Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on November 24, 2020 by sundance

First things first… Again, my most sincere appreciation to all those voices who have called, written and contacted us expressing support.  The level of support during this effort to silence our voice is overwhelming and very much appreciated.

The people at WordPress open source software are apologetic, and they point to the people at WordPress.com/Automattic (the business) as the issue; two different groups.

On the technical side of the equation, there is a team of independent website engineers, platform designers and exceptionally skilled technology folks working to assist us.  They are working brilliantly on this process, and our CTH community would be lost without their diligent efforts.

We are blessed to have brilliant people on task, focused and executing. To say this is a considerable task would be an understatement.  It is very time consuming.

At first blush, the migration seems a simple process of exporting and importing the current CTH data…. until you realize the sheer scale of data involved.  There are approximately 35,000 research articles and more than 7,200,000 comments in our decade-long archives each with an independent url to handle.   The first step to secure the research library resulted in an export base of 60 files, each file holding massive amounts of data for transfer.

Ten years of graphics, pdf’s, charts, images, videos and millions of internal citations within that library equates to a lot of data.  Combine that with a customary 10,000 to 20,000 word daily output of analysis, and then thousands of daily unique comments, and the server space needed for file transfer (as well as the import time) was a seriously unknown variable.

So, the team built a temporary site to see how long the transfer would take.  After initial efforts, the engineering realized they could not auto-run the import.  Simply the issue was overloading server capacity and few systems could handle the load.

The result is the 60 files can only be loaded in batches of five at a time.  Each file takes approximately 30 to 45 minutes to import. The test run took place over two+ days, and we identified a total import time of 30 to 60 hours.

By taking this painstaking approach, we are ensuring that all internal links do not result in a “404” dead link notification.  Meaning the library will remain intact, and all external links that lead to the CTH library will be able to find them.  Additionally, and/all citations within the CTH library will be retained, and people will be able to use all the embed links; and also importantly, all prior links to your previous comments are retained.

After we knew the architecture and data import would take approximately two days; and adding the anticipated scale of bandwidth to foresee; we have signed up for host data services with an organization that should be able to handle the volume.  We are soon to transfer the data from the temporary site into the permanent site on permanent servers.

NOTE: During the transition and data transfer we will need to shut down commenting function for CTH (WordPress) until CTH 2.0 launches.   The mirroring of the site during this process will take (based on the test run) approximately 40 hours +/-.  As a result, it is highly likely comments will be closed for around two days.  Unfortunately, there is no other way to pull this off; it is simply a matter of volume and scale.

We will continue to post new articles and you will be able to see them, you just might not be able to comment on them until the full data transfer to Treehouse 2.0 is complete.  Likely, I will have to cross-post to both websites during this transitional phase.

[Remember, the articles from CTH/CTH 2.0 cross-post onto Twitter, and you can also comment there. Or use the Twitter link to return to the CTH 2.0 article when live]

On the good news side… the functionality of the new site should be similar to what you are currently experiencing.  There will likely be quirks after the launch that will need to be worked out, but the user experience will hopefully remain (essentially) as it is now, albeit you will not need a WordPress account for functionality.   We are using the WordPress open-source software, so most of the current site functions should transfer.

There are some proprietary WordPress.Com features that will not transfer; however, we will immediately begin a priority process of building-in those features via plug-ins where possible…. there are a variety of add-ons that can enhance the new site and even make it better.  We will use those features when feasible, and when possible in our budget.

♦ Some exceptionally kind people have requested a subscription platform; however, it has always been my mission to provide the raw and cited details, with an opinion toward what it means, totally free for everyone to use as they choose.

I do not consider my finished products proprietary, because they can always be made better by smart researchers who can find even more details for a bigger story, and make it even better.  The site openness and accessibility is as important to me now as it was when The Last Refuge of misfits first assembled 10 years ago. CTH will never charge for access to the truth as we can discover it.

