Many people wonder how government fraud schemes work.

Well, there’s no better way to learn -- than to watch one in the making, which is precisely what’s happening right now in Massachusetts.

A company where the husband of Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., is a partner was selected for a nearly $2 billion deal to build a new courthouse in Springfield, Massachusetts — a decision now being challenged in court by rejected bidders who allege conflicts of interest tainted the process.

Conan Harris, who has been married to the Massachusetts Democrat for more than a decade, is a partner with John Barros in CoJo Real Estate, which is part of the Liberty Junction team selected in early July for the 40-year courthouse lease, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege Barros’ role as interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) created a conflict of interest because several members of that agency’s board also serve on the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, the state agency that selected Liberty Junction.

How to View This Problem

Many state and federal agencies are literally organized crime outfits. They operate (out of necessity) in the dark.

I also have some experience in this area. I can layout some of what I’ve seen.

Let’s begin with an analogy.

A government engineered car, with no engine, is supposed to be driven from New York to California.

However, before anything can be done, the law states that it must be inspected. Consultants are hired/contracted. They conclude that the car needs new brake pads, it needs a transmission service, new air filter, fuel filter... By the time that's completed it needs new wiper blades, it has been years now (the wipers rotted during that time). In the end nearly the entire vehicle has been reworked. Why? Because everyone was getting paid.

But the car hasn’t been driven, in fact it’s never even been started.

That's a normal successful government program. It didn't produce anything, but everyone was getting paid.

You know another word for that?

Fraud.

You might ask, why didn’t anyone say anything about the fact that there was no engine? Why didn’t an outside group ever look into the project and follow up on the progress?

It’s simple, everyone is getting paid. Looking under the hood is not going to happen, because the project is going to be part of a 2,000+ page bill, that covers literally everything in the federal, or state government’s budget for a period of months or years.

Anyone who looks under the hood and sees that there’s no engine -- has nobody to turn to -- because everyone is getting paid. Inspectors general (IGs) don’t look into stuff like this until years after the fraud operation has already been run.

What’s The Pretext

How does this kind of scenario come about? First you propose a piece of legislation, that’s supposed to produce something. It can be anything, but it’s usually a large infrastructure project, high-speed rail, the broadband deal, bridges, EV charging stations, a courthouse, things of that nature.

Then behind the scenes, you have politicians determine which engineering/consulting groups they want to work with. The politicians write into the law nonsense requirements for those consulting contracts, things that are generally unassociated with the work to be performed (that way even through there’s an “open bid process,” they will get the “right” consultants contracted).

The legislation will also have an exhaustive list of nonsense steps, requiring years worth of consulting work to be completed before anything ever happens in the physical world.

The consulting groups are working behind the scenes with the politicians; part of their unspoken agreement is to have the consulting groups and their employees donate to the political campaigns of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. This can be done various different ways.

All of this is by design, because as long as those consultants can stay on the job, they can keep laundering tax-payer money into the pockets of the politicians who awarded them the contracts. Everyone keeps getting paid. And most importantly -- nothing is being built.

It’s organized crime. And yes, I’ve witnessed it first hand -- on more than one occasion.

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"

Instead, I'm going to focus on what is visible for all to see.

The SAVE America Act has broad approval amongst the citizenry in the US (somewhere around 80%+ at the time of this writing) yet it can't get past the senate.

Why?

The SAVE America Act would make it much harder for voting/election manipulation to take place -- we know voting/election manipulation takes place -- at all levels, it's not even questionable. So why would people fight to keep the system so easy to manipulate?

I believe the answer is simple.

If the SAVE America Act were to pass -- and the law followed -- the true voice of the citizenry might be heard.

I also believe true elections can't be allowed to happen, because whatever is planned for us -- is horrible, and something that almost nobody would agree with. There is no other reason not to allow for legitimate elections.

Unless the current system is entirely propped up by the illusion of consensus, and the illusion of elections.

The freedoms that we've been "allowed" to enjoy for so long are being systematically rolled back, either through the erosion of laws protecting those freedoms, or through the digital surveillance apparatus. No real right to privacy is a serious loss of freedom -- even though most people won't even notice it slipping away.

