Thursday, 26 November 2020
Sidney Powell Sues GA Governor Brian Kemp, et al

The mainstream media will ignore this. Rulings in favor of President Trump will be a big shock and will be cast of illegitimate, but there is no doubt, they're coming.

Our institutions are creaking under the strain, but they're still working.

See the filing here.


Posted on 11/26/2020 6:51 AM by Rebecca Bynum
26 Nov 2020
Send an emailHOWARD NELSON
"Come my Beloved and fill the cup that clears today of past regrets and future fears ..." H/t Omar Khayyam

26 Nov 2020
Send an emailNorman Berdichevsky
Why the American Election Screwup Is Unimaginable in Britain In the United States, serious disputes over election results is nothing new. The election of 2000 took 37 days to resolved hinging on the vote count in a single state (Florida) and the necessity to examine by eye “hanging chads.” Many, (probably most) historians agree that John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in the 1960 election primarily as a result of corruption and fraud in the state of Illinois where longtime Democratic governors and the mayor of large cities) miscounted the vote “by hand” without the help of computers and their algorithms. As a dual citizen and having lived in both the U.S. and the U.K for many years and participated in voting in national presidential, congressional and general parliamentary elections, I can assure Americans still in shock and chaos after the disputed results of November 3rd have trickled in, that such an incredible screwup is absolutely inconceivable in Great Britain which is also why I frequently refer to it in times of crisis as still GREAT Britain and why the country has never had a serious dispute regarding the outcome of a national election. So how are British elections run from the setting of the election’s date until the ceremonial pronouncement of the winning candidates and how do they significantly differ from the American system as was exemplified in the still undecided U.S. presidential election of 2020? Let’s start with absentee ballots. If you wish to send in a write-in ballot you must request an application form well in advance of the election date and fill it in completely providing your complete address with the postal zone, date of birth and signature. Without you taking the initiative, no ballot will be made available to you. All the requested information is essential on the application form, and once again when you use your postal vote. No one else is permitted to “cure” any error you may make. This information is needed to PREVENT FRAUD. You then return your form to your local electoral registration office. IF you lack information in this matter, you can find their details and more information on-line. It MUST be returned by 5 pm, 11 working days before the election. It is up to you to ensure that your vote arrives in time well in advance of the date of the election. If you are not already registered to vote, you must register before applying for a postal vote. The deadline to register to vote is midnight, 12 working days before the election. It was Stalin who is reputed to have said that the reality of the voting system in the USSR is …“It’s not the people who vote that count; it’s the people who count the votes.” Of course, Stalin did not need the sham of any kind of electoral procedure. It was simply a rubber stamp formality that could be dispensed of entirely since he had adequate means of much less subtle forms of ensuring his continued stay in office. Stage 1: counting the ballot papers The count begins with a SIMULTANEOUS unsealing of the ballot boxes, both those from the polling stations and those containing the postal ballots. The ballot papers are emptied on to the counting tables, and, assembled observers including monitors, called agents, who are there to make sure that the candidate of their party is not being “shortchanged. “They all must verify that nothing remains in the boxes. All this work is done by human eyes and hands. All the ballot papers are then counted. Care is taken that the number of papers in each box matches the ballot paper account of the votes cast as the polling station and verification of the postal ballot packs. If the numbers don’t match, there are recounts held until they do. If there is any discrepancy, The counters and observers must agree that same number of ballots is recorded twice in succession. Among the many polling stations there is an intense pride in getting the results counted as soon as possible. With the polls not closing until 10.00pm, its midnight target is ambitious. Traffic lights are timed so that the ballot box vans get an uninterrupted journey to the count. Stage 2: counting the votes Papers from different boxes are mixed, to preserve the secrecy of the vote. They are then distributed teams of counters who sort the papers by the candidate voted for – each voter in the plurality electoral system permits confidence that a majority is obtained by the candidate who has obtained the most unambiguous X next to him on the paper ballot. Those who are required by law to be present are The (Acting) Returning Officer (ARO) who has done this job before and is in charge of the election • Deputy AROs who assist throughout the count • Supervisors – individuals who are in charge of supervising the count teams and reporting to the ARO and his/her