Just as many generous people had excellent suggestions for website hosting; however, many of those were disqualified simply because they cannot handle the volume of CTH traffic without major upgrades and CTH would be paying for those upgrades.  The results of the test site disqualified a lot of hosting options.  We simply have a ton of data and a great deal of bandwidth use on a daily basis.  Our selected host has the capacity (fingers crossed) to handle the scale we need.

♦ The domain name will remain the same: “TheConservativeTreehouse.com”, and should be seamless in transition to the new website.  However, after CTH 2.0 launch you may need to clear your browser “cookies” and “cache” so that your search or bookmark reaches the new servers accurately.

How you can tell – If you find yourself only finding older articles when you visit CTH this will be the problem.  Clear your “cache and cookies”, search or use your bookmarks for CTH again, and your browser should redirect you to the correct website.

We are up against a deadline of December 2nd – As a result, the graphic design of CTH 2.0 should not look much different.  The site will (should) appear the same to users until we go through a process of modifying the design but retaining the theme.   Our website theme is over a decade old; we are keeping it but will be refreshing some of the aspects (like the blogroll etc).  On an independent site we will have options to add enhancements and make the site carry more features.  That part should be fun.

When the comments go live again, please be patient if you get hung up in a moderation cue. One of our challenges will be the absence of Askimet spam filtering.  It may take time to release some comments if they are hung up in moderation.  The site admins do a great job with comment moderation and release so it shouldn’t be too much of an issue; and quite frankly, there are likely to be benefits from not having the WordPress software filtering through the comments as they post.  Spam removal will be a priority.

Please bear with us as we work through some of the challenges of comment moderation in our new platform.  It should be seamless, but just in case… well, patience is appreciated. Be assured we will work diligently during this go live phase to deal with any comment issues as rapidly as possible.

♦ Random Stuff – You may not notice, but your user experience is a top priority to us.  One of the ways we do this is through opening links in a new window on your browser. As you click on any citation in a CTH article that action opens a new window in your browser; and when you “x” out of that window you return to your original place in the article.  This was always a standard convenience approach a decade+ ago on websites.

However, as people started monetizing their sites they realized if they forced the person to exit and come back they could inflate their clicks or impressions. 80 percent or more of websites today push you out of the article when you click a citation and force you to return to finish reading.  CTH never subscribed to this inconvenient approach, and we don’t intend to do it now.  Each link will open a new page in your browser.  We will not inflate our statistics by forcing you to go back and forth just to read citations or more info.

Everything is essentially ready to begin the site changeover.  As soon as I know when that process will initiate, I will let you know.  Once activated the ability to comment will be closed for approximately one-to-two days (30-50 hrs), though we hope to make it as quick as possible.  As soon as the changeover is complete, the commenting function will return to normal…. and you will be on CTH 2.0

Any questions feel free to ask below.

Again, thank you all for your support, this is your community.  All of the Treehouse admins are stewards for this place, this Last Refuge, where you are what matters.

The key to Treehouse 2.0 is recognizing we are building something within a system that wants to see us removed. Being proactive will hopefully make us better stewards for our conversation. Remember, YOU are the important part.

Without you CTH doesn’t really have a purpose. I could stand outside shouting at trees with no impact; but together, sitting on the figurative porch, the conversation is rich with unique skill-sets, subject matter experts, and life-long experiences that make discussion so much more valuable. Myself and the CTH admin team cherish the value you represent.

Love to all,

~ Sundance

…Never fight until you have to. But when it’s time to fight, you fight like you’re the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s Ark… and brother, it’s startin’ to rain.

