What to Look For – Ballot vs Votes Iteration 4.0


Posted originally on the CTH on October 31, 2024 | Sundance 

It is not my intention to provide black pills. However, we discuss events through the prism of what exists, what we can see and track, rather than what we pretend might be in place.  Thus, today CTH fires a signal flare drawing attention away from precinct voting polling places, and toward tabulation centers.

There is some alarming evidence beginning to surface pointing toward a shift in the USA election process, specifically the fundamentally changed process that now exists behind absentee balloting.

The events in California for the 2018 midterm election appeared to be the original BETA test of mass mail-in ballot collection.  Every person in the state mailed a ballot for completion in the 2018 election cycle.  The outcome was evident for two weeks after election day when ballots continuing to arrive changed the vote outcome.

The 2020 general election then saw, thanks to COVID-19, a nationwide rollout of the BETA test: balloting 2.0.  Millions of households receiving ballots from state election officials, so the socially distant electorate did not need to assemble and vote on election day.  The process created a widespread opportunity for fraud.

In the 2022 midterm election, this absentee balloting system was still in place; affirmed into a new structural process within each state.  An awakening electorate pondered the absence of the predicted “red wave” and recognized there was a distinct difference between voters and ballots.  In general, the republicans were still focused on voters, but the democrats were focused on ballot submission processes.  2022 was essentially the third iteration from the originating California BETA test: balloting 3.0.

After 2022, playing catchup, nationwide attention shifted away from votes and election day, and people started talking about the importance of ballot distribution, collection and submission.  This has been the messaging system going into election day 2024.  However, there are strong, evidence-based reasons to believe ‘Balloting 4.0’ is something else entirely.  Election integrity officials could very well be focusing their efforts on polling and balloting processes that have moved far beyond where they were even just two short years ago.

In 2024’s Balloting 4.0, the “Tabulation Centers” are now far more important than Polling Precincts, yet we still see the majority of election integrity and validation effort, mostly by republicans, focusing on polling precincts.   Let me explain what Balloting 4.0 actually looks like.

Those who created fraud within absentee ballots as a tool to change election outcomes, have dropped the pretense of “registered voters.”   Registered, authorized and eligible voters are no longer an aspect of ballot fraud in this 2024 iteration.  As an outcome, voter rolls are no longer appear to be part of the equation, and the correct or incorrect status of voter rolls is a moot point.

There are very strong indications that Balloting 4.0, the fourth iteration of a fraudulent process to control election outcomes, has now moved well beyond the concern with registered voters and voting rolls.  Balloting 4.0 is now about ballot submission REGARDLESS of registered status.

In order to receive a mail-in or absentee ballot from a state election office, in most cases the person making the request would need to be a registered voter.  Some form of eligibility filter would be required (varies by state) to gain a ballot.  Additionally, in many states’ ballots are sent out in mass mail format based on election rolls.  This has been identified as an issue, because again the voter rolls are not up to date or accurate; ergo, multiple ballots sent out to invalid names and/or addresses.  This problem still exists, but Balloting 4.0 has moved one step farther.

What happens when it is not the state or county sending the ballot or approving the request. If the state or county is doing it, voter rolls are still part of the equation.  However, what happens if ballots are printed locally, distributed and completed with names addresses and customary identification material, and then returned to the county recorders’ office regardless of and irrespective of voter registration.

Balloting 4.0 appears to be a system where ballots can be generated outside govt, by any party in the private sector.  What we would call, “localized ballot printing.”

In this instance, the distribution of the ballots can be made to people regardless of their registered voter status.  In Balloting 4.0 the completion of the ballots has nothing to do with voter rolls or pre-filtered voter authenticity.  Balloting 4.0 is simply the mass printing of paper ballots that can be scanned at tabulation centers just like any other ballot.

In the Balloting 4.0 process, the eligibility status of the person completing the ballot becomes irrelevant.  A name is printed or written, address, identification particulars recorded on the ballot, and then the private-sector-printed ballot is then submitted en mass into a population of other ballots that come from state and county government systems.

