Some people have asked me if the described method of cheating is what happened in 2020, why did we not see it so much in 2022...

This will add some clarity as to why we didn’t see the same tactics work in as many states during the 2022 midterm elections.

Many states changed laws (or made laws where none existed) to stop mass mail-in voting schemes that were used in 2020. For my example, I’ll look at Florida and Georgia, because Florida went pretty much as expected, but the senate race in Georgia didn’t go as expected.

Thanks for reading OGRE’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Here are the major changes Florida has made since the 2020 election.

• Limits on drop boxes
• Double the work required to apply for mail-in ballots
• New voter ID requirements
• A limit on ballot collection
• A restriction on unsolicited mail-in ballots
• A ban on donations to elections agencies
• Broadened restrictions on “solicitation”
• A mandatory warning about registration efforts
• More rights for partisan observers
• Increased vacancy-filling power for the governor

Here are the major changes Georgia has made since the 2020 election.

• Tighten or impose voter ID requirements for mail voting
• Shorten window to apply for a mail ballot
• Limit the number, location, or availability of mail ballot drop boxes
• Limit early voting days or hours
• Eliminate or limit sending mail ballot applications to voters who do not specifically request them

As you can, see these changes greatly effect the ability to collect mail-in ballots.

The only thing missing is cleaning the voter rolls. And that must be done by a group other than ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) or any Soros affiliated group.

Last Thursday The Gateway Pundit revealed Democrats and leftists have fought ferociously to prevent the cleanup of State voter registration rolls. Recognizing a potential niche, left-wing activists created ERIC to clean voter rolls their way, using their rules. So in 2012 the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) was formed as a membership organization primarily for blue States. ERIC is essentially a left wing voter registration drive disguised as voter roll clean up. But it’s been gaining traction in Red States too. Originally funded by the Soros Open Society, it is now responsible for cleaning the voter rolls in 31 States, plus D.C. A top election official from each member State is appointed a seat on the ERIC Board or as an Officer, all unpaid positions.

On Friday [January 14, 2022] we reported on how ERIC is working — The Largest U.S. Counties Removed Only ZERO to TWO Ineligible Voters From Their Voter Rolls the Last 4 Years

October 16, 2020: Judicial Watch found that many states had many more registered voters than they had eligible voters.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study found eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding 100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

There are 353 counties that have more registered voters than eligible voters for a total of 1.8 million phantom voters. Meanwhile ERIC has removed at most 2 ineligible voters from the two largest counties in the country over a 4-year period? Like I said in the previous post, ERIC was designed to keep the voter rolls dirty.

Both Florida and Georgia use ERIC; however, whether or not voter rolls are purged depends on state laws. To what extent Georgia and Florida have cleaned up their voter rolls since 2020 I don’t know. But a few years back “progressive” groups were complaining about it. Only they were looking at Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.

Earlier this summer, when the Brennan Center released a report examining voter purge data through 2016, we found that four million more people were purged from the rolls between the federal elections of 2014 and 2016 than between 2006 and 2008. Much of that increase came from states that were previously required under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to get election changes cleared in advance, before that part of the law was eviscerated by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Although comparable data for the two years ending in 2018 won’t be available until early next year, we were able to use different data sources to figure out how many voters have been purged over the past two years in three states we had studied — Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. A preliminary analysis supports our initial alarm over the purge processes in these three states, showing that they continued to have high purge rates.

Purges in and of themselves aren’t bad. They’re commonly used to clean up voter lists when someone has moved, passed away, and more. But too often, names identified for removal are determined by faulty criteria that wrongly suggests a voter be deleted from the rolls. When flawed, the process threatens to silence eligible voters on Election Day — especially in states where purge rates are high.

A little history: The portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were struck down dealt with whether certain states had to get federal approval before making changes to their own voting laws. This was not constitutional to begin with, as it violated states’ rights, and wasn’t equal under the law, but it was allowed because there were certain states that were trying to limit people’s access to voting based on race. That is no longer the case. That’s why those sections were removed.

