The Windham 2020 voting audit continues

The New Neo Posted on by

Last Friday I wrote about the voting audit currently going on in Windham, New Hampshire. To refresh your memory [emphasis added]:

This is the theory at the moment about what may have happened in Windham, and it could affect the whole state:

…“’Something we strongly suspect at this juncture, based on various evidence, is that in some cases, fold lines are being interpreted by the scanners as valid votes,’ said independent auditor Mark Lindeman.

“Auditors said the scanners could be interpreting the fold lines as a vote when they go through a ‘vote target,’ or a candidate’s name on the ballot. They said a lot of Windham’s ballots appear to have fold lines across the target of a Democratic state representative candidate.

“’Wherever the fold happened to be was, I guess, most commonly through my name,’ said the candidate, Kristi St. Laurent.

“Auditors said that could explain why St. Laurent [who had requested the recount because of the closeness of the vote] lost 99 votes in the hand recount last year, while Republican candidates gained votes.

“’Because if someone voted for all four Republican candidates and the ballot happened to have its fold line going through St. Laurent’s target, then that might be interpreted by the machines as an overvote, which would then subtract votes from each of those four Republican candidates,’ said auditor Philip Stark.”

As times has gone by, the auditors have become even more certain that this is what occurred. And yes, it does affect more than Windham:

The exact same pattern of high “overvote” ballots resulting in skewed tabulation results from specific machines has been identified in neighboring counties.

Have they checked more than the neighboring counties? Might it indeed affect the whole state? Made it also affect other states that use the same system, involving paper ballots and Accuvote optical readers?

This is even more interesting:

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the folding issue impacts all of the races on the ballots (local, state and federal) because the “overvote” ballots were disqualified.

If I’m understanding the situation, most of the disqualified “overvote” ballots were from people who voted Republican, because of the way the folds went. I would imagine most of them also voted for Republicans in other races, such as the presidential contest. Whether it would have made a difference depends on how many ballots were disqualified, but the numbers were pretty large in Windham.

This would never have been discovered if one of the local races in Windham hadn’t been exceptionally close. New Hampshire (and several other states) has used this voting method and these machines for a long time, and I wonder whether the problem affected other races in previous years. Seems to me it probably did, although wouldn’t the folds be mostly in absentee ballots? This year there were a lot more of those than usual.

Update on the January 6th prosecutions

The New Neo Posted on by

From lawyer “shipwreckedcrew” at RedState:

…[E]ven in the few cases where the government has substantial evidence — and I predict this is going to be a very small fraction of the number of cases filed — the nature of the charges that can be sustained on the evidence DOJ has will leave a public anticipating long prison sentences based on “insurrection” or “incitement” terribly disappointed in the likely outcomes…

Among the most commonly charged offense

1. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1752(a)(1) — Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building.

For lack of a better description, this is a federal “trespassing” statute. It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to only one year in prison unless the person used or carried a dangerous or deadly weapon. Because it is a misdemeanor, the Sentencing Guidelines do not apply, so a federal judge at sentencing can choose any term of days or months from 0 to 365. I expect most sentences will be “time served” for anyone held in pretrial detention, followed by a one-year term of supervised release — a form of federal probation.

The bigger problem with this statute is that, by its own terms, it only applies to “posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; or of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”

This is not a “trespassing” statute that applies to all federal buildings generally — only buildings or grounds secured by the Secret Service. The Capitol on January 6 qualified as such, but ONLY during the period up to the departure from the Capitol of the Vice President. So there is a timing issue…

And then there’s the charges of “cisorderly or disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building,” which is a similar sort of misdemeanor with similar penalties. Shipwreckedcrew discusses whether one of the elements – “disrupting the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” – was actually present, because it can be argued that Congress was only performing a ceremonial function that day.

I happen to think it wasn’t just ceremonial, but that’s not really the point. The point is that the vast majority of the charges are of this minor nature. However, as we’ve learned time and again, if people wish to find someone guilty of a more severe crime and they have the power to do so, it will happen.

But the “insurrection” narrative has served its purpose, and then some. It has been wildly successful as propaganda, and it will continue to be milked for all it’s worth in order to paint the right as composed of millions upon millions of violent terrorists, from which everyone else must be protected at all costs.

And Julie Kelly, who’s been reporting on this from the start, lets us know how the January 6th political prisoners are doing. The conditions under which they’re being held makes for very disturbing reading indeed.

Watching new myths created in real time: George Floyd the hero

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s death, and he is being treated like a hero.

