academic fields explain these happenings to the public, leading them to the “correct” understanding of these events. After a sustained information campaign aimed at manufacturing doxa (or public opinion) that mirrors that of the experts, pollsters sample and survey the public to learn what “their” opinion is. When democracy is functioning properly (in the view of the elite), the polling process will reveal that a majority has accepted the “proper” preference on a given issue. Then, the same experts in journalism circulate these measurements to the public and government, clarifying that the “people” have “spoken.” Finally, elected officials have no choice but to enact policy that fulfills the “will of the people,” which invariably and neatly conforms to the will of the expert class.

...

This ever-present instruction in how citizens should understand their own opinions shows the experts believe that “interpreting” public opinion itself demands expertise (and thus implies that the public ought not concern itself too much with what its opinions are). That common people don’t get too wrapped up in polling data is important because the administrative class that is responsible for implementing the public preference are often unconvinced by a statistical majority. Rather, when a majority rejects or deviates from the elite agenda for the nation, those measurements are interpreted as evidence that the public lacks the intelligence or compassion to determine a proper course for society. This situation calls for more “education” of the public—more effort to move their views in the “correct” direction.

...

Polling data itself was one tool that was used in this campaign to change public opinion in anticipation of a case like Obergefell. People prefer to see their views affirmed by others: when polling consistently shows that one’s own belief is shared by only a small minority, this creates an incentive for that person to change that belief (or at least to stop attesting to it in public contexts). By the time the Supreme Court heard a case on the topic of gay marriage, it was generally thought that the court was obligated to recognize the right to same-sex marriage at the national level—any other decision would have meant that our democracy was unresponsive to public dictates on policy.

But there are also instances where majority opinion does not seem to demand the same unconditional deference from our government. For example, few would know that Gallup finds that support for a handgun ban was near an all-time low in 2020: only 25% say such a ban should be enacted. For some reason, findings of this sort are rarely publicized in our debate about gun control, a debate that mainstream media outlets are clearly eager to have (provided the terms of the debate lead to an affirmation of their preferred policies, of course).

...

What we find, then, is that polling doesn’t simply serve to make public opinion known so that elected officials can implement the “will of the people.” Rather, polling serves to provide justification for the sociopolitical objectives of the left—objectives that are shared by most in the academic world (who conduct polls) and media (who disseminate polling data). When a majority of the public supports the desired policy of the institutional elites, that data will be widely shared and framed as evidence of an obligation to enact the public preference. But when a majority of the public rejects the desired policy of the cultural elite, the data will have limited distribution. If the information is publicly available, it will be ignored in the policy debates staged by the media. And if elites must acknowledge the findings, the numbers will be held up as evidence of the stupidity of the public—stupidity that justifies and necessitates an elite class who can make well-informed decisions in the “public interest.”"

========

Preference or Prejudice? Federal Court Finds Biden Administration Is Engaged In Racial and Gender Discrimination

"President Biden has spoken out often, eloquently and passionately against the “ugly poison” of discrimination and racism in our government. So a ruling by a federal district court in Texas this week was particularly jarring: Judge Reed O’Connor found that the Biden administration engaged in systemic gender and race discrimination to implement COVID-19 relief for American restaurants. Café owner Philip Greer had claimed in a lawsuit against the Small Business Administration (SBA) that, while white, he needs the same rescue as minority restaurateurs under the newly enacted American Rescue Plan Act.

Greer’s Ranch Café reportedly lost over $100,000 during the pandemic. Like many restaurateurs, Greer was delighted to hear about the Restaurant Restoration Fund approved by Congress. However, he soon learned that, due to his race, he could not be considered until other applicants were allowed to seek funds. The White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress insisted that various groups should be first in line, including women, minorities and “socially and economically disadvantaged” people.

The government confirmed that $2.7 billion already has been distributed through the fund and that there are almost 150,000 pending applications from owners with preferential treatment. As a result, owners like Greer fear not just delayed payments but the exhaustion of the $28.6 billion allocated under the program. The SBA confirms it already has requests for $65 billion in payments under the fund.

...