Locally printed ballots can be mailed, put in drop boxes, dropped off at election offices, or dropped off by entities who “assist” in ballot submission, just like every other ballot.

If thousands of locally printed, perhaps fraudulent ballots, arrive at a recorders’ office what is to stop them from being bulk mixed into the population of ballots from registered voters.  Yes, there are some formal filtration processes that are expected to be utilized to ensure all ballots received are from registered voters.  However, if the receiving official or tabulation worker is motivated by ideology to participate (or willfully ignore) the potential issue, then all the fraudulent ballots just disburse into a population of authentic ballots.

While some very diligent election supervisors, workers and election officials take precautions to stop such localized (ie fraudulent and non-registered) ballot submissions, unfortunately those officials and workers do not work in/around urban voting centers like Atlanta, Austin, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Milwaukee, Detroit etc.  You can see the issue.

Pushing the issue and question up the chain as an outcome of boots on the ground research, I have yet to hear a response from any election official or career election integrity professional who has an answer for this problem.  This concerns me because we are clearly seeing the tell-tale signs of localized ballot printing starting to surface.

We are seeing reports of multiple state, county and municipal tabulation centers who are having trouble scanning a significant percentage the population of the ballots they are receiving.  Significant enough to change an election outcome.  I would strongly urge readers to pay close attention to reports of some ballots “not scanning” correctly or having formatting issues when compared to the overall population of ballots.

If this is an accurate assessment of things, then what this video shows is exactly what we would expect.  WATCH:

https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1851308958801121705

This is NOT an issue that encompasses double scanning of ballots.  This is an issue of the authenticity of the ballots themselves.  The authenticity of the ballot stems from the authorized authenticity of the voter, and voter identification is protected by a myriad of laws, rules and regulations making that part of the system check almost impossible after the ballot is scanned, accepted and/or adjudicated.

I suspect “Balloting iteration 4.0,” the system in place for 2024, is no longer a ballot issue connected to registered voters and voter rolls.  I suspect ballot fraud in 2024 is now directly and simply the raw generation of physical ballots that have no connection whatsoever to registration processes.

Remember, because the way we value voting rights as a fundamental right for Americans, in every case of ballot review the election system comes from a predisposition that every arriving ballot is valid and authentic.  Issues of doubt are weighted heavily in favor of the submission.  It is rare to have a voting ballot disqualified by a system designed to protect voting ballots.  Those who intentionally support fraud, count on this predisposition of validity [See Marc Elias].

If this perspective is accurate, and there’s no reason to think it is not, then election integrity focus on polling places is wasted energy.  The real venues that should be getting the majority of attention are ballot tabulation centers.  That is where incoming ballots need to be authenticated before they enter any scanning system to record the vote.

Once the ballot is scanned and tabulated, it’s over.  There will never be a process to reverse or remove a legally recorded vote, even if that ballot is fraudulent.

Natalie Winters: “There’s A Distinction Between Ballots And Votes, But They Don’t Give A Damn”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 30, 2024 at 9:00 pm EST

Cpt. Maureen Bannon: “It Might Take Awhile But You Need To Make Sure Your Vote Counts”


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 30, 2024 at 8:00 pm EST

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson Explains Current Nationwide Issue with Dominion Voting Machines


Posted originally on the CTH on October 30, 2024 | Sundance 

Dominion voting access terminals were notorious in the 2020 election for demonstrable issues that led to compromises in the voting process. Unfortunately, those voting problems associated with Dominion appear to be carrying over into the 2024 election.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson explains how there is a “nationwide issue” with Dominion systems preventing voters from making certain selections. According to Benson, this glitch cannot be fixed. WATCH:

Pennsylvania Judge Intervenes and Extends Early Voting After Bucks County Officials Blocked Trump Voters


Bucks County is the milquetoast capital of Pennsylvania.  A solidly conservative county run by white wine spritzer politicians, Democrats and Republicans, who dine on little crustless triangle finger sandwiches filled with cucumbers.  The viewpoint amid the professional republican officials there, is that President Trump must adhere to their constructs.