UnHerd108K subscribersSUBSCRIBEFreddie

Sayers caught up with Scott Atlas, a healthcare policy academic from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, who has become the latest lightning rod for the controversy around Covid-19 policy and his support for a more targeted response. Speaking from inside the White House, where he is now Senior advisor to the President and a member of the Coronavirus task force, he does not hold back. He tells us that he is disgusted and dismayed at the media and public policy establishment, sad that it has come to this, cynical about their intentions, and angry that lockdown policies have been allowed to go on so long. He won’t be rushing back to Stanford, where his colleagues have rounded on him, if the President loses in November. KEY QUOTES Why him? I’m a healthcare policy person — I have a background in medical science, but my role really is to translate medial science into public policy. That’s very different from being an epidemiologist or a virologist with a single, limited view on things. Dr Fauci He’s just one person on the task force — there are several people on the task force. His background is virology, immunology and infectious disease. It’s a very different background, it’s a more limited approach, and I don’t speak for him. Herd immunity policy? No. It’s a repeated distortion, lie, or whatever you want to call it… What they mean by ‘herd immunity strategy’ is survival of the fittest, let the infection spread through the community and develop a population immunity. That’s never been the policy that I have advised. It’s never even been discussed inside the White House, not even for a single minute. And that’s never been the policy of the President of the United States or anybody else here. I’ve said that many many times… and yet it persists like so many other things, hence the term that the President is fond of using called fake news. On herd immunity Population immunity is a biological phenomenon that occurs. It’s sort of like if you’re building something in your basement: it’s down on the ground because gravity puts it there. It’s not a ‘strategy’ to say that herd immunity exists — it is obtained when a certain percentage of the population becomes resistant or immune to an infection, whether that is by getting infected or getting a vaccine or by a combination of both. In fact, if you don’t that believe herd immunity exists as a way to block the pathways to the vulnerable in an infection, then you would never advocate or believe in giving widespread vaccination — that’s the whole point of it… I’ve explained it to people who seemingly didn’t understand it; I’ve mentioned this radioactive word called herd immunity. But that’s not a strategy that anyone is pursuing. What is his policy? My advice is exactly this. It’s a three-pronged strategy. Number one: aggressive protection of high risk individuals and the vulnerable (typically the elderly and those with co-morbidities). Number two: allocate resources so that we prevent hospital overcrowding, so that people can be treated for this virus and get the other serious medical care that is needed. Number three: open schools, society and businesses because keeping them closed is enormously harmful — in fact it kills people. Effect of lockdowns We must open up because we’re killing people. In the US, 46% of the six most common cancers were not diagnosed during the shutdown… These are people who will present to the hospital or their doctor with later stage disease — many of these people will die. 650,000 Americans are on chemotherapy ­— half of them didn’t come in for their chemo because they were afraid. Two-thirds of screenings for cancer were not done; half of childhood immunisations did not get done; 85% of living organ transplants did not get done. And then we see the other harms: 200,000 cases plus of child abuse in the US during the two months of spring school closures were not reported because schools are the number one agency where abuse is noticed; we have one out of four American young adults, college age, who thought of killing themselves in the month of June… All of these harms are massive for the working class and the lower socioeconomic groups. The people who are upper class, who can work from home, the people who can sip their latte and complain that their children are underfoot or that they have to come up with extra money to hire a tutor privately — these are people who are not impacted by the lockdowns.SHOW LESS

Re-Posted from Just Facts Daily By James D. Agresti November 24, 2020

A “fact check” by USA Today is defaming a Ph.D.-vetted study by Just Facts that found non-citizens may have cast enough illegal votes for Joe Biden to overturn the lawful election results in some key battleground states. The article, written by USA Today’s Chelsey Cox, contains 10 misrepresentations, unsupported claims, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.

Furthermore, Facebook is using this misinformation to suppress the genuine facts of this issue instead of honoring its policy to “Stop Misinformation and False News.” Compounding this malfeasance, a note at the bottom of Cox’s article states that USA Today’s “fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.”

#1 Dr. Glen’s Credentials

Starting with the most simplistic falsehood in Cox’s piece, she impugned the character of Dr. Andrew Glen, a Ph.D. scholar who specializes in data analytics and who examined Just Facts’ study and found that it “provides a credible data analysis that supports a strong hypothesis of non-citizens having a significant effect on this election.”