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a minority set-aside program in Virginia was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The government cited historical barriers for minority enterprises, but the court balked. It noted that “identified discrimination” in the past “would give … government license to create a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations about any field of endeavor.” When using racial classifications, the divided court stressed that “simply legislative assurances of good intention cannot suffice.”

Judge O’Connor relied on such precedent to declare the enforcement of the criteria for COVID-19 relief to be raw racial and gender discrimination. His ruling can be appealed, but it highlights a concern over a variety of state and federal COVID-19 programs enforcing racial and gender criteria. In Oregon, a state COVID-19 program for black businesses, called the Oregon Cares Fund, was challenged by a Mexican-American café owner and others under the Equal Protection Clause. While legislative counsel and some legal experts raised concerns over the constitutionality of the law, a trial court rejected the challenge. Other such cases are continuing.

Courts have allowed minority set-asides to remedy past inequities. Such programs often are created solely for that purpose and, thus, are treated as a remedial benefit for a targeted group, as opposed to an exclusionary denial for other groups. These cases can present difficult questions of what is needed to enforce a racially discriminatory policy and when a legislative remedial measure becomes either a form of reparation or discrimination.

...

The court’s concern in the Greer case is that the Biden administration’s rationale would allow the use of racially discriminatory policies throughout the government. This is a far more nuanced constitutional issue than past challenges. Rather than impose a quota system or a direct exclusionary policy, Greer and others complain that the government can achieve the same result by prioritizing certain groups in the receipt of benefits.

The alternative is to maintain a bright line against the use of racial criteria in government programs. In a 2007 case, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that position most succinctly by declaring that the “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

...

The courts must resolve where to draw this line when limited funds can result in the reduction or denial of government aid based solely on skin color or gender. That fear of a zero-sum game for public aid will deepen our divisions and undermine the worthy unifying theme struck by President Biden in his campaign. Racial discrimination is indeed a “poison” in our body politic even when done for the best of motivations. The question is, how much can the body politic tolerate?"

========

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against Warrantless Gun Seizures

"On Monday, in a rare unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the Biden Administration in a case regarding the legality of warrantless searches and seizures of firearms, The Epoch Times reports.

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, began oral arguments roughly two months ago. The case stems from an incident in Cranston, Rhode Island, back in August of 2015, where a man named Edward Caniglia had an argument with his wife of 22 years. Eventually, Caniglia withdrew an unloaded gun and suggested that his wife shoot him and “get me out of my misery.” His wife then called the police asking them to carry out a welfare check, where Caniglia was taken to the hospital.

Despite the police’s assurance that his guns would not be confiscated, they ultimately did seize his firearms without a warrant after he had been hospitalized, and refused to return them to him after he was discharged. Caniglia subsequently sued, claiming that the exception for community caretaking, which is what the police claimed to have used in this case, should not apply inside his home.

...

The Court ultimately ruled in Caniglia’s favor, determining that the seizure of his weapons without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the relatively short opinion, at just four pages long."

========

The Squad Enables Pelosi's Massive Capitol Police Spending Bill While Cynically Feigning Opposition

"By a margin of one vote, the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill that allocates $1.9 billion to intensify security and increase policing at the U.S. Capitol. Among other things, the bill would boost armed security for members of Congress, fortify security protections at the Capitol, provide funds in “reimbursement” to the National Guard, and increase funding for the Capitol Police. A small portion of it would provide counseling services to Capitol Police officers dealing with trauma.

The 213-212 vote was a party line vote with six exceptions. All Republicans voted against it. All Democrats voted for the bill except for six. Three members of the left-wing faction of the House known as the “Squad” joined their GOP colleagues to vote against the bill: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). But the other three members of the Squad — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) — voted neither “yes” nor “no” but rather “present.” All six had previously told activist groups that they opposed the bill.