This is why older people tell younger people about how much better things were. It's not because they're feeling that way because they "remember it differently" -- it's because it was different and much better.

Allowing the general citizenry too much freedom makes certain goals unattainable, so that freedom has to be reeled in, to make people much more predictable and easier to control as a group.

This is why the true state of Mitch McConnell’s cognitive ability is being hidden -- so that they can run out the clock for the SAVE America Act. It can’t be instated before the 2026 midterms.

The fake Mitch McConnell vote is needed to keep the act from passing.

The Republicans are supposed to “lose” the midterms, and this will guarantee that it happens (or rather that it’s believable).

Follow The Money

Most people say, "Follow the money" it will show why things are the way that they are. And that works in most instances, yet in others it does not.

The COVID-19 Scam is a perfect example. The push to get everyone vaccinated was not profit driven. If profit were the concern the vaccine manufacturers would have just charged much more for the shots -- but they didn't. No, it was something different entirely.

Also consider, the amount of fraud being uncovered throughout the government dwarfs whatever profit the vaccine manufactures raked in. Government fraud is thousands of times more money than has been made from vaccines since the beginning.

In my opinion the same thing is happening with voting.

The only reason to limit people's choice is because you're going to present them with choices that most people would avoid.

Should You Vote

I won't tell anyone not to vote, that's entirely up to the individual.

I'm not going to tell someone to to stop rubbing Buddha's belly, turn a horseshoe upside down, or to stop carrying around a rabbit's foot.

Do what makes you feel better, you're not hurting anyone else. And you're definitely not putting the country at risk, or any of the other nonsense that people will tell you to compel you to vote.

Just understand that voting is not going to change whatever comes next.

What Comes Next

I'm not sure what happens next.

I'm not even sure who truly knows what's next?

I do know that I'm not privy to such information. That being the case, I'm going to prepare the best I can for whatever comes. Have a "bug out bag" for each of my family members, that sort of thing.

Whatever comes, we'll all have to deal with it.

May God help us all.

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"

I was wondering about this movie, from the second I saw it pushed on X/Twitter.

Why would a movie -- that accurately portrays what is really being perpetrated against Western civilization -- be pushed and widely seen?

One might imagine that it's because people "feel" what's coming, and want to make sure that others are prepared. Perhaps, but I don't buy that.

Timing Is Everything

This movie was released just as most Americans are feeling the absolute most angst towards immigrants -- probably ever.

Why is right now the time for pushing this movie Citizen Vigilante? And why push it for free for 48 hours before asking for people to pay for it?

Not only that, why was it posted on X/Twitter -- where anyone can download it for free -- and redistribute it? Musk made an arrangement with the producers to allow it to be streamed on X free for 48 hours.

Profit was obviously not a consideration.

The movie was released on June 19, 2026 -- just days before a historic SCOTUS decision which (more or less) trivialized US citizenship.

And most people already knew which way the decision was going to land.

What is the movie about?

To sum it up quickly, it was a vigilante taking out "migrants" and other people weighing down and destroying Western society.

But that's not all. It gets to the very heart of the issue.

This level of blunt and clear communication is not normal, it's definitely not something that the mainstream movie industry would put out.

Why, in this movie, are the characters allowed to say what many people think -- but can't say?

Why is this movie even out there, and why right now?

More importantly -- why are there so few globalists / subversives / progressives complaining about this movie? What do they know that most normies don't know?

The movie was banned in Germany, but that was never really a problem, of course the German government knows this, but they have to look like they're trying.

Nothing Is as It Seems

There are many theories on why this is happening, here's mine:

In my opinion, this movie was released with one specific purpose, and it was not because those who produced it believe in anything portrayed in the movie. There's a reason that the scene with the judge involves the vigilante running a random car off the road -- presumably killing those inside -- to prove a point to someone he's about to kill anyway.

That scene was to portray the "hero" of the film as a sociopath nutjob, which could have been questionable -- up to that point. Because, anyone who takes the law into their own hands must be a sociopath, and by extension a bad person.

There were no mistakes in the making of this film. It sets very clear narratives.

"Vigilantes think immigrants are bad, and other bad people, the vigilantes, might go out and start killing immigrants.

This movie appears to be designed to get (ignorant) people to act -- now -- like right now, before there is any kind of coordinated effort to stop mass migration.