Cox did this by claiming that “though he is attributed as a professor emeritus at the United States Military Academy, an ‘Andrew Glen’ did not appear in a search result on the website for the United States Military Academy, West Point. Glen attended the school as a student, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”

That statement reveals that Cox and her editor were ignorant of the fact that a professor emeritus is one who has “retired from an office or position.” Thus, Dr. Glen would not appear on the webpage of current faculty to which she linked.

Had Cox conducted a proper search, she would have found that West Point’s website lists Glen among a group of professors who wrote a reference work for its Department of Mathematical Sciences.

Cox could have also found proof of Glen’s professorship at West Point via a peer-reviewed journal, an academic book that he coauthored on the topic of computational probability, or the website of Colorado College, where Glen currently teaches.

After reading what USA Today published about Dr. Glen, current West Point adjunct professor Dr. Joseph P. Damore wrote:

I can personally attest to the fact that Andrew Glen, COL USA, ret. was an Academy Professor at West Point. I know, because I was there with him.

And Ms. Cox, to imply that an Iraq war vet, a graduate of West Point, and a retired Colonel from the U.S. Army is somehow lying about his credentials is so egregiously offensive, that it demands your apology.

Instead of an apology, USA Today altered the article 18 hours after publication to remove this attack on Glen without issuing a correction. This is a breach of journalistic ethics that require reporters and media outlets to “acknowledge mistakes” and explain them “carefully and clearly.”

#2 Dr. Cook’s Credentials

Cox also assails the credibility of Dr. Michael Cook, another scholar who specializes in data analytics and reviewed Just Facts’ study. Cook found that the study is “methodologically sound, and fair in its conclusions,” but Cox dismisses him as a “financial analyst, according to his LinkedIn profile page.”

However, Cook’s LinkedIn profile states that he is an “applied mathematician and strategic thinker with experience on Wall Street, scientific research, statistical modeling.” This experience, coupled with Cook’s Ph.D. in mathematics, make him eminently qualified to assess Just Facts’ data-heavy study.

#3 Cook’s and Glen’s Qualifications

Cox also attempts to discredit both Ph.D. scholars by reporting that they “are not election experts.” Given that Cox gives no credence to their reviews of Just Facts’ study, she is overtly implying that they are unqualified to assess it. After reading this, Dr. Cook wrote:

Though I am not an “election expert,” I have training and experience in statistical modeling, statistical inference, and sampling theory, which is the basis of my comments on Agresti’s methodology and approach.

Agresti, the president of Just Facts, is the author of the study.

Dr. Glen replied similarly while explaining the folly of Cox’s argument:

Once elections happen, they leave the academic realm of sociologists and political scientists, and enter the realm of statisticians, data scientists, and operations research. Analogously, biostatisticians are often not medical doctors and yet are of great necessity in studying the effects of public health, disease spread, and drug efficacy.

That a “fact checker” would be unaware of these types of interdisciplinary interactions that are common in scientific and academic fields displays a significant lack of qualification for the job and reflects poorly on the trustworthiness of USA Today.

#4 Voter Registration by Non-Citizens

Cox also mangles the facts about every major aspect of Just Facts’ study. She mainly does this by treating unsupported claims from progressives as if they were facts, while ignoring or dismissing actual facts.

Cox asserts that “only a handful” of non-citizens ever register to vote, and “that’s not going to change an election.” Those words came from a lawyer named Robert Brandon, founder of the left-leaning Fair Elections Center. In the article from which Cox quotes him, Brandon provides no evidence to support this statement. He simply makes it. Yet, Cox accepts this unsubstantiated claim as a fact.

Meanwhile, Cox disregards these rigorously documented facts that appear in Just Facts’ study:

• In scientific surveys conducted in 2008, 2012, and 2013, 13% to 15% of self-declared non-citizens admitted that they were registered to vote.
• Database matches with voter registration records in 2008 suggest that the true rate of non-citizen voter registration is almost twice what they reveal in surveys.
• Data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Social Security Administration, and the New York Times show that the vast bulk of illegal immigrants use false identifications that would allow them to vote.