Had any of these three Squad members voted “no” instead of “present,” then the bill would have been defeated. In other words, this faction of the Squad had the power fully in their hands to block passage of a bill that would increase police funding and enhance the power of the security state to prevent the public from entering the U.S. Capitol: a bill they claimed to oppose. But they chose not to use that power and instead allowed this pro-police, pro-security-state bill to pass the House. It now heads to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has vowed to bring it to a floor vote, though it remains uncertain if they will be able to find ten Republican Senators needed for it to pass the Senate and be sent to the White House for signing.

There are several amazing aspects to this episode. To begin with, all three Squad members who abstained today on this bill — which effectively ensured its passage — have spent the last year chanting and tweeting that the police should be defunded. Just last month, Rep. Tlaib demanded that the police be defunded and disbanded

...

And yet, what do we have today? When it comes to their own security, these three Squad members are evidently eager for close to $2 billion to be spent in additional funds to increase the police presence around them and fortify the armed guards and other security state mechanisms that protect them. This is always a key point of “Defund the Police” campaigns.

Those who will actually suffer are not the rich (who will simply hire more private security) or the powerful (who will use government budgets to ensure their own physical safety using armed guards), but the burden will fall instead on poor and working-class citizens who are left unprotected. That is why only a small percentage of citizens in all racial groups support reducing police presence in their neighborhoods. A Gallup poll last August found that eighty-one percent (81%) of black Americans and eight-three percent (83%) of Hispanic Americans want either the police presence to remain the same (a majority) or to be increased. Presumably they want that for the same reason these Squad members just enabled this bill to pass today: they perceive it in the interests of their own safety.

But the political point here is even more amazing. These three Squad members know that — after everything they claimed to stand for — it would be the height of hypocrisy for them to vote in favor of increasing police funding and fortifying the U.S. security state. So they postured as principled opponents by having the exact number of Squad members vote “no” who could do so without having the Pelosi-favored bill fail, while ensuring that the other three voted “present” to ensure the bill’s passage. It is hard to express the level of cynicism and contempt for their supporters necessary to perpetrate such a blatant fraud.

...

...It is unclear whether this scam pulled by at least half of the Squad was something they all planned together — to cast the appearance of powerful resistance to police funding and the security state while doing exactly what they needed to ensure its passage — but at least Rep. Omar’s vote was aligned with her claimed beliefs.

But the votes of AOC, Bowman and Tlaib could not have been more divergent from what they claim to support....

...

Today thus provided one of the most vivid expressions yet of what Shant Mesrobian described in December as the real crux of the Squad’s politics: “performative radicalism” which “masks a lackluster record when it comes to actually challenging party leadership.” As he put it:

"Another, related factor is the immense influence of social media. On Twitter especially, the medium beloved by the activist and media class, identity politics, call-out culture, and competitive victimization are the lingua franca with which personal brands and political cults are built. Social media now offers elected officials a path to fame and pop culture status that circumvents much of the old, hand-dirtying business of politics. For many, it seems, elected office itself has become merely a stepping stone to social media celebrity. Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Squad members have built massive platforms and followings that offer them influence, attention, and career prospects that were previously unheard of for junior members of Congress. If the priority of maintaining a social media influencer empire rivals, or even surpasses, the priority of being a successful legislator—and it’s not hard to see how it could be more immediately rewarding—politics itself can be subsumed by the warped incentives of the online attention economy. Indeed, the political figure whose style shares most in common with the Squad members is President Trump—both generate far more attention, publicity, and controversy for what they tweet than for what they actually do in office.

This may explain why the Squad members’ signature personas, both online and off, are not those of powerful public servants deserving of scrutiny and accountability, but instead those of social media victim-celebrities who deserve fierce loyalty from an adoring fan base. It may also explain why their social media postings tend to sound like irony-laced admonishments of officeholders from petitioning activists rather than statements from actual members of Congress.""

========

Utah Legislature Passes Resolution to Ban Critical Race Theory From Schools

"Republicans in Utah’s state legislature passed a resolution on Wednesday to instruct the state’s schools to ban Critical Race Theory from their curriculum, as reported by Breitbart.

During the vote in the Utah House of Representatives, every single Democrat walked off the floor in protest of the bill, thus allowing the legislation to pass with only Republican votes. The “House Resolution on Critical Race Theory in Public Education” was subsequently passed by the Utah Senate. Because the measure is a resolution rather than a bill, it did not need the signature of Governor Spencer Cox (R-Utah) in order to pass.