Minnesota’s governor Walz has issued a letter to all state employees declaring a moment of silence (actually, 9 minutes, corresponding to the time Floyd was on the ground being restrained by Chauvin’s knee), and urging people to reflect on Floyd’s legacy and on Minnesota’s history of systemic racism.

As John Hinderaker writes:

Walz refers to “generations of systemic racism that have plagued our state.” Can he possibly be serious? What on Earth is he talking about? As recently as 1980, Minnesota’s population was barely 1 percent African-American. Since then the black population has grown somewhat, mostly as a result of lavish welfare benefits and the state’s welcoming attitude toward tens or hundreds of thousands of Somali refugees. What, exactly, did the generations of systemic racism consist of?

Presumably systemic racism has been manifested in the state’s public institutions. Tim Walz has been governor since 2019. Is he presiding over a systemically racist state government? If so, he should resign. Democrat Mark Dayton was governor for eight years preceding Walz. Is he a racist? Was his administration systemically racist? Come on, Tim, let’s name names.

And then there was a meeting of Floyd’s family with Biden and Harris, to mark the occasion:

Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, told reporters the family had a “great” meeting with the President and vice president and said: “He’s a genuine guy. They always speak from the heart.”

“We’re just thankful for what’s going on and we just want the George Floyd Policing Act to be passed,” Philonese Floyd told reporters at the White House.

He added: “If you can make federal laws to protect the bird, which is the bald eagle, you can make federal laws to protect people of color.”

The meeting comes as the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act — legislation that would set up a national registry of police misconduct, ban racial and religious profiling by law enforcement and overhaul qualified immunity for police officers — remains stalled in the Senate. Biden had set an initial goal of having the legislation passed by Tuesday, but the White House backed off that deadline to allow negotiations to continue in Congress.

If that bill were to be passed, expect the crime rate to soar everywhere, as the feds clamp down harder and harder on policing, and take more and more control (which is the aim). It’s especially ironic considering that not even the prosecutors in the Chauvin trial contended that racism had anything to do with Floyd’s death.

It certainly has a lot to do with Floyd’s post-death elevation to the status of icon, though, doesn’t it?

I’ve also noticed that at this point Floyd’s death is regularly referred to as a murder, even by the press on the right. Of course, the verdict has helped that process along. But anyone who has studied the case in any depth should be well aware of how unsupported that charge is. But truth – what’s that, when there’s propaganda to be made?

[ADDENDUM: Heather Mac Donald points out:

Nineteen children in Minneapolis have been shot this year, an increase of 171% over the same period in 2020. Their relatives wonder where the protesters are. “Why ain’t nobody mad about a 10-year-old, my grandson, fighting for his life?” asked Sharrie Jennings, Ladavionne’s grandmother, at a May 17 mayoral event. “Because a cop didn’t shoot him, is that why?”

A heartbreaking but excellent question. And a rhetorical one; we know the answers is “yes.” Also, because it is most likely that the person who did shoot him was black.

This innocent child and his family are suffering in part because of the pullback in policing subsequent to Floyd’s death. It’s not that no such murders wouldn’t have otherwise occurred, but certainly some of them would not have occurred.

Biden and Harris aren’t hosting Sharrie Jennings, either. There’s no political hay to be made there.]

Twitter is only against violent words if the target is the left

The New Neo Posted on by

If it’s Rand Paul, no problem:

Last night, I reported that Rand Paul was threatened with a suspicious package with white powder. This threat followed a raft of attacks on social media against him from folks on the left who were disturbed he wasn’t getting vaccinated because he had natural immunity after having had the Wuhan coronavirus. Many of the attacks on social media encouraged violence against Paul by cheering on his neighbor who had previously attacked him. Many were also by blue-checked Twitter users. But Twitter didn’t suspend them.

Of course not.

Oregon: proof of vaccination required

The New Neo Posted on by

Your vaccination papers, please:

New guidance from Oregon Health Authority now requires businesses to check a customer’s vaccine status if they want to relax their guidelines.

Restaurant owners like Jason Jugling, the owner of Plaza Inn in Ontario, wish the new health guidelines were clearer. Despite the new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Jugling is still requiring masks to be worn in his establishment…

Under the new guidance, business owners have two options: require proof of vaccination for those who wish to unmask or simply leave the mask mandate in place.

I think that’s the intent – to make this such a hassle for business owners and customers that the owners’ default position will be to require masks for everyone. After all, how on earth can this “check your papers” rule be enforced in any way that makes sense for businesses? Not only that, but why should people who’ve actually had COVID and recovered be required to be vaccinated or mask up? It’s an absurdity.