Without a hint of skepticism, Cox also relies on “a 2007 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a center-left institute” that allegedly shows “few people purposefully register to vote if they are knowingly ineligible.” Written by Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, the report provides narrow, weakly sourced evidence that does not come close to supporting Cox’s broad claim.

For example, Levitt’s first piece of evidence that non-citizens rarely register to vote is a Seattle Times editorial chastising a lone person who challenged the citizenship and voting credentials of 1,000+ people “based on the sound of their name.” Levitt gives the false impression that an investigation was conducted, but the editorial says nothing of the sort. Instead it says that “state election officials are not aware” of such illegal voting, but “that is not to say non-citizens did not vote or that non-citizens should vote.”

Levitt provides another fives examples that suffer from similar flaws, including arguments from silence, references to secondary sources, and the use of narrow probes with no capacity to root out voting by illegal immigrants who use false IDs.

All-in all, Cox does not provide a single fact to support her statement that “few noncitizens register to vote in federal elections.” She merely declares this to be a fact based on the allegations of two progressives—who she selects. Then based on this, she claims that Just Facts’ study “is unfounded.”

#5 Results of the Electoral Studies Paper

Furthermore, Cox misrepresents the results of a seminal 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies. She does this by quoting it out of context to convey the false impression that only “some noncitizens” vote. She never mentions the study’s striking results, which are as follows:

• “Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.”
• The “best estimate” for the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election is 1.2 million, with a range “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.”
• “Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass” Obamacare.

#6 First Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper

Cox also tarnishes the Electoral Studies paper, and with this, the reputations of the scholars who wrote it. Once again, she does this by treating unsupported and demonstrably false claims as if they were facts.

Citing an article in Wired magazine, Cox writes: “Michael Jones-Correa, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the study’s critics, told Wired that any responses from noncitizens” in the survey used for the study “were included due to error.”

Neither Cox, nor Wired, nor Jones-Correa present any evidence to support that accusation. Moreover, it is disproven by the fact that the survey posed this question to its respondents: “Which of these statements best describes you? … I am an immigrant to the USA but not a citizen.”

#7 Second Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper

Based on the same Wired article, Cox declares that “Jones-Correa also said the sample size is too small for a representative sample of the noncitizen population.” In reality, Jones-Correa makes a different claim (debunked below), but neither Cox nor the Wired reporter seem to understand the difference between them.

Cox’s argument about sample size is based on a puerile notion debunked by a teaching guide for K–8th grade students, as well as other academic sources. Snopes and PolitiFact previously made the same false argument, and for this reason, Just Facts’ study provides a warning about this “mathematically illiterate” claim and a link to the facts that disprove it. However, Cox completely ignores these facts and reports this untruth instead.

#8 Third Attack on the Integrity of the Electoral Studies Paper

The argument that Jones-Correa actually made in Wired is that the survey sample for the study was unlikely to “accurately represent” non-citizens. This has nothing to do with the sample size and everything to do with the fact that surveys can be highly inaccurate if they don’t use random samples of respondents. As stated in the textbook Mind on Statistics, “Surveys that simply use those who respond voluntarily are sure to be biased in favor of those with strong opinions or with time on their hands.”

However, the Electoral Studies paper directly confronts this issue by “weighting the data” to produce “a non-citizen sample that appears to be a better match with Census estimates of the population.” As explained in the academic book Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide, weighting “is one of the most common approaches” that researchers use to “present results that are representative of the target population….”

The book goes on to explain that weighting is far from foolproof, and both Just Facts and the Electoral Studies paper directly state that. This is one of the reasons why Just Facts refers to its study results as “estimates” five separate times and directs readers to these “possible sources of error, some of which may produce overcounts and some undercounts.”

