Election fraud: Witnesses testify at Michigan House Oversight Committee

I am starting this video at 2:55:15 with the testimony of Retired Army Colonel Phil Waldron, who was an information warfare officer and is an expert on automated voting machines and how to hack them for malign purposes. I recommend starting with his testimony because he has expert knowledge and explains his findings very clearly.

There are many other important witnesses in this video. You can click anywhere and find someone saying something interesting. Due to the grave importance of this election, all of us should do our best to be as informed as possible. I find much of this testimony riveting.


…I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

EXECUTED ON: November 25, 2020 By: Navid Keshavarz-Nia, Ph.D., Ed.D

The above quote is from the conclusion. The entire declaration is well worth reading. It’s nine pages and can be found here.

Johns Hopkins Study shows COVID-19 has had ‘Relatively No Effect on Deaths’

Johns Hopkins deleted the study, which you can find below, not because it is wrong but because it “…was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.

The following image provides the gist of the study:

The study itself and more information about it can be found here: According to study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

🔴 LIVE: Pennsylvania State Legislature Holds Public Hearing on 2020 Election

I watched almost all of this hearing and believe it is worth the time spent. The core issue, of course, is honest elections; provably honest elections. It does not look like this one was.

Witnesses at different levels in the election hierarchy testify to having witnessed serious fraud or glaring statistical anomalies. You can click almost anywhere in the video and find someone saying something interesting. ABN

Public language has problems similar to private language

Private language—what we say to ourselves, how we cogitate while alone—is greatly dependent on public language, that which is readily understood by many.

In fact, private language is so dependent on public language, it can be argued that a private language completely divorced from public language cannot exist.

It is obvious that anyone wanting to influence or control large numbers of people will address them in public language.

It is less obvious, that those same people frequently will also seek to change the public language itself.

Sometimes this language changing is a good thing as that is how civilizations adapt and grow. It is probably best, or usually best, when civilizational changes arise organically from the whole society or from important parts of society that are behaving honestly.

Sometimes, however, the changing of public language is done dishonestly by small numbers of people who have seized positions of power, sometimes precisely for that purpose.

They change public language to further their positions, ideas, or programs; to seize control of public topics; to seize or secure power over the public.

It is not as easy to parse this as it may seem. Who is restricting honest organic input into public language? Or when is organic input into public language itself but a ruse to falsely commandeer that language?

After Lenin and Stalin seized control of the public languages of the Soviet Union, we can see a clear-cut example of bad actors creating a basis for indoctrination. Before they seized power, we can see an example of a dishonest “organic” group seeking to commandeer control of public language.

And how do we see that today, through the lens of “history”?

Firstly, whose history? The same problem with public language arises.

Secondly, maybe we can never know. Maybe only societal laws or rules of governance can help us determine what’s right or best. But then the same problem arises.

Whose laws, whose rules?

In this sense both public and private languages have enormous problems basing themselves on anything.


first posted OCTOBER 11, 2019