Showcasing this mindset, the purple Bucks County officials decided they were going to use their own arbitrary timelines to shut down early voting.  The local Democrats called in law enforcement and the video at the bottom of the page shows the outcome.

However, the RNC and Trump campaign found out what the Bucks County republicans and democrats were doing, and they filed for immediate relief from the court [SEE HERE] A judge intervened and has now extended the early voting deadlines by 3 days.

PENNSYLVANIA – A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday sided with Donald Trump’s campaign and agreed to extend an in-person voting option in a suburban Philadelphia county where long lines on the final day led to complaints voters were being disenfranchised by an unprepared election office.

Judge Jeffrey Trauger said in a one-page order that Bucks County voters who want to apply for an early mail ballot now have until Friday. The narrowly divided county, which is led by Democrats, is often seen as a political bellwether.

The Trump campaign’s lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday morning, comes amid a flurry of litigation and complaints over voting in a battleground state that is expected to play a central role in helping select the next president in 2024’s election.  

The lawsuit sought a one-day extension, through Wednesday at 5 p.m., for Bucks County voters to apply in person for a mail-in ballot. The judge’s order permits applications through the close of business on Friday. A county spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.  The Trump campaign hailed the ruling as a win.  (more)

This is what happened yesterday:

Supreme Court Rules Virginia Can Continue to Purge Voter Rolls of Ineligible Voters


Posted originally on the CTH on October 30, 2024 | Sundance 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today allowed Virginia to continue its purge of more than 1,600 ineligible voters from the state’s voter rolls. [pdf ruling here]

The stay was issued 6 to 3, along ideological lines, with leftist Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting with the opinion that illegal aliens and ineligible voters should be permitted to cast ballots.

[Source]

BACKGROUND – On August 7th, Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order expediting the removal of noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls. The state maintained that the program followed only removed those who were ineligible to vote due to lack of citizenship.  These were self-declared ineligible voters.

Earlier this month the Justice Department and advocacy groups intervened, suing the state.  They contended that Virginia had purged some eligible voters and that it did so in violation of a federal law that bars removals from voting rolls in the 90 days prior to an election.

[…] A federal district court agreed, ordering Virginia to restore the approximately 1,600 voter registrations that were cancelled. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that order. Virginia then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to allow the state to strike the voters purged in the 90 days prior to the election.

The state contended that the lower courts “misinterpreted the NVRA.” They argued that the “quiet period” cannot apply to noncitizens, since they are already ineligible to vote. Even if the “quiet period” did apply here, the state argued, the program was sufficiently individualized, not systematic.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court sided with Virginia, leaving the purged voters off the rolls and allowing the purge to continue.

Next up, China – U.S Intel Community Now Declares Provenance of Trump Surveillance Associated with “China-Linked Hackers”…


Posted originally on the CTH on October 30, 2024 | Sundance

The ongoing surveillance of Donald Trump continues to generate a need for the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) to attribute foreign adversaries to the origin.  However, substantively we all know the surveillance itself is coming from inside the house.

In the latest development, the New York Times is reporting from their sources “familiar with the matter,” that communication systems within President Trump’s family have been corrupted by “China-linked hackers.”  Before outlining the who’s, what’s and transparently predictable “why’s” of the story, let us first outline what the USIC is leaking to the New York Times.

Remember as you read this, each surveillance system -the origin of the spyware- tells us a lot about what methods are being deployed as a justification for surveillance that we know has been ongoing for a long time.  Notice this “hacking” system is attributed to “Phones used by Jared Kushner and Eric Trump.” When you see ‘phones‘, think ‘Pegasus.’

New York Times – Members of former President Donald J. Trump’s family, as well as Biden administration and State Department officials, were among those targeted by the China-linked hackers who were able to break into telecommunications company systems, according to people familiar with the matter.

The sophisticated hacking operation has alarmed national security officials and appears to have targeted a substantial but focused list of people whose communications would be of interest to the Chinese government. The list of known targets is currently fewer than 100 individuals, these people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive ongoing investigation.