More:

Sarah Poe, director of Malheur County Health Department, understands that some businesses might not apply the new interim guidance, but said ditching your mask without proof of vaccination is not an option in the state of Oregon.

“If somebody enters a building without a face covering there are supposed to be policies in place that they are stopped, they are offered a mask and if they are refused to wear a mask then they are refused services in person,” Poe said.

Violations of the new guidance can result in a Class C misdemeanor by the state, but the Malehuer County Health Department will respond first with an education-based approach, according to Poe.

“Education-based.” That’s almost funny at this point. Anyone who hasn’t just emerged from a year in a cave is aware of the reams of “education” we’ve already been subjected to on mask-wearing – the contradictory and sometimes illogical, ever-changing and whiplash-inducing now-you-wear-it-now-you-don’t instructions.

Speaking of contradictory, the idea that the vaccinated need to wear masks inside contradicts the idea that the vaccines are effective, as well as the fact that the tiny number of people who have tested positive post-vaccination don’t seem to be virus-shedders.

No, the issue isn’t science: it’s liberty, and officials who are loathe to give up the heady power they’ve assumed during the pandemic. It also seems to be about some need of the left to stifle the operation of business in general.

My guess is that this ruling may be challenged in the courts.

COVID and the lab: one of the most consistent things about Trump has been…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that the vast majority of the things he claimed – and which the press, the left, and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) screamed were preposterous – have turned out to be true.

For example, here’s an interesting tweet to look back on, from over a year ago:

The responses are to the effect of “What a liar!” and “What an idiot.”

Here’s the CNN article from May 1, 2020. An excerpt [emphasis added]:

President Donald Trump contradicted a rare on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community by claiming Thursday that he has seen evidence that gives him a “high degree of confidence” the novel coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, but declined to provide details to back up his assertion.

The comments undercut a public statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued just hours earlier which stated no such assessment has been made and continues to “rigorously examine” whether the outbreak “began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

“Yes, I have,” Trump said when asked whether he’s seen evidence that would suggest the virus originated in the lab. Later, asked why he was confident in that assessment, Trump demurred.

“I can’t tell you that. I’m not allowed to tell you that,” he said…

It is unusual for the intelligence community to comment publicly on its work before a formal assessment is made. Thursday’s statement appears to have come in response to growing questions over the origins of the virus as Trump administration officials have spent weeks repeatedly floating the theory that the virus originated inside a Chinese lab…

While the [intelligence community] statement suggests the intelligence community has not yet developed a clear assessment as to how the outbreak started, it does say that officials have ruled out the possibility that the virus was “man-made or genetically modified,” agreeing with a near consensus among scientists and refuting conspiracy theories.

Not man-made or modified. The science was settled. Anyone who said otherwise was a wild conspiracy theorist.

Fast forward to now:

During a Senate hearing on May 11, Sen. Paul grilled Fauci about NIH/NIAID funding of gain-of-function research (a/k/a “Dual-Use Research of Concern) in coronaviruses at Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Fauci gave provably false answers to the Senator’s questions. When asked whether “the COVID-19 virus could not have occurred by serial passage in a laboratory,” though, Fauci wasn’t quite so adamant. He said:

“I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China.”

That raised a few eyebrows since Fauci has repeatedly said that all of the scientific evidence pointed to the virus “evolv[ing] in nature and then jumping species.”

A surprising chain of events was somehow set in motion that day, bringing us to a point where PolitiFact had to retract their own fact-checking of Tucker Carlson’s reporting on the origins of COVID-19 – based on Fauci’s comments at a PolitiFact event titled “United Facts of America: A Festival of Fact-Checking.”

Say what?

Yep. At PolitiFact’s event, advertised as “four days of forward-thinking conversation about the role of facts in our lives,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said he’s not convinced that the virus developed naturally and that “we should continue to investigate what went on in China.”…

Fauci’s comments – given just a few hours after his Senate testimony – were in response to a question from PolitiFact’s Katie Sanders, who asked:

“There’s a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still, so I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?”

Displaying a level of intellectual curiosity heretofore unseen in him by the American public, Fauci replied:

“No, actually. I am not convinced about that. I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened.”

“Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus,” he continued.

Two days after Fauci’s dust-up with Sen. Paul, a group of 18 prominent virologists – including Dr. Ralph Baric – released an open letter calling for an investigation into a possible lab leak origin of COVID-19. The next week, the GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee released a report stating that there is “significant circumstantial evidence” that the virus was leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and CDC Director Rochelle Wolensky also voiced doubt about the natural development of the virus.