Someone wants there to be vigilantes.

There Is A Method to Their Madness

It's simple really.

Division.

What better way to scare the hell out of migrants who are not violent, and stoke the flames of resentment for regular citizens of the US. This movie hits on both simultaneously, and with jarring precision.

Take the SCOTUS ruling for example. It was obviously done to enrage the public -- because The Constitution was very clear about the means to citizenship.

The Constitution wasn't "misinterpreted" -- it was overruled by activist subversive judges -- on purpose right now -- for maximum effect.

This is a known tactic. And it's happening right now, right out in the open where everyone can see it.

For anyone doubting this, just watch what happens.

Someone will likely go out and take out some immigrants in the US, and they will quote this movie, or they will use it as a defense in court.

Something dramatic will happen to make sure that everyone knows:

"If you cross the 'authorities' you will be removed from society and your children will be taken from you. So just lay down, and let the third worlders take over your society. Your services are no longer needed."

Oh, and if you watched the movie, and commented on X about it, there's no doubt you're being watched by law enforcement. This whole thing was a setup from the beginning. They're salivating at the chance to make an example out of the first person to do anything even remotely related to this movie, or it's theme(s).

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"

How can I make this claim?

Because Islamic leaders have already made the claim too many times to list here. Those Islamic leaders don’t talk about moving to the West to settle [under Western laws], they talk about moving to the West to instate Islamic Law -- to conquer. What most people don’t understand is that traditional Islamic beliefs are that Muslims can’t permanently live in the dār al-Kufr (land of disbelief).

The fact that there are countless books written in an attempt to reconcile the differences between Islam and the West are proof enough that there are serious compatibility issues.

More recently, Muslim political groups have referred to hijra in other ways. To give just a few examples: (1) in opposition to colonial rule; (2) those leaving Russia and the Balkan states in the 1800s; (3) Indian Muslims moving from British-controlled India to Afghanistan in the 1920s; (4) Muslims emigrating from India to the newly created state of Pakistan. These follow a pattern in that they all discuss whether Muslims were obliged to leave areas ruled by “infidels” (Muslims in medieval Christian Spain, colonialized areas, Russia and the Balkans, India towards Afghanistan or India towards Pakistan, etc.) and if so, under what conditions. These discussions were very closely related to issues of jihad.

In addition, post-World War II Muslim migration to Europe was of great historical importance, as it formed the basis of a fundamental change of concepts in Islamic normative thought. It developed what became known as a reverse hijra, that is, an unprecedented number of Muslims emigrating voluntarily from Muslim lands to non-Muslim countries. After the Second World War, with the introduction of the United Nations and the formation of Muslim minority communities in Western Europe, Muslim political, legal and religious scholars reached a new interpretation of the peaceful relations between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, rejecting the traditional dichotomy of dār al-Islām (abode or land of Islam) and dār al-Kufr (abode or land of disbelief) as anachronistic. This paved the way for an Islamic acceptance for residence, naturalisation and citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim nation states under certain conditions (such as freedom of religion).

This acceptance became the basis for a new branch of Islamic Law that was developed in the 1990s and 2000s, namely fiqh al-aqalliyyāt. In less than two decades, fiqh al-aqalliyyāt shifted the legal discourse from fiqh al-hijra to fiqh al-muwāṭana, the Islamic law of citizenship. However, this does not mean that citizenship, nationality and integration of more than 15 million Muslims in the European Union was accepted by Muslim scholars overall. There are still certain countries, circles and traditions where this is rejected and where Europe [and the US] continues to be seen as part of dār al-Kufr. The process of re-interpretation of Islamic thought concerning this vital political issue has not yet been completed. These circles normally allowed Muslim residence in other parts of the
world for specific, temporary reasons, but not for the purpose of settling (Ramadan
1999; Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh 1996).

It’s not that Muslims don’t want to live in the West and enjoy the materialist advantages the West offers -- it’s that they are not to do so permanently.

As a result, what must Muslims do once they migrate to a new Western country?

Either they migrate there temporarily, or they decide to stay and begin work on the Islamization of that society.