deputies • Counters – divided into count teams who will count the ballot papers and the votes. Timing Attention is paid to the timing of the count. The ARO take reasonable steps to begin counting the votes within four hours of the close of poll at 10pm. A number of factors might impact on when the votes can begin to be counted, for example the geography of the district and how long it takes to get the ballot boxes in from the polling stations. What happens to determine the count? Arrival of ballot boxes. Staff will deliver the ballot boxes containing postal votes and the ballot boxes from the polling stations to the count venue. Each ballot box will have been allocated a specific number and will be checked in on arrival. First stage of the count: counting the number of ballot papers. At this stage, count staff will be comparing the actual numbers of ballot papers in each ballot box against the ballot paper account. This is a form completed by the Presiding Officer at each polling station accounting for the ballot papers they have issued. Postal votes are accounted for in a similar way. Ballot boxes are opened and emptied onto tables. The empty boxes are shown to everyone present. Teams count and record the number of ballot papers in each ballot box. Where the number of ballot papers matches the number expected, the ballot papers are ready to go to the second stage of the count. Where they don’t, the count team will be asked to recount the ballot papers until the numbers match or until the same number of ballot papers is arrived at twice in a row. Any discrepancies between the numbers on the ballot paper account and those in the ballot box are recorded. The ARO will prepare a statement showing how many ballot papers were received in each ballot box against how many ballot papers were expected. This statement will be provided to candidates and agents. Second stage of the count: counting the votes on the ballot papers Ballot papers from different ballot boxes are mixed to preserve the secrecy of the vote. Ballot papers are then allocated to count teams which will sort ballot papers by candidate. Ballot papers that are not marked with an ‘X’ in the box next to a candidate are given to the ARO, or a deputy, to adjudicate – these are called ‘doubtful’ ballot papers. As long as the intention of the voter is clearly apparent, the ballot is counted. If it is not possible for the ARO to work out the voter’s intention the ballot paper is rejected and marked with the reason for the rejection. These are called ‘rejected’ votes. After the sorting is complete, count teams will count the number of votes cast for each candidate. Once all of the valid votes and any rejected votes have been added together and checked against the total number of ballot papers from the first stage of the count, the ARO will share the provisional result with all concerned. If the voter’s X is not clearly in the box next to a candidate, it becomes a “doubtful” paper, with the ARO or deputy adjudicating on its validity. But nowadays, the aim is to make an intelligent guess of the voter’s intention wherever possible, and only where it is completely unclear or disputed is the ballot paper actually rejected. If a candidate’s agent objects, the objection is recorded, but again, it’s ultimately the ARO’s decision. With sorting completed, each candidate’s votes are then counted, plus any rejected votes, and the total checked against the total number of ballot papers recorded in the first count. Stage 3: the result The ARO then shares the provisional result with the candidates and their agents, at which point either a candidate or agent may request a recount of the votes. There are no rules defining either how close a result needs to be to qualify for a recount or the number of recounts – seven being the current record, is jointly held by two constituencies, Brighton Kemptown (1964) and Peterborough (1966). Again, it’s the ARO’s decision whether to allow a recount. After all, some recount requests are inevitably made simply to try and save losing candidates’ £500 deposits at parliamentary elections , which are forfeited if they win less than 5% of the vote. Not since 1886 has there been a constituency tied vote in a general election. But they sometimes occur in local elections, and the convention is that, if the votes remain level after recounts, the ARO will decide the winner by a random method acceptable to the candidates concerned – perhaps tossing a coin, or as in one recent case, having the candidates draw different length cable ties inserted into a legal text book. This is the traditional British sportsmanship expected at a cricket match. The ceremonial proclamation of the winning candidate takes place in the same spirit of goodwill and sportsmanship as at a cricket match.

27 Nov 2020
Send an emailHoward Nelson
The fault or inadequacy in our vote system is the corruption of the overseers, the guardians, the cheaters in positions of control of implementation of the otherwise fair apparatus. The operation of said system is defined by State Constitutions, NOT by usurping pig-trough slurping political pawns. A simple corrective would be to make fraud a hanging penalty offense, or, some equivalent punishment if the fraud felon has no neck. //. Thank you for all the effort you took explaining the peerless British system from which we could learn much.

