Pennsylvania Ballot Fillers Elected a Dead Guy


Posted originally on the conservative tree house November 9, 2022 | Sundance 

The people who distributed, assembled, collected and then submitted all the Democrat ballots in Pennsylvania filled in the bubble for a dead guy. Democrat Anthony “Tony” DeLuca died October 9th but was reelected to his state House seat on November 8th. Go figure.

PENNSYLVANIA – A Pennsylvania state representative who died last month was reelected during the midterm elections, reports say.

Democrat Anthony “Tony” DeLuca died Oct. 9 “after a brief battle with lymphoma, a disease he twice previously beat. He was 85,” the Pennsylvania House Democratic Caucus wrote.  DeLuca was Pennsylvania’s longest-serving state rep, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

“While we’re incredibly saddened by the loss of Representative Tony DeLuca, we are proud to see the voters to continue to show their confidence in him and his commitment to Democratic values by re-electing him posthumously. A special election will follow soon,” Pennsylvania House Democrats said in a tweet.  (more)

Big Picture, 2022 Midterm Elections Highlight the Distinct Difference Between Ballots and Votes


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on November 9, 2022 | Sundance 

As the political discussion centers on the 2022 wins and losses from the midterm election, one thing that stands out in similarity to the 2020 general election is the difference between ballots and votes.  It appears in some states this is the ‘new normal.’

Where votes were the focus, the Biden administration suffered losses.  Where ballots were the focus, the Biden administration won.

Perhaps the two states most reflective of ‘ballots’ being more important than ‘votes’ are Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Despite negative polling and public opinion toward two specific candidates in those states, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman achieved victories.

Whitmer and Fetterman were not campaigning for votes, that is old school. Instead, the machinery behind both candidates focused on the modern path. The Democrat machines in both states focused on ballot collection and ignored the irrelevant votes as cast.

Since the advent of ballot centric focus through mail-in and collection drop-off processes, votes have become increasingly less valuable amid the organizers who wish to control election outcomes.  As a direct and specific result, ballot collection has become the key to Democrat party success.

The effort to attain votes for candidates is less important than the strategy of collecting ballots.

It should be emphasized; these are two distinctly different election systems.

The system of ballot distribution and collection is far more susceptible to control than the traditional system of votes cast at precincts.

A vote cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area.  However, a ballot can be sent, completed and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual.

While ballots and votes originate in two totally different processes, the end result of both “ballots” and “votes,” weighing on the presented election outcome, is identical.

While initially the ballot form of election control was tested in Deep Blue states, through the process of mail-in returns under the guise and justification of “expanding democracy,” a useful tool for those who are vested in the distinction, I think we are now starting to see what happens on a national level when the process is expanded.

The controversial 2020 election showed the result of making ‘ballots’ the strategy for electoral success.  Under the justification of COVID-19 mitigation, mail-in ballots took center stage.  Ballot harvesting by Democrat operations was one term for the outcome.

Democrat party officials and political activist groups knew how to exploit the opportunities within the new system of ballot distribution and collection, and when you combine that with a massive legal pressure campaign to accept any and all forms of ballots, well, you can see how they are dependent.

Now that ballot collection has been shown to be a much more effective way to maintain political power, Democrats in a general sense are less focused on winning votes and more focused on gathering ballots.

When ‘ballot organization’ becomes more important than ‘vote winning,’ you modify your electoral campaign approaches accordingly.  It might sound simplistic, but inside the distinct difference between ballots and votes you will find why refusing debates is a successful strategy.

If you are trying to win votes you could never fathom campaign success by refusing to debate an opponent.  However, if your focus is centered around ballot collection, the debate is essentially irrelevant.

It’s time for voters to start seeing the difference between elections decided by ballots and elections decided by votes.  Perhaps the 2022 midterm election will awaken people to the two completely different election systems.

You can vote at any scale you want, but when ballots are more important than votes – the election will always favor the former.