The Brennan Center was complaining about voter rolls being purged in 2014 - 2016, around 4 million people. Keep in mind the report from 2020 from Judicial Watch found 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens.

Needless to say, if “voting rights” groups are worried about 4 million people Phantoms (let’s call them what they are) being removed from the rolls in the 2014 - 2016 time span, and we still had 1.8 million in 2020, how many more Phantoms are there now? How many states are truly trying to clean up their voter rolls, or have laws in place to specify that voter rolls are cleaned frequently enough to keep up with normal deaths and migration?

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Perhaps this will shed a little light on why things came out the way they did this time.

Originally from my Substack "Siegbarste Newsletter" (before Substack began censoring speech).

This article really explains the situation well.

The Democrat ballot gathering apparatus was collapsed by anonymous Wisconsin heroes

“There is a big difference between “votes” and “ballots.” The Republicans focused on winning votes; the Democrats focused on gathering ballots. The ballots won,” the Conservative Treehouse opined.

The phantom voter or address serves as the raw material for the ballot-gathering strategy. Each ballot must be associated with someone – even if that is only a name on a list.

A large number of live voting ballots accumulate at addresses where the voter indicated on the ballot does not live. As a result of the ballots gathered, the electoral victory inventory has been created. The person who gathers them will be able to vote with them.

And I will add to that, the person who gathers those ballots will be able to vote with them legally!

Since there is no signature verification, and no chain of custody, all you need is a ballot, a name from the voter roll, and “some” address. This has been glossed over by nearly every single conservative pundit that I’ve seen to date, except for Sundance, and Jeff Miller.

Kari Lake was never going to win in AZ because this is exactly the technique they used. They have an endless supply of fake/phantom voters to backfill any offset that they might come across — and it’s all LEGAL. That’s right. There aren’t going to be any court cases that stop this, because the law currently allows for it. Also, if they keep the difference greater than 0.5% there will be no recount either. All that might happen is that this technique will become more widely known/exposed. Remember that Katie Hobbs never even campaigned, or debated Kari Lake, because she already knew that she didn’t have to. Katie Hobbs didn’t need “votes/voters” she just needed ballots.

But how to fix it, or stop it? That is where Jeff Miller goes with this.

Quiet, anonymous Wisconsin heroes, working in a small office, virtually unfunded – proved how to collapse the Democrat ballot gathering apparatus.

For the ballot-gathering strategy to work, Democrats need tens of thousands of phantom addresses and voters. A few is not enough. Without thousands of loose ballots tied to phantoms, the edifice comes crashing down.

…

Fractal Programming technology, funded by Mike Lindell, was applied by the Wisconsin election heroes at scale in order to locate and challenge phantoms. You can find more information about the process at www.Omega4America.com.

“They went to scores of county registrars and challenged thousands of phantoms – proof in hand. Quietly, below the radar, they showed registrars, whose job it is, that Bill Jones was not a real person. They helped clean up addresses that were wrong – either typos or fake,” The Pundit explains.

Any one of those addresses was a landing pad for a loose ballot.

On election day, the Wisconsin Democrats did not have enough phantoms or mail-in ballots to go around. A Republican senator might have been saved by these actions.

The good news of the now permanent ballot gathering strategy is that the Democrats need to keep voter rolls fat with the dead, people living in U.P.S. boxes and RV Parks. They need to physically gather all those floating ballots and vote them.

This is why ERIC was controlled by Democrat operatives.

“Clever Leftists built a national system, ERIC, now used by about 30 states, to make sure voter rolls protected phantoms. Using in-your-face messaging, ERIC claimed it was a resource to keep voter rolls clean,” The Gateway Pundit reports.

ERIC was never about cleaning voter rolls, it was about making sure that voter rolls stay perpetually dirty and full of invalid “registered voters.” Phantoms to make sure that the ballot gathering could take place where needed.