Nonetheless, weighting is a generally accepted means of making survey data representative, and Cox’s omission of this fact is grossly misleading.

Cox, Wired, and Jones-Correa are not the only ones to spread this half-truth. PolitiFact and Brian Schaffner of UMass Amherst have done the same—despite the fact that the Electoral Studies paper addressed this issue right from the start. This shows that each of these people and organizations either did not read the full paper, did not understand it, or are deliberately trying to slander it.

#9 Pathways to Illegal Voting

Cox writes that “registrants voting in a federal election supply evidence of their residence,” but “Agresti argues some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” This mischaracterizes the facts on two levels.

First, proof of residency is not proof of citizenship. And as Agresti pointed out in his study and in an email to Cox, “all 50 states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections.”

Second, Agresti does not merely argue that “some noncitizens manage to vote in federal elections despite preventive measures.” He provides reams of facts from primary sources showing that:

• no state requires anyone to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote because federal courts have stopped them from enacting this requirement.
• the vast bulk of illegal immigrants use false identifications that would allow them to vote.
• three scientific surveys and database matches with voter registration records show that millions of non-citizens are registered to vote.
• Barack Obama stated that there is no effective way to enforce the law that prohibits non-citizens from voting.

The sources cited by Agresti to prove these facts include:

• a Supreme Court ruling.
• a federal appeals court ruling.
• an Obama administration Department of Justice legal brief.
• the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s voter registration guide.
• a scientific bilingual survey of Hispanic adults in the U.S.
• the 2014 Electoral Studies paper and a follow-up working paper by the same scholars.
• a U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation.
• a study by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration.
• a video of California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon stating that “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
• a video of Obama stating that non-citizens would not be deported if they voted because “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over, and people start investigating, etcetera.”

Yet, Cox describes this stunning array of documented facts with the phrase “Agresti argues” and then rejects all of them in favor of an unsubstantiated claim from a progressive lawyer. That’s not fact checking but propagandizing.

#10 Confirming Fraud

Finally, Cox contests the reality that states have withheld public voter roll data from the Trump administration that could be used to prove how many illegal votes are cast by non-citizens. She does this by linking to a summary of state policies on public access to voter lists. She then points out that “voter information is publicly available” in the battleground states.

This is one of the rare cases where Cox actually presents facts to support her case, but she misinterprets them. She does this by failing to account for the differences between:

• a policy summary versus its practical application.
• limited public data versus detailed public data provided in a format that can be analyzed to root out illegal votes.

Once again, all of the facts needed to understand these points are documented in Just Facts’ study with links to credible primary sources, including the Federal Judicial Center and a statement from California’s Secretary of State.

Though California is not a battleground state, it provides a crystal clear example of the distinctions that Cox fails to recognize. According to the link she provided, California’s voter rolls are available to “candidates, parties, ballot measure committees, and to any person for election, scholarly, journalistic, or political purposes, or for governmental purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State.” Yet, when Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity requested the data, California’s Secretary of State vowed that he would not provide it and promised lawsuits and “opposition at every step of the way” to keep the data from the Commission.

Summary

A “fact check” by USA Today contains 10 demonstrably false claims that smear a range of scholars and denigrate a rigorously documented study as “unfounded.”

Facebook partly funded this defamatory work and then notified Just Facts that Facebook is:

• placing a label on Just Facts Facebook post for the study that states: “Independent fact-checkers say this information is missing context and could mislead people.”
• reducing the reach of the post.
• counting this post as a “Page Quality Violation” against Just Facts.

Just Facts posed these three questions to Facebook about its so-called “independent third-party fact-checking organizations” and is awaiting a reply:

• Given that Facebook has hand-selected these organizations to be the judges of truth on your platform, do you hold them to actionable standards and count quality violations against them?
• If so, what exactly are these standards and the repercussions for violating them?
• If not, why are you vesting certain people with unchecked authority to use Facebook to censor others, sow misinformation, and slander the reputations of scholars?