House Speaker Brad Wilson (R-Utah) said that with the resolution, the state legislature was “calling on the state school board to look at the curriculum and determine what the right parameters for this discussion to happen.”"

========

Christ the Redeemer statue lights up with a message: ‘Vaccine Saves’

"Brazil’s world-famous Jesus statue in Rio de Janeiro has been lit up to project a message of vaccine evangelism, encouraging individuals from miles around to drop to their knees and worship another, more controversial savior.

The statue, which depicts Jesus Christ, arms outstretched, on the hillside of Rio, was emblazoned with the slogans “vaccine saves” and “united for vaccines.” The display was organized by the Cristo Redactor Sanctuary and the Ogilvy Brazil advertising agency.

Some believers, however, did not appreciate the message, condemning it as blasphemous."

========

Why Are Thousands of People Dying from COVID Vaccine? Tucker Carlson Shatters Media Silence

"Vaccines are complicated medicines, and as with any drug, it can take a long time to get it precisely right. The dosage, for example. And this is not the first time people have been hurt during a vaccination campaign. That is bound to happen. What’s different this time, and so striking, is the reaction to these numbers. Here’s a contrast for you: in 1976, the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people with a vaccine for the swine flu. Fifty-three people reportedly died after getting that shot. The U.S. government immediately halted the vaccination program. Authorities decided it was too risky, it wasn’t worth it.

Contrast that with what is happening now. This time, our health authorities have reserved their energy for anyone who dares to question vaccines. LifeSiteNews, a nonprofit news organization, just found itself permanently banned from Facebook. Why? Because it reported government numbers from the VAERS database.

When Joe Rogan asked whether healthy young people ought to get the vaccine, the media treated him like a criminal.

Almost everything they said was a lie that obscured a very simple and potentially relevant question that he asked, which is: should healthy young people receive the vaccine? We’re not precisely sure what the risks are. It is a lie to say there are no risks. There are risks in everything, including in getting a vaccine. So why not rationally weigh the risk/reward ratio, as we do with every decision we make. For that, he was denounced as an anti-vaxxer kook. A danger to public safety.

One of the very few elected officials in the country who has said a word about any of this, who has asked the obvious questions, not attacking vaccines, wondering about their effects, is Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Last week, Johnson asked Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, why so many Americans seem to be dying after the shot.

Maybe there’s a good answer for that, Collins wouldn’t even acknowledge that was happening. Instead, Collins fretted if the population focused too much on the harm from vaccines, people might be hesitant to get them.

“I challenged his use of the term ‘Vaccine Hesitancy,’” Ron Johnson told us in a conversation today. “I told him that based on the VAERS deaths, and my conversations with people who have chosen not to get vaccinated, a better description would be: ‘People who are hesitant to be coerced into participating in the largest drug trial in history.’”

...

...Health decisions used to be considered personal choices. We didn’t ask about them. They were considered personal as recently as last fall. In September of 2020, at the height of the presidential campaign, a CNN reporter asked Kamala Harris whether she’d be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine once it became available.

“Well, I think that’s going to be an issue for all of us,” Harris responded. “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump.” A month later, at the vice presidential debate, Harris was if anything more emphatic on the subject. “If Donald Trump tells us we should take” the vaccine, she declared, “I’m not going to take it.”

Kamala Harris has, of course, since changed her mind. She’s no longer skeptical of the vaccine, nor does she tolerate the skepticism of others. Instead, she’s an enthusiastic participant in COVID theater."

========

Windham, NH Audit Update: Early Results Are Troubling As Dominion Rep’s Presence Continues

"As the forensic audit in Windham, New Hampshire enters week two, an issue raised frequently and repeated by Windham resident Ken Eyring, Chairman of the recently formed Government Integrity Project (GIP), is that:

“The voting machines as configured on November 3, 2020, show the aging Diebold ES2000 Model A Voting Machines cannot be trusted. And by extension… potentially the elections across the state of New Hampshire as well.”