Now that more people are catching on to how this works — LET’S FIX IT. Many Republicans have benefited from this method as well, which is why they are never going to do anything about it on their own. If that were the case, the Republican legislatures in GA, NC, PA, AZ, WI, and MI would have stopped it before 2020. But they didn’t, and they still haven’t.

It’s up to the public to do this.

Follow-up Article.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

This is my running stream of thought on AI.

There are many things up in the air as AI is concerned. The most troubling is data center land grabs. There are many palces where data centers have been proposed, and the local citizenry is opposed. This has sparked debate, because many of the local politicians have worked to get the data centers pushed through -- without the consent of their constituents.

Five months after Grosser turned them down, local officials said at a public meeting that Mason County was being scouted as a location for a new data center development.

Grosser experienced firsthand what has become a common but controversial aspect of the multibillion-dollar data center boom, fueled by artificial intelligence services. Major tech companies launching the huge projects across the country are asking land sellers and public officials to sign NDAs to limit discussions about details of the projects in exchange for morsels of information and the potential of economic lifelines for their communities. It often leaves neighbors searching for answers about the futures of their communities.

The construction of such hyperscale data centers — giant facilities that house servers and computing resources — is booming nationwide. President Donald Trump’s AI action plan and related executive orders have recently facilitated their speedy approval, in part by loosening environmental regulations from clean air and water laws. Hundreds of projects were announced last year, touted by developers and many local officials as economic boosts to local economies.

People are obviously being paid off. When NDAs are involved, there is money changing hands, and the people slinging the money don't want people finding out who they are.

There's an even stranger side to this though.

Nvidia is about to enter the PC market. Why? Because they say that AI is going to be moving more towards edge devices. The AI will be built-in to the devices we use, not hosted elsewhere.

TAIPEI, June 1 (Reuters) - Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab on Monday unveiled a new chip ​that puts artificial intelligence capabilities directly into laptops and desktop computers, pitting it against the likes of Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O), opens new tab, Intel (INTC.O), opens new tab and Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab.

The chip, developed with Taiwan's MediaTek (2454.TW), opens new tab, will debut this fall in laptops and compact desktops from Dell (DELL.N), opens new tab, HP (HPQ.N), opens new tab, Lenovo (0992.HK), opens new tab, ASUS (2357.TW), opens new tab, Microsoft Surface and MSI, with models from Acer and GIGABYTE to follow.

Industry experts said the processor would overhaul engagement with AI as it is designed to ​run autonomous AI agents locally rather than relying solely on cloud computing.

This begs the question -- "What are all the data centers for -- if most AI will be moving to edge devices?"

Something's not right here.

Tell me what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

For me this is another example of, “One side pushed to hard, and now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.”

Feminists have gone so far to emasculate men, that they are now seen [by men] as an existential threat.

Feminism has become embedded into nearly all parts of American culture.

The Feminization of Story Telling

Stories, at least traditionally, were always a means of learning. People told stories over generations, because it was how people passed knowledge from one generation to the next.

These stories often involved women, who by no fault of their own, got themselves into bad situations. It was at this point that a man would come to save her. A knight, or someone virtuous would rescue her (the idea being -- it is virtuous to save women) and then everything would work out in the end.

This process has been hijacked by those who wish to portray a new kind of story. Not one where women need to be protected -- but one where the women do the protecting.

This inversion is instinctively rejected by males. Well, by most males. See, this is not the way that things work in real life. These kinds of ideals can’t be unwound -- because they’re not social constructs -- they are the way that humans (on a civilizational scale) have survived for as long as we can tell.

Feminists have taken it upon themselves to change the perception of reality. Men aren’t supposed to protect women, in fact most men are portrayed in stories today as being idiots. Many people have written about this, Eric Rogers is one that comes to mind.