Then there’s also this:

Three researchers from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care, according to a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to growing calls for a fuller probe of whether the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from the laboratory.

The details of the reporting go beyond a State Department fact sheet, issued during the final days of the Trump administration, which said that several researchers at the lab, a center for the study of coronaviruses and other pathogens, became sick in autumn 2019 “with symptoms consistent with both Covid-19 and common seasonal illness.”

We don’t know for sure what these lab workers had, but unless this sort of hospitalization of workers is common, it’s certainly a suspicious occurrence in its timing and placement.

These things have been suspected on the right since the beginning of the virus, because of the close geographic juxtaposition of where the outbreak occurred and the location of the lab. And then there’s the question of Fauci’s own involvement in funding the Wuhan lab. It really is complicated, and even though this article is from the quite suspect and often-biased FactCheck site, I think its treatment of the “gain of function” and grant issues seems pretty fair. If you want to read the relevant portions, just scroll down there and take a look at the material under the headings “Gain-of-Function” and then “EcoHealth Grant.”

For Memorial Day: on nationalism and patriotism

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Both are more threatened in this country now than ever before in my lifetime, due to a frontal assault from the left which controls the media and educational system as well as the federal government. The following is a repeat of a previous post, slightly edited and updated.]

The story “The Man Without a Country” used to be standard reading matter for seventh graders. In fact, it was the first “real” book—as opposed to those tedious Dick and Jane readers—that I was assigned in school.

It was exciting compared to Dick and Jane and the rest, since it dealt with an actual story with some actual drama to it. It struck me as terribly sad—and unfair, too—that Philip Nolan was forced to wander the world, exiled, for one moment of cursing the United States. “The Man Without a Country” was the sort of paean to patriotism that I would guess is rarely or never assigned nowadays to students – au contraire.

Patriotism has gotten a very bad name during the last few decades. Continue reading →

“A yawn is quite catching, you see, like a cough…

The New Neo Posted on by

…It just takes one yawn to start other yawns off.”

That’s a quote from one of the Dr. Suess books that’s still being allowed (for now). I used to read it to my son at bedtime in hopes it would make him a little more inclined to go to sleep. He was one of those kids who, right from birth, seemed to have trouble making the transition to dreamland.

Watch out even for the word “yawn”:

Platek says that yawning is contagious in about 60 to 70 percent of people—that is, if people see photos or footage of or read about yawning, the majority will spontaneously do the same. He has found that this phenomenon occurs most often in individuals who score high on measures of empathic understanding. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans, he found that areas of the brain activated during contagious yawning, the posterior cingulate and precuneus, are involved in processing the our own and others’ emotions. “My capacity to put myself in your shoes and understand your situation is a predictor for my susceptibility to contagiously yawn,” he says.

Along with being contagious, yawning is highly suggestible, meaning that for English speakers, the word “yawn” is a representation of the action, a symbol that we’ve learned to create meaning. When we hear, read or think about the word or the action itself, that symbol becomes “activated” in the brain. “If you get enough stimulation to trip the switch, so to speak, you yawn”…

I’m surprised to hear it’s only 60-70% of people. I had assumed it affected close to everyone.

It’s probably a bit early in the day for this:

The wheels of justice in Fulton County, Georgia certainly grind slow…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and we don’t know whether they will grind fine, how long it will take, and whether it will even matter if and when they do.

But a judge just ordered absentee ballots in Fulton County unsealed for an audit. The usual suspects have praised the move and the usual suspects have criticized it, but this particular statement by this particular player is a bit surprising to me:

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger…issued a statement Friday, supportive of recourse through courts.

“From day one I have encouraged Georgians with concerns about the election in their counties to pursue those claims through legal avenues,” the statement read. “Fulton County has a long standing history of election mismanagement that has understandably weakened voters’ faith in its system. Allowing this audit provides another layer of transparency and citizen engagement.”

Seems to me that, at least for a while, Raffensperger was part of that mismanagement on the state level.

By the way, I put the ellipsis there in the spot where the article said that Raffensperger had been “on the receiving end of calls from former President Donald Trump pressuring him to overturn election results.” Well, no; Trump was actually pressuring him to investigate the anomalies and he was saying that he was certain that such an investigation would end up overturning the results. I wrote about the phone call transcript here but especially in this post. Note the discussion, towards the end of that post, of whether the truth will ever come out. We still don’t know the truth, but there certainly were major anomalies.