So far, the list of targeted phones includes devices used by high-profile people, including Mr. Trump, his son Eric Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. (read more)

Time is of the essence, so let’s cut to the chase.

The Biden attribution to the same ‘hacking’, is a disposable narrative useful only insofar as the USIC needs to project an air of bipartisanship to the underlying narrative.  Yes, the USIC monitors the Bidens just like they do every other entity of influence in/around government.  However, Biden is irrelevant in this one.

When you see the methods being stated by the USIC to the New York Times as “phones,” we can immediately understand the tools of the spyware they are deflecting toward is the Pegasus system developed by Israeli intelligence contractor NSO.  As the Guardian noted in 2021, ” [NSO] sells surveillance technology to governments worldwide. Its flagship product is Pegasus, spying software – or spyware – that targets iPhones and Android devices. Once a phone is infected, a Pegasus operator can secretly extract chats, photos, emails and location data, or activate microphones and cameras without a user knowing.”

Due to the nature of the product they sell, NSO works with the Israeli government to vet the purchaser of the spyware they sell.

The Pegasus’ cell phone surveillance technology is a tool for governments who cannot build out the technology on their own, and they do not have access to the NSA database. Pegasus is marketed as an alternative to data collection that allows the government agency to specifically target individual cell phones and spy on what that phone is doing.

That’s the surface system that the USIC is selling as part of their operational narrative.  However, how does that attribution connect to “China-Linked Hackers”?  This is where we must always visit prior research.

After the Pegasus revelations were made, it was identified that the actual code that created the malware behind Pegasus was not, in actuality, code generated from within the network of the Israeli company that sells the software/spyware.  There was a very strong indication the actual spyware was created by the Chinese.  Israel was selling a cell phone communication surveillance system, created in part by coding from China, discovered by noticing Chinese fingerprints in the spyware code itself.

The motives and intentions for Israeli intelligence are always what they are.  Israeli intelligence operates on the backbone of multiple SIGNIT (signal intel) and HUMIT (human intel) networks.  Israel doesn’t care what the sourcing of the surveillance spyware is; it’s more important to them to have access to the surveillance end product. I digress.

However, we go back to the aspect of how the story originates, from the USIC to the New York Times.  Now we see that it is important for the USIC to promote a very specific leak that Chinese affiliated systems are monitoring President Trump’s family phones.   Why would the USIC want to make that assertion public?  Because the assertion itself is a distraction, a justification, a smokescreen per se’ that will cover their sourcing of any information that comes as an outcome of the surveillance.

The USIC is conducting the surveillance using the same metadata capabilities they always have.  However, if something useful needs to be exploited, they need an attribution that is disconnected from them.  The USIC need plausible deniability to exploit the surveillance.  The USIC tells the New York Times that China-linked systems are doing the surveillance.

If you were to believe that the USIC stopped exploiting the NSA database to conduct surveillance of Trump, you would have to believe with the stakes even higher than 2016 they somehow, magnanimously, decided not to exploit the system they used in 2015 and 2016.  Put another way, we would have to be stubbornly stupid to think the USIC stopped conducting surveillance on Donald Trump.

This motive of false attribution by the USIC toward China becomes increasingly important when you realize President Trump and his transition team have decided to stay away from the U.S. Government partnership therein.  If a leak of information from within the transition is needed to stimulate a narrative, that leak must have some other plausible method of origin, or it becomes obvious the USIC is monitoring Trump despite his team staying private and outside govt.

When you accept the NSA database of electronic metadata is being exploited by the USIC, the same process they used in 2016, then you accept some method of plausible deniability is needed, especially if President Trump stays disconnected from official USG involvement until much closer to his inauguration.  Hence, the USIC telling the New York Times the Chinese did it.

Just because Eric and Lara Trump are getting their automobile gas tanks filled from alternate or random gas stations, doesn’t mean the GPS tracking in their car’s satellite radio stops working.