There is no other option for Muslims. Either they live in the dār al-Islām (abode or land of Islam) or they temporarily live in the dār al-Kufr (abode or land of disbelief).

This is not a new problem for the West. In fact there have been many Islamic scholars who have tried to reconcile these differences.

Here is the opening to the book I linked to. These scholars are not arguing that Islam should exist side-by-side with Western civilizations, but that they should offer an alternative to Western civilization. Eventually replacing Western civilization, as it is required.

A principle concern of the authors in this collection of papers is how Islamic ethical and legal traditions can contribute to current global debates on the dilemmas of migration and displacement. Can the Muslim tradition provide an alternative international moral and legal paradigm where others have proven inadequate? Abou El Fadl, in this volume, argues that the Muslim tradition is replete with “powerful virtuous ethical impulses that could make substantive contributions to the field of forced migrants and displacement.” The ethics of muʾākhā (brotherhood), ḍiyāfa (hospitality), ijāra (providing protection and support), amān (providing safety), jiwār (neighborliness), sutra (protection, esp. in case of marriage), kafala (to guarantee someone) among others, may provide common ethical grounds with other religious traditions, moral philosophies and social customs that can go beyond the technical applications and procedural standards of international law. The argument that these moral principles or “ethical potentialities and trajectories” are only entitled to fellow Muslims and not applicable to non-Muslims, contradicts the general historical trajectories and normative understanding in Islam. These ethics, according to the authors of this volume, are inclusive and not context-specific. They present “a normative imperative for Muslims that would apply whenever there is an obligation to escape oppression or injustice,” and represent “purposeful construction of social and political virtues” (Abou El Fadl, Chapter One).

Unfortunately, post-colonial Muslim scholars have been more occupied with the apologetic discourse of either reinterpreting classical concepts (such as the division of the world into dār al-Islām and dār al-ḥarb) to relate to the political conceptualization of contemporary nation states, or proving an essential compatibility and reconcilability between Islamic theology and international law. The better task is to turn the moral imperatives inherited from the Islamic tradition into significant theological and ethical engagements with modern discourses on human rights and dignity.

This volume provides scholarly attempts to achieve this task by reviewing questions of migration, residence, naturalisation and citizenship from multisided perspectives, thus more broadly defining the Islamic tradition to cover not only theology but to also encompass ethics, customs and social norms, as well as modern political, humanitarian and rights discourses.

The works of these Islamic scholars are openly admitting that there are irreconcilable differences between the West and Islamic culture. The last sentence (the part I highlighted), says it plainly.

Let’s break it down.

...thus more broadly defining the Islamic tradition to cover not only theology but to also encompass ethics, customs and social norms, as well as modern political, humanitarian and rights discourses.

These are the areas that Islamic tradition are to cover in any society.

• Theology
• Ethics
• Customs
• Social norms
• Politics
• Humanitarian [issues]
• Rights discourses (notice they are not ‘individual’ rights)

Considering how comprehensive this list is, what’s left?

LAW. That’s what’s left (out), and that’s a large part of why it’s not mentioned in this list.

Islamic scholars often write this way. They wax on about the virtues of Islam -- but they almost always seem to gloss over Islamic Law -- because that’s where you determine how those virtues are to be applied and to whom they apply.

Islamic scholars always couch Islamic Law as part of Islamic ethical and legal traditions. This is an attempt to make it sound not like a law, and that Islamic Law is really just a “tradition.” When functionally nothing could be further from the truth.

It’s the Christian equivalent of saying that the Ten Commandments are really just tradition. However, most of modern Western law is based on the Ten Commandments, so the tradition argument becomes rather silly.

The same thing applies to Islamic Law. Islamic Law is the foundation from which Islamic traditions are effectively applied.

The War on Terror and The Patriot Act

Remember the phrase [The US military will] "Fight them over there, so you don’t have to fight them here."

The September 11 attacks changed things, for a few years.

Islam was the driving force behind terrorism in the US, and by extension, the reason for the massive domestic spy program known as The Patriot Act.

“See terrorists are already here, and so we need a way to catch these people -- that we already know are here.” - Neocons

You can’t get the public behind a massive program to stomp on their rights -- unless you have a compelling argument that it will better their lives somehow. In this case, it was said that the domestic spying program would stop future terror attacks.