That’s precisely what’s been done, over several decades, to the cultural image of the virtuous man, to the image of a hero. This wasn’t aesthetic drift. It wasn’t just a change in taste or storytelling. It was a systematic and deliberate suppression of something that would otherwise tell the truth. We didn’t merely lose the image of an admirable man from our media, it was actively replaced with a distortion designed to make the original unrecognizable.

As with any movement, it grew subtly over time. The first signs were hard to pick up on, but during the ‘80s and ‘90s, the dominant image of the man in American popular culture became the bumbling husband: Homer Simpson, Ray Barone, Al Bundy. Men who might not have been villains, but they lacked almost any redeemable qualities. Importantly, these characters were seen as relatable, “normal guys.” Heroes were still on the big screen, like Kurt Russel and Mel Gibson, but the hero was starting to be seen as a fantasy, while the slob was the truth.

The idea is for the male figure in Western media is to be a loser, and not worthy of the woman. This serves many purposes, but here are two that immediately come to mind.

1. It keeps the male/female divide intact. It does this by keeping men on the defensive (as they are conceptualized as fools and incompetent). Not a good starting point.

2. Women are more likely to see foreign men as competent. This is because most foreign films don’t portray men as fools. Netflix is a prime example of this. If you’ve ever watched any of the foreign stories that are dubbed in English, the men are portrayed as regular men. They are not portrayed as fools.

This is ironic, because the same people who are pushing the “Western Men Are Idiots” narrative -- are the same people inviting violent third world men into Western countries. And we all know where that leads. 🙄

Men Are Terrible And They Will Hurt You

As with most ideologies, nearly everything “feminist” operates from a simple binary baseline.

Feminists filter the actions of men -- through a filter resembling this: Men are angry, spiteful, power hungry, and aggressive -- at all times. In fact, when men are not being aggressive, they’re scheming, there must be a game afoot. Things are never as they seem, don’t trust your senses.

Feminism does not account for gray areas. It can’t, because that might allow for honest observations. You can’t have honest observations -- of a binary enemy. They’re bad -- that’s it -- end of discussion.

Feminism makes me think of a role-reversed version of the rap song "Bitches Ain't Shit." Feminism operates on that level of complexity.

Jenn And The Unveiling of Crazy

Around 10 years back, I still had a personal Facebook account that I would look at every once in a while when I was bored. This was right around the time when Trump was elected the first time.

There were a few people on there that I would talk to from time to time. People I went to high school with, I graduated in 1998, so it was 18 years prior that I was in school with any of those people, or people that I used to work with.

I was scrolling through my feed when I saw a message from a girl I went to high school with. In that 18-year span she had become a teacher.

She posted something to the effect of, “Now that Trump has been elected, I’m worried that rapes are going to increase all over the country!” I thought that she was joking. NO -- she was 100% serious!

I went to her Facebook page and poked around, there was all this bizarre leftist stuff. There was a picture of her classroom door, covered in a giant piece of paper that said, “We love our Brown kids, Black kids, Asian kids…” Every ethnic group you could think of, but there as no mention of White kids (I wonder how those kids felt in her class). She was a full-on Social Justice Warrior!

She posted something else to do with men raping women, because of Trump. I mentioned to her, “You do understand that everyone you knew the day before -- is still the same person today. Nothing changed overnight because Trump was elected. There was no switch that flipped to make people act differently.”

It didn’t matter, she already blocked me. She blocked me -- for pointing out the obvious.

This took me completely by surprise as she was one of the people in school who “bucked the system.” I never would have imagined that she would have been pulled in by leftist ideology. But then, she was still single. There was no man in the picture to guide her, as a result, she strayed into the wilderness, and was targeted by feminists.

She was an attractive woman, and feminists seek attractive women when they can. They know that women who are attractive have much more sway with men (and generally hold a higher social status) and so they are targeted relentlessly, because of their persuasive abilities.

On Facebook, many other people were writing insane nonsense as well. All of Facebook seemed awash with people who were not in control of their emotions, and seemed generally crazy.