The audit, which UncoverDC has been reporting on since March as SB43 was still being drafted, is beginning to catch the nation’s attention. All three auditors selected (Harri Hursti, Mark Lindeman, and Phillip Stark) have ties to left-leaning Verified Voting and have publicly stated there is no credible evidence of fraud in the 2020 election. State Senator Bob Giuda—who has been a steadfast advocate for voter integrity, along with Eyring and many others in the Windham community—has also expressed concern over the NH Attorney General’s office conducting a thorough forensic audit.

...

According to Eyring, preliminary results of the vote totals produced by running all of the ballots from Windham’s Nov. 3, 2020, general election through all of Windham’s four voting machines configured on Nov. 3 raise important questions. He noted that the first table and graph below display some troubling results of the Rockingham District 7 State Rep race. Eyring, who believes it is time to get rid of the aging Diebold machines and examine conducting a hand-count of every vote on election night, elaborated:

“The audit results of each machine are significantly different from the results produced on 11/3/20. Why? The audit results are closer to the results of the hand recount that was overseen by the Secretary of State’s office that took place on 11/12/20, but those results are also significantly different for five of the candidates. This could be due to the fact that some of the counted votes during the 11/12/20 recount were tallied based on clear voter intent that was acknowledged by everyone observing.”

“Another disturbing observation is the variation of between 2 – 44 votes when the results of each candidate are compared across each machine’s audit results. There’s a minuscule difference of 2 votes for Ioana Singureanu between all four machines and a massive number of 44 votes for Bob Lynn between AccuVote #2 and AccuVote #4. A potential error of 44 votes is unacceptable in any election—because it could cause the wrong person to be declared the winner and subsequently sworn into office.”"

========

Windham Audit Update: Machine “Two” Repeatedly Favored Democratic Candidates

"...Windham constituents remain frustrated. Their requests for transparency continue to be largely ignored by the Attorney General’s office, with live stream cameras providing a very limited view of the audit proceedings. As it comes to light that “machine #2” (out of four) favors democratic party candidates, questions persist surrounding Dominion Voting Systems rep and LHS President Jeff Silvestro’s presence at the audit.

As previously reported, on Nov. 3, Republicans swept all four of Windham’s state representative seats. One Democrat, Kristi St. Laurent, fell short by just 24 votes and requested a recount. During the Nov. 12 recount, the margin between St. Laurent and the Republican candidates shifted significantly. The vote totals for all Republican candidates in that race increased by nearly 300, while St. Laurent’s vote count decreased by almost 100.

New Hampshire, a state which prides itself as being the first primary in the campaign season, received a total of sixty-three donations from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) in their “2020 Elections COVID-19 Grants.” Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated at least $350 million to CTCL in the months leading up to the 2020 election. CTCL then distributed the funds in the form of grants to numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States so they could hire additional staff, purchase mail-in ballot processing equipment, and other measures they considered essential to manage the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

...

According to NH Assistant Attorney General Anne Edwards, Silvestro was invited by the three auditors—Harri Hursti, Phillip Stark, and Mark Lindeman—in the event instructions were needed for Windham’s four aging Diebold ES2000 Model A Voting Machines. As previously reported by UncoverDC, LHS Associates has an exclusive contract to maintain New Hampshire’s voting machines. Contradicting the Assistant AG, in an interview with local Lisa Mazur, auditor Stark indicated he did not know why Silvestro was at the audit each day speaking to people near the voting machines.

...

With the machine count of the audit now complete, a peculiar pattern became apparent with one of Windham’s four voting machines. “Machine two” repeatedly showed favoritism towards Democratic candidates. Dr. David Strang, who was pivotal in prompting the forensic audit in Windham, recently stated at least two other towns in New Hampshire with voting machines producing the same results as “machine two.” According to Dr. Strang, those voting machines were regularly fed the most ballots. Strang commented:

“Winning an election shouldn’t depend on your supporters inserting their ballots into the “right” machine, but rather, any machine, as they should all count ballots the same. Well, that’s not what happened on Nov. 3rd in Windham. NH. The numbers coming from the legislatively-ordered audit in that NH town confirm what the concerned citizens of NH have claimed all along. Our machines are not accurate and cannot be trusted to accurately count our votes.”