Pre-order on Amazon or Amazon UK today!

Order at Amazon or Amazon!
Audible read by Ann Osmond

Order at Amazon or Amazon UK

Amazon donates to World Encounter Institute Inc when you shop at #AmazonSmile #StartWithaSmile



Adam Selene (2) A.J. Caschetta (7) Ahnaf Kalam (2) Alexander Murinson (1) Andrew Harrod (4) Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Bat Ye'or (6) Bill Corden (4) Bradley Betters (1) Brex I Teer (9) Brian of London (32) Carol Sebastian (1) Christina McIntosh (865) Christopher DeGroot (2) Conrad Black (647) Daniel Mallock (5) David J. Baldovin (1) David P. Gontar (7) David Solway (78) David Wemyss (1) Dexter Van Zile (74) Dr. Michael Welner (3) E. B Samuel (1) Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (1) Emmet Scott (1) Eric Rozenman (9) Esmerelda Weatherwax (9874) Fergus Downie (23) Fred Leder (1) Friedrich Hansen (7) G. Murphy Donovan (74) G. Tod Slone (1) Gary Fouse (167) Geert Wilders (13) Geoffrey Botkin (1) Geoffrey Clarfield (331) George Rojas (1) Hannah Rubenstein (3) Hesham Shehab and Anne-Christine Hoff (1) Hossein Khorram (2) Howard Rotberg (22) Hugh Fitzgerald (21277) Ibn Warraq (10) Ilana Freedman (2) James Como (24) James Robbins (1) James Stevens Curl (2) Janet Charlesworth (1) Janice Fiamengo (1) jeffrey burghauser (1) Jenna Wright (1) Jerry Gordon (2517) Jerry Gordon and Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah (3) Jesse Sandoval (1) John Constantine (122) John Hajjar (6) John M. Joyce (392) John Rossomando (1) Jonathan Ferguson (1) Jonathan Hausman (4) Jordan Cope (1) Joseph S. Spoerl (10) Kenneth Francis (2) Kenneth Hanson (1) Kenneth Lasson (1) Kenneth Timmerman (29) Lorna Salzman (9) Louis Rene Beres (37) Manda Zand Ervin (2) Marc Epstein (9) Mark Anthony Signorelli (11) Mark Durie (7) Mark Zaslav (1) Mary Jackson (5065) Matthew Hausman (46) Matthew Stewart (1) Michael Curtis (701) Michael Rechtenwald (35) Mordechai Nisan (2) Moshe Dann (1) NER (2590) New English Review Press (115) Nidra Poller (73) Nikos A. Salingaros (1) Nonie Darwish (10) Norman Berdichevsky (86) Paul Oakley (1) Paul Weston (5) Paula Boddington (1) Peter McGregor (1) Peter McLoughlin (1) Philip Blake (1) Phyllis Chesler (155) Rebecca Bynum (7221) Reg Green (2) Richard Butrick (24) Richard Kostelanetz (16) Richard L. Benkin (21) Richard L. Cravatts (7) Richard L. Rubenstein (44) Robert Harris (85) Sally Ross (36) Sam Bluefarb (1) Samuel Chamberlain (1) Sha’i ben-Tekoa (1) Springtime for Snowflakes (4) Stacey McKenna (1) Stephen Schecter (1) Steve Hecht (31) Ted Belman (8) The Law (90) Theodore Dalrymple (908) Thomas J. Scheff (6) Thomas Ország-Land (3) Tom Harb (4) Tyler Curtis (1) Walid Phares (32) Winfield Myers (1) z - all below inactive (7) z - Ares Demertzis (2) z - Andrew Bostom (74) z - Andy McCarthy (536) z - Artemis Gordon Glidden (881) z - DL Adams (21) z - John Derbyshire (1013) z - Marisol Seibold (26) z - Mark Butterworth (49) z- Robert Bove (1189) zz - Ali Sina (2)
Site Archive