None of those people were worth engaging with in discussion because they were mental basket cases, who checked under their bed at night to make sure Trump wasn’t hiding under there.

All I could think was, “These are the people they have teaching kids? Seriously?!”

Feminists Are Gatekeepers

Feminists have also become embedded into the gateways (entry points) by which most men attempt to “make something of themselves” -- the job market.

First men have to beat the “Algorithm Game,” then they often have to woo the feminist HR interviewers.

I’ll explain.

Men, especially young men are tired of dealing with gatekeepers. Everyone is tired of dealing with people who hate them -- generally -- and those same people [who hate you] being the entryway to a career.

It reminds me of building your financial credit. You can’t get a credit card (with a decent credit rate) because you’ve never had a credit card before. But you can’t really build your credit without a credit card. 🤔 So you get screwed over early -- when you’re trying to build something -- so that later when credit is less important, you can “potentially” get a better interest rate? Credit in general is a scam, but that’s a whole different topic.

The subject of feminism is interesting to me, not because I’ve personally had to deal with it so much, but because I’ve watched other people have to deal with it. And it is complete BS, there’s no real navigable path for young men today. It all depends on your available resources, and whether or not your family will, or can, help you or not.

I’m a rather attractive guy, so the harpies treat me differently than less attractive guys. I know how to flirt in a non-threatening way -- and this makes a huge difference! Women like to be the center of attention (at all times) even in that attention is not destined to go anywhere (and they know that). I’m sure you’ve heard, “It’s nice to be wanted” before.

You could be a less attractive man, and know how to talk to people, and go far.

If you’re less attractive and spiteful, or non-positive in your general demeanor (or otherwise have low self esteem) -- then you’re not getting hired.

It’s almost like the women are hiring men -- based on whether or not they would date them.

I know I’ll be attacked on this -- but it’s 100% true! And all you ladies out there know it. 😉👉

Men do the same thing!

Why do so many accomplished men have secretaries that are attractive? Because it’s a status symbol. Nobody has to explain “why” they hired her, “Just look at her! Would you turn her away?!”

The same thing is happening to men now. The entry points for men have swapped. Instead of men hiring competent men, there’s women hiring men based on their “likability” not merit.

Women don’t care about merit. They care if they find you attractive as a possible mate, why you might up their social status. Biology just works that way.

That’s why so many dating/hiring websites are always about “confidence” and “showing that you can handle the situation.” Not by proven facts -- but by the way that you come off in a short conversation.

That’s not hiring -- that’s speed dating!

Women Don’t Need Men, It’s Men Who Need The Women

Feminists have used this phrase for around 40 years.

‘Behind every great man there’s a great woman’ [it] was adopted as a slogan for the 1960/70s feminist movement, first having been used in the 1940s.

“Behind every great man there’s a great woman.” Which is very convenient for feminists.

See, it was never the men, it was really the women -- who were managing the men -- which allowed Great Men to become great.

You know, people like Genghis Khan. Who was most definitely “lead from behind” by all of the thousands of women he slept with.

Historical estimates suggest Genghis Khan slept with thousands of women, with some records indicating a harem of 2,000 to 3,000 concubines. This prolific reproductive history is backed by genetic studies showing that approximately 1 in 200 men today are his direct descendants. To understand how these numbers are possible, we must first analyze the genetic evidence that confirms his massive biological footprint.

There are more men of renown who were never married, or widowed before they reached their apex in society.

• Isaac Newton
• Nikola Tesla
• Henry David Thoreau
• Leonardo Da Vinci
• Thomas Jefferson (had been widowed for 19 years when he was elected as the third President).

It was not women who made these men great; however, it was the individual achievements of these men that made them great.

One can argue whether their achievements are “great” or not, but one cannot argue that they were lead by women because they simply were not. Who might have been the woman that recommended that Genghis Khan sleep with thousands of women?

