Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Fox 6 News' Stephanie Grady Needs To Clean Up Her Act!

I just sent the following angry letter to Fox 6 News in Milwaukee. I could give background to the letter, but it really speaks for itself.

Name: Eric Hildeman


Phone: 4145249629

Comment: I wish to voice my extreme disappointment at the Fox 6 News Team's coverage of the Donald Trump Rally taking place tonight (9/28) at the Waukesha Expo Center. The story was covered professionally until the end of the segment, at which point Stephanie Grady's voice was clearly heard to say, "Hopefully, his message will resonate."
Are you kidding me?! A more clear-cut example of media bias is difficult to come by, even by today's low standards. I would like to sternly warn Fox 6 that this sort of unprofessional behavior cannot be tolerated by a public that relies on objective reporting to be properly informed. May I please remind you that far greater journalists have been fired for far less?
I seldom get my local news outside of Internet sources, these days. Now I remember why! Please act more like professionals!

Eric Hildeman


Monday, September 26, 2016

Trump Is The Antichrist. No, Really!

Perhaps you've heard rumors that Donald Trump is the Antichrist among certain Biblical scholars? Well, it's time for a confession.

I was one of them.

As a former student at North Central University in Ministerial Studies (what they called "Pastoral Studies" back then, and we're talking 1991), I have a pretty good insight into the Bible and how people interpret it. As such, I decided that I would troll the Christian community I once knew as my second family, and promote the idea that Donald Trump is the Antichrist incarnate.

But let me first address some criticisms. Was that deceptive of me? You bet. Was it politically motivated? Of course! Yet the Antichrist is clearly depicted in Revelation as coming with signs and wonders. One of those would clearly be mind control, as so garishly depicted in the Left Behind novels. So when people support Donald Trump, in spite of his being so obviously a despicable person (dare I say, "deplorable?") one can only think that he, as the Antichrist, must be working his Satanic ju-ju to put the mental whammy on people. And keep in mind, I'm an atheist and I find that notion compelling!

If there is such a thing as an Antichrist, Trump is clearly it! Because if an atheist can be brought to the verge of being a believer just by seeing Trump's mind-controlling powers, you can bet your ass there's something seriously fucked up going on with the Trump candidacy!

"But what about the Rapture?" you ask. Well, there's two End Times interpretations on that. Three, technically. One is that the Rapture will take place first, and then the Tribulation will follow as the Antichrist reigns for 1000 years. That's the version popularized by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. But there's an equally plausible counter-interpretation of Scripture that says it happens the other way around! First the Antichrist appears, and then the Rapture takes place 1000 years later. If this is correct...

Oh, shit, hold on to your Christian butts! Donald Trump is here. And he's deceived the faithful, just as the book of Revelation said he would!

So don't criticize me for being deceptive. I wanted to see just how well the idea would go over among Christians. In other words, I was only as deceptive once as Donald Trump has been thousands of times over.

And as it turned out, those who refuse to flinch at people rising from the dead, having bread and wine turn into actual flesh and blood, and think enough faith can enable one to walk on liquid water, refuse to accept that Donald Trump is Nicolae Carparthia.

For about a year now, I've adopted the fake Internet persona of John Daniel Elijafor, whose resume includes, like me, a stint at North Central, and close ties with the Christian community of Milwaukee. Writing as John Daniel, I made the case that Donald Trump is the Antichrist, both by fitting his name into the 616 numerological jargon, and by connecting him to Biblical prophecy. If you want to read the entire blog posts I made, and the arguments I used. You can click here:

Bible Prophecy And Today's News

666 vs 616, Which One Is True?

Characteristics Of The Antichrist

The Antichrist Revealed!

Now, Christians were not fooled by this, and that's to their credit. It's so amazing to me how those who are so gullible regarding how bloodshed is required for atonement are so quick to reject more plausible forms of bullshit. But then, that's exactly my point! If Christians are so naturally skeptical, even of ideas that make sense within their own religion, why can't they be more skeptical of Donald Trump, the most obvious con-man since Joseph Smith?