The bottom line for the Trump network is to understand the U.S. Intelligence Apparatus, writ large, is currently conducting electronic surveillance of their operations, including the operations of the transition team.   This is NOT going to stop, even after Donald Trump becomes President-elect.

Thus, the importance of the “Emissary.”

The Washington DC Intelligence Community (IC) actively work to isolate the office of the president.  This is an almost impossible dynamic to avoid, caused by an entrenched and ideological adversary who has dug themselves deep into the apparatus of government.

The “emissary” is the person who carries the word of President Trump to any person identified by President Trump.  The emissary is very much like a tape recording of President Trump in human form.  The emissary travels to a location, meets a particular person or group, and then recites the opinion of the President.  The words spoken by the emissary, are the words of President Trump.

The IC cannot inject themselves into this dynamic; that is why this position is so valuable.

The emissary then hears the response from the intended person or group, repeats it back to them to ensure he/she will return with clarity of intent as expressed, and then returns to the office of the presidency and repeats the reply for the President.  The emissary recites back exactly what he was /is told.

This process is critical when you understand how thoroughly compromised the full Executive Branch is.  More importantly, this process becomes even more critical when you accept the Intelligence Community will lie to the office of the President to retain their position.

Read this next sentence slowly…. If the Senate confirms a director of an IC silo, then that director is demonstrably going to lie to the office of the President.

The Senate only confirms Intelligence Community leadership who are willing to LIE to THE PRESIDENT.    This is just a factual reality.

If the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) confirms them, they will lie.  That is the main role of the SSCI.

The people who constructed the Silos then metastasized the control rot within them, use the term “continuity of government,” to describe the true role and responsibility of the system.  This is not factually wrong.

Where people go wrong is misunderstanding what the “continuity” is that is being maintained.  Truly, the continuity of government is the priority. However, it’s the continuity of currently corrupt and immoral government we are now maintaining.

The CIA Director will lie to President Trump (they did, remember).  The FBI Leadership will lie to President Trump (they did, remember).  The AG will lie, the DNI will lie, the NSA will lie, and all the deputies therein will lie.

Washington DC puts it this way, you probably heard Bill Barr talking about ad-infinitum.  The IC leadership is responsible for maintaining the “continuity of government” at all costs.  The government is more important than The President.

If the continuity of government is maintained by lying to the office of the President, then so be it.  Or, as James Comey said when justifying his lies to the President and his manipulation on March 20th, 2017: “because of the sensitivity of the matter.

You can get as angry as you want about this, it’s just the DC system that exists.  We must deal with what exists, not what we would pretend there is.

If a candidate for an IC position is not willing to lie to the President, the Senate will not confirm him/her.   This is why President Trump needs an emissary.

The role of the emissary is critical, the qualifications for that role are extremely important.

Remember, this person is speaking on behalf of President Trump.  And representing the responding voice with a similar level of clarity.

The emissary must be of incredible moral character.  They must be honest.  The person should be entirely altruistic.  They must have exceptional judgement, possess no ego, be impervious to scrutiny or review. They must maintain themselves at the highest moral standards at all times and exhibit incredible judgement and wisdom.

Due to the nature of the position the emissary is extremely powerful; therefore, a disposition of humility is also critical.  The President must be able to trust this person without reservation or issue.  At the same time, the entire weight of the U.S. Intelligence Community apparatus will seek to compromise the emissary as they try to put walls around the President who holds silo-busting power.

Honesty, integrity, humility, trustworthiness, unimpeachable character and exceptional judgement, establish the baseline of traits the emissary must possess.

This is a choice that will be deeply important to President Trump.  Fortunately, it is not a position that requires any confirmation or external approval.  Judgement, discernment, wisdom and silence are the strength characteristics.

[Support CTH Research Here]

Steve Bannon’s First Press Conference Post Danbury Prison (29 Oct


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 29, 2024 at 8:30 pm EST

Jeff Clark On The Return Of Stephen K. Bannon


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 29, 2024 at 8:30 pm EST

Natalie Winters : Steve Bannon Embodies Real Masculinity


atalie Winters

Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: Oct 29, 2024 at 8:30 pm EST