Michigan and Pennsylvania voters are likely very unhappy today, while Michigan and Pennsylvania ballot providers are smiling.

If Democrats had to win individual ‘votes’ to gain election success, they would be at a disadvantage.  As long as Democrats only need to gather ‘ballots’, they have a path to winning elections.  The processes of electioneering are all modified accordingly.

Campaigning, advertising, promoting, debating, hand-shaking, crowd attendance and venues for rallies, along with physically meeting people and convincing them of your worth, are only important if you are trying to win votes.

Fortunately for Democrats, modern electioneering does not require these arcane efforts. So, in the larger picture of what you see in elections, they have stopped wasting time and doing them.  Haven’t you noticed? It really is that simple.

Collins Slams Abrams’ Voter Suppression Claims


Newsmax TV Published originally on Rumble on November 4, 2022

Former Congressman Doug Collins gives his predictions on some of the key races in battleground Georgia.

Catherine Englebrecht and Gregg Phillips Put in Jail for Refusing to Outline Sources Who Revealed Konnech U.S. Election Data Transfer to China


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 31, 2022 | sundance 

True the Vote founder Catherine Englebrecht and election data security analyst, Gregg Phillips, have been held in contempt of court and placed in jail for failing to outline the participants in a 2020 hotel discussion that revealed the Konnech election data compromise that was transmitted to Chinese networks.  {Go Deep}

On October 4th, the CEO of  Konnech – a company specializing in proprietary PollChief software to manage election workers – was arrested. [link] Konnech Corporation Chief Executive Officer Eugene Yu was arrested for exploiting access to U.S. election data, including election worker information, and transferring the files to China.

The information that led to Yu’s arrest was the information given to the FBI and first revealed to Englebrecht and Phillips.  However, the Konnech corporation filed a civil lawsuit against Englebrecht and Phillips claiming defamation.  A Texas federal judge allowed the civil lawsuit to continue despite the arrest of Eugene Yu.

Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt demanded that Phillips and Englebrecht reveal the names of everyone who was in a hotel room when the original data files were presented to True the Vote.  Englebrecht and Phillips stated they did not ever possess the data file, do not have it and refused to name all the participants who may have seen it.   Today Judge Hoyt threw them in jail until Englebrecht and Phillips give up the names.

(Post Millennial) – On Monday, US Marshalls took into custody Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips of True the Vote, for refusing to identify a confidential informant.

Federal Judge Kenneth Hoyt delivered the order, holding the two in contempt of court for refusing to identify the informant, according to independent journalist Ivory Hecker.

Hoyt ordered that Engelbrcht and Phillips be held in custody for at least a day, until they divulge that information.  (read more)

Fetterman v Oz – Another Case Against Mail-In Voting


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Oct 27, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Pennsylvania Senate debate between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz was a complete disaster for Fetterman. I think everyone felt secondhand embarrassment for John. Fetterman seemed incoherent for most of the debate. He struggled to form logical sentences or stay on topic.

His team is now in the midst of damage control. They claim that he was brave for speaking weeks after his stroke and that the closed captions provided were altered. “We are thrilled with John’s performance. He did remarkably well tonight – especially when you consider that he’s still recovering from a stroke and was working off of delayed captions filled with errors,” Fetterman’s team managed to say. The doctor who gave Fetterman the OK after his stroke also happens to be one of his campaign donors. Clearly, he was not healthy enough to be on that stage.

Some people would have voted for Fetterman even if he were in a coma simply because he is not a Republican. Others, however, are shocked at the candidate’s mental state. The problem is that close to a million people have already voted in Pennsylvania through mail-in ballots. There may be some sensible people left who are now regretting their vote after seeing his performance on Tuesday night.

Mail-in ballots are not tracked through the mail and open the door to fraud (see: 2020 US Presidential Election). Fraud aside, people did not have a full scope of knowledge before they voted. It would be akin to allowing students to take their final exams during the first few weeks of class.