Oh yeah. The last Republican candidate was suckered in by that guy, too. And Christians somehow didn't care then, either.

I made the connection with the word "drumpf" and Trump's original family name, and I confess that this was made up out of whole cloth. But the part about signs and wonders indicating that Trump is the Antichrist was from the heart. Seriously, I find that idea disturbing! As an unbeliever!

And if Trump suffers a head wound, and miraculously recovers from it, I may just repent!



Friday, September 23, 2016

How To Vote Well With Only 10 Minutes Of Research

Ever since 2008, I've posted my rules for undecided voters. We all have busy schedules, and sometimes it's helpful to have certain guidelines for how to vote when it's time to go to the polls, and we've done little or no research. Mind you, if you are such a person, you're an ass, because you've shirked your responsibility as a citizen, but I'd rather people vote with these rules in mind than not vote at all. Here they are, back by popular demand.

If you don't know who to vote for, follow these general rules:

Rule #1: All things being equal, vote against the incumbent. [Note: I, of course, argue that, in the case of 2016, all things are not equal, and that the case against Orange Julius is a slam-dunk. But, this is rule #1, and I must report it faithfully.]

Rule #2: All things being equal, vote for the female. If there is no female running, go back to rule #1. If the female happens to be an incumbent, proceed to Rule #3.

Rule #3: When still in doubt, find the biggest moron you know and ask who he's voting for. Then vote the other way. [Note: Not only are all the biggest morons I know voting for Trump, but Trump IS the biggest moron I know.]

Rule #4: Conversely, if you're still undecided after all that, find the smartest person you know and ask who she's voting for. Then vote the same way.

Rule #5: If, after all that, you're still not sure, stay home. You're too much of a moron yourself to vote.

Rule #6: Vote third party if you happen to live in a non-swing state. If you live in a clearly decided state, such as New York, Illinois or California, voting for a third party helps build that third party up for future elections. However, if you do live in a swing state, don't even THINK of voting third party. That way your vote always matters the most no matter what. [Note: This one is new, but it's a good one.]

Those are the voting rules! I welcome feedback on these!



Thursday, September 22, 2016

Trump's Campaign Letter To My Dead Mom

My mom got a letter yesterday, which is odd, since she's been dead for almost a year. Most contacts are aware that my mom is deceased, and even the ones that send a few items in her name, such as Wild Birds Unlimited, are aware that she's passed on, and only keep sending coupon items in her name for convenience's sake.

Back in 2010, I moved back home to take care of my mother. Her ability to speak was impaired, and my dad and I began taking her calls. So all calls we received from the Republican Party were turned away, and we kept telling callers to remove my mom from their lists. By 2012, my mother's Alzheimer's disease had progressed to the point where she was completely unable to speak for more than a year, and was only barely ambulatory. Calls and donation letters were again rebuffed that election year, and my family repeatedly told the Republican Party to remove her name from their lists. By 2014, my mother was in nursing home care, and callers were yet again told to remove her from their lists. Letters were sent back, and by this time we were starting to get rather cross.

But that apparently wasn't enough. Political mailing lists are slow to change. And Republicans are so retrograde that they are even slower to change on top of that. Thus it was that the newest Republican candidate sent a fund raising letter to what must have been the oldest name on his list.

My mom was a Reagan Republican. She gave donations generously from the mid 90's through 2006. She may have even donated a little bit in 2008, when she was beginning to show serious symptoms of being impaired. But even if she remained a Republican after that point, I highly doubt she would have embraced the clown-college nonsense that passes for conservatism today. It's highly unlikely that she would have voted for a Mormon four years ago, much less the Orange banshee that thinks he's a serious Republican candidate this year. But after four, possibly five, election cycles where Republicans have received no money from this woman, and have been repeatedly told to not contact, the fact that my mother was worth another 47 cents to send one more letter is a truly remarkable sign of utter desperation.