Safety was dangled out there, and far too many people chose safety over freedom.

The idea that any government is going to setup a giant spy program, but never use it for nefarious purposes, is dangerously naive. Love him or hate him, just ask Trump about The Patriot Act and domestic spying.

The Patriot Act was 100% always about domestic spying -- because when the government wants to control the entire population, you need to know who will go along, and who won’t. There is no other reason for such a system.

Edward Snowden broke that story to the world, and is still sought after for criminal charges in the US -- for letting people know the truth behind the lies.

Why facilitate the migration of Muslims to the West

Does anyone really believe that this will result in a good outcome, when there is obviously no historical reason to believe so?

The answer to that question is rather simple.

No.

Nobody expects that this will work out well. That’s how you know that this migration effort is part of something entirely different.

The obvious answer was to not allow incompatible people into the United States as refugees. But this was done anyway.

Why?

Because a level of chaos is needed to enact change. Keep in mind that all the while, this is being facilitated by the US government, by our “elected” officials.

Pushing two or more incompatible groups together will ultimately result in disagreements that will rise to the level of requiring some kind of government-level intervention.

We’re seeing this happen right now in the UK. The number of incompatible cultures that have been thrown together is reaching the boiling point. The people of the UK are demanding that their government do something about it, and of course the government is doing nothing about it -- yet.

Don’t make the assumption that this is because the authorities are weak, or because they lack the will to do something about it.

This is being allowed to happen on purpose.

Consider all of the strange things that have happened in just the last few years in the UK. They are jailing more people for speech violations in the UK than Russia. They are refusing to uphold UK law when migrant(s) are involved. Again -- not by accident. These actions are designed to provoke a response.

The UK government is poking and prodding the population into action. Once it becomes a very serious problem, open fighting in the streets, and general mayhem, how do you think the government is going to respond?

Are they going to favor the indigenous population -- or are they going to lump everyone together (migrants and citizens) and treat the entire group as one?

I think the answer is obvious.

Whatever happens as a result will require everyone in that country to abide by new “emergency” laws. What exactly that might entail, your guess is as good as mine, but I know one thing. I don’t want to be there when that goes down.

Where does this all lead

Knowing that this obviously ends badly -- at least for everyday people -- what could possibly be the point of all this?

I think the answer is simple.

You can’t create a kind of (1984-style Fabian Society) control structure with Western civilization intact. The US Constitution was written to limit the power of government. The US Constitution is the greatest obstacle to those who wish for absolute control.

Europe will be a much easier win for the controllers.

Western civilization must be replaced with something that is more compatible with absolute (and centralized) control.

One might argue communism, or socialism could offer that level of control, but it hasn’t historically.

Communism and socialism’s main failing point is that the entire premise of both (at least for those outside the system) was always a lie.

It’s not long before everyone knows what’s really going on, it is just easier to lie and keep on living, than to push back against the system, and likely be killed or watch your family be tortured and killed.

In comes Islam

Islam takes care of all attributes of the control structure inherently -- and it wraps it up under the guise of a religion.

As a result you have “true believers” not like with communism and socialism where everyone always knew (even if deep-down) that something was off.

Islam creates true hardcore believers.

Once there is an Islamic majority, there is no more need for “conversion.” Muslims are tolerant when they must be, once they have the majority there is almost zero tolerance. The phase where Muslims try to convince people to convert to Islam -- is in the beginning stages -- before there is an Islamic majority. That's why so many in the West fail to see what's happening.

Once a country is majority Muslim, it’s not likely to ever turn back. Not without some kind of civil war or revolution.

There are a few countries that have gone from Islam to Christianity, but not many, and most of them were majority Christian before Islamization.

• Spain and Portugal
• Philippines
• Mozambique
• Malta and Sicily
• Greece
• Serbia
• Bulgaria
• Romania

It is my personal opinion that those who wish for total control, don’t care about religion in any way, and simply want a compliant lower class of people to rule over -- and the easiest way to do that is to allow Islam to profligate, then tighten the reigns.

Islam is being used in the West to accelerate or otherwise bring on the downfall of Western civilization -- because Western civilization is the only thing holding the controllers at bay.

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"

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.

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] are at the entryway to almost any 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"