Men don’t seek a name for themselves -- because a woman suggests it. Men seek greatness because these things are inherent.

Someone born into royalty doesn’t require a woman to tell them that they need to keep things going. It becomes 100% obvious at a young age. Either you keep the status quo -- or you likely get slimmed. Not to mention, most of the people surrounding young royalty -- are not relatives -- and often times not the mother of the child. That’s just the way things were.

The mother was often required for other formal viewings, and could not “be there” for her child.

None of that really matters though, because for feminism to “work” the woman needs to be the primary source of influence -- always. Not some male who might possibly poison the mind of another male, providing an alternate point of view.

You know what else doesn’t allow any alternate point of view? A CULT. Yes an actual cult. Which is what feminism really is.

Let me break it down my own way.

From personal experience, a cult is anything that says, “Whatever you thought you knew is 100% wrong.” That’s the first giveaway. Not that people somewhere along the way, might have been “mistaken” -- no, they are “wrong” -- and they are knowingly “wrong” -- because they are trying to deceive you.

Similarly, cults often call on their followers to be "true believers" who sacrifice themselves for the cause. Feminism does this as well -- except for those at the top.

Feminism has all the classic marks of a cult. But it’s a cult that’s been mainstreamed by a large extent of society.

So, what do we do now?

Tell me in the comments...

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Yes it's possible to have that cup of coffee with full flavor -- and the oils that come from the coffee beans. But you don't need a French press to do it. In fact, I'll show you how I did it with $12 a drip coffee maker.

French press coffee is always better tasting, the flavor is more robust, and there is an oily film at the top of the coffee, I'm sure it enhances the flavor somehow, there's also a small amount of grounds that end up in the finished product as well.

When I'm done making coffee I always prop open the lid to my drip coffee maker with a clothespin, so it can dry out a little and cool off. Then I can dump the grounds and filter, rinse everything out, and get it ready again.

However, if I have a day where I have to leave first thing in the morning, I might not dump the filter and grounds until later at night, or the next day.

One morning I was getting ready to make my coffee and I noticed something. There was a dark ring around the top edge of the paper filter. When I took a closer look, I realized that the dark ring was oily.

This means the oily residue is being caught up in the paper filters I've been using. I thought to myself, "Perhaps that's why drip coffee, passed through a paper filter, never tastes as good as the French press coffee."

I wanted to find a way to replicate that French press flavor, not stripping the oils, not having to heat up a kettle, or spend time cleaning the French press each morning.

Then it dawned on me. I just need a filter made of something non-absorbent. I went on Amazon and started peeking around and found this.

Price $12.98 from Amazon

I figured that this might do the trick, as the holes are small, but not so small that they will stop all of the little bits of grounds from getting through.

I tried it out as soon as it arrived. It was not good. The coffee was very weak, and tasteless.

The filter has holes in the bottom as well as the sides, so there's nothing to keep the water from displacing the grounds -- and dripping through -- where it just displaced them. Which was exactly what was happening. Just like this picture showing how easy it is to clean.

So, I figured, perhaps I could put something in it that would cover part of the bottom. I used a shot glass first, something I knew the hot water wouldn't ruin, but would cover a portion of the bottom. It made the coffee a little bit better, but still not like the French press.

Then I thought, "Why even have openings at the bottom of the filter at all? Why not force the water to pass through the grounds, by blocking the entire bottom portion of the filter?"

After measuring, the precise dimension of the bottom of the filter, I looked for something to cover the entire bottom of the filter and found this.

Price $9.99 from Amazon

It's the perfect size, covering the entire bottom of the filter, forcing the water to pass through the grounds before exiting the sides.

You can see in this next photo, that the water level in the basket is about 1/3 of the way up from the bottom. All of the grounds are floating or submerged. That is precisely what I was looking for.

I used it the first time, and it was great! Perfect French press-tasting coffee, but without all the hassle.

Let me know what you think in the comments.

If you enjoy my writing, you could buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"