...

Members of the Government Integrity Project are taking matters into their own hands. For over two months, they have been gathering copies of Nov. 3rd election tapes from towns across New Hampshire and conducting their own “citizen’s audit,” which, according to Lisa Mazur, should be finished in the next few weeks, comparing totals against registered voters and other accessible data."

========

Windham Auditors: Ballot Folds Are Not The Only Problem

"On Saturday, two of the three auditors performing the forensic audit in Windham, NH, confirmed that, while not the only issue, ballot folds significantly affect how ballots are read by the town’s Diebold ES2000 Model A voting machines. Additionally, while processing the same ballots, the auditors witnessed vastly different error rates on two of the machines.

The auditors indicated early last week fold lines might be an issue. They spent Saturday recreating two separate mock elections hoping to determine what caused the unprecedented discrepancies between the Nov. 3 election result totals and the Nov. 12 election recount totals. Focused on the percentage of possible errors due to ballot folding, Harri Hursti and Phillip Stark explained to Nick Moseder and Lisa Mazur...that they set up two sets of mock elections, each designed to try and determine how votes were taken away from Republican candidates and how votes were added to Kristi St. Laurent.

One potential theory suggested the machines might reject specific ballots (for example, ballots that voted straight Republican down the line for all four candidates) and count the entire ballot as an overvote. This scenario might occur if, after voting for the four Republican candidates, the machine then reads the ballot fold (which appears next on the ballot and occurs right at St. Laurent’s name) as a vote for a fifth—and extra—candidate. In the case of an overvote, all votes on the ballot are canceled and reported as blanks.

Indeed, upon completing their experiment, the auditors explained that they discovered Windham’s machines were reading the fold as they speculated, with, according to Phillip Stark, an astonishing error rate ranging from 25% up to 72%.

While talking with Moseder, Hursti revealed that before the Nov. 3 election, individuals with decision-making powers were aware of the potential problems that ballot folding could present in voting machines. Still, according to Hursti, in an effort to save money, the decision was made that “less expensive envelopes should be used,” which meant ballots would need to be folded before being mailed. Noting that no one expected the fold to cause this much trouble, Hursti added, “but folds cause trouble elsewhere,” too.

...

Remarking there is still much more to be examined, Stark confirmed that Saturday’s tests offer an explanation for both the subtraction of votes from the Republican candidates and the initial addition of votes to Democratic candidate Kristi St. Laurent.

...

Present at the audit again on Saturday, LHS Associates President Jeff Silvestro departed in a hurry when Nick Moseder approached him to ask why he was there, saying as he hurried out the door, “ask the auditors, they are the ones who asked me here. Leave me alone. I would appreciate it.” Recently, when asked whether Silvestro’s attendance at the audit was a conflict of interest, Richard (Dick) Tracy of the NH Attorney General’s Office replied, “just because it’s a conflict of interest doesn’t make it illegal.”..."

========

YouTube censors public meeting of Shawnee Mission School District parents for “misinformation”

"The channel has received a strike, which means that if it is again found in breach of YouTube’s policies over the next 90 days, it will not be allowed to upload new videos for a week – a scenario which Shawnee Mission School District spokesperson David Smith said would represent “a serious interference to our work.”

YouTube is the district’s chosen and only platform for posting videos of public meetings and where they are also live streamed.

Over on Twitter, Ousley went on to say that comments made by those she referred to as third parties do not indicate the position of the board itself, or the school district.

Local media reported that during the meeting, parents and state Senator Mike Thompson urged the district to remove the mask mandate. Ahead of the meeting itself, residents, including the senator, protested against this mandate.

...

According to him, the meeting also heard from students who complained that it was hard to breathe with a mask on, while a parent spoke about their child being separated from the rest of the class and sent to another room for not wearing a mask."

This is a good reason why your local government & institutions should not be relying on Big Tech.