Let's read some of Trump's bullshit, shall we?

Dear Fellow American,

The one thing Hillary Clinton fears above all else is this...

...that Republicans will unite and rally against her.

Because if we do come together and unify behind me and or entire GOP ticket, there is NO WAY she will ever be President of the United States.

It really is that simple.

I have received more votes in Republican primaries than any other candidate in history.

Wait! Stop there. Yes, he did receive more votes. But this is due to remarkably high turnout, and that high turnout showed up to vote against him as much as for him.

Trump never won a majority in any state until New York. Going into that contest, he had barely 40% of the vote, which means 60% of all Republicans wanted someone else! Even after Cruz and Kasich dropped out after Indiana, and Trump ran unopposed the rest of the way, he still did not get a majority of the Republican vote. When everything was counted, only 47% of Republicans ever voted for him. That means 53%, even after he went unopposed in the vote-bonanza state of California, wanted someone other than Donald Trump! The majority of Republicans are anti-Trump.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

There is a surging groundswell to end the Obama era [News flash: the Obama era is ending no matter what.], kick the establishment elite to the curb [Never mind that Trump is part of the establishment elite.], and set America on a new course.

Okay, sinking the ship counts as a new course. Down instead of forward. I'll grant you that.

Millions of voters are rallying to "Make America Great Again!"

And we can do it too, if we all join together right now.

Whether you were with me all along, or joined the Trump Train recently... is time to unify the Republican Party so we can stop Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and their Left-Wing special interest allies from taking total control of Washington, D.C.

[Total control? Don't we wish! We could, but gerrymandering has stolen billions of votes before we even get started.]

That's why I have created the Trump Make America Great Again Committee... a joint effort led by the Donald J. Trump for President campaign and the Republican National Committee to make sure our GOP ticket has the funds needed to win this November.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats' single-minded goal is to lock-in the Obama agenda permanently and to expand it even further.

* They won't be satisfied with ObamaCare until health care is 100% government run.
[Damn straight! Death to the tyranny of the insurance industry!]

* They won't be happy with Common Core until Washington bureaucrats run every school in America.
[Huh? Since when were Democrats campaigning on Common Core? And it's Reformed Math, not Common Core, which is the joke in social media.]

* They won't rest until every illegal immigrant is given complete amnesty and the right to vote as a hardened, life-long Democrat.
[Hyperbole much? And most Latinos are socially conservative. Many are Catholic. If you want to lament about how they won't vote Republican, how about you stop arresting their families and pissing on their rights?]

*They won't stand up for America's interests overseas until they've apologized for America's power and greatness.
[Huh? What the fuck is this bullshit?]

* And they won't stop demonizing their opponents until political correctness replaces free speech.
[Since when do you need to 'demonize' someone who is already a demon? And it has been conservatives, not liberals, who have gagged free speech by buying up all the airwaves and pummeling people with non-stop conservative hatred. How's that for political correctness?]

I say, enough is enough!

[Please! Stop! My whipping boy can take no more!]

My friend, I promise you we're going to Make America Great Again.

I'm a successful businessman because I'm not afraid to roll up my sleeves and get to work. [Please! If you're a successful businessman, I'm a Kardashian. You've never rolled up a sleeve in your life.] To be a successful President, you've got to be smart and you've got to be tough. You've got to be able to bring smart people together and use your leverage to make a great deal.

I'm going to do that for the American people.

[The white American people.]

From Day One, we're going to make real changes that will Make America Great Again.

We're going to build the wall on our southern border to stop illegal immigration. The simple fact is: we don't have a country if we don't have a border.

[We can have a border without a wall, you know. What are we, Jericho?]

And we're going to get Mexico to pay for it, because deep down, Mexico knows they're better off with us happy. [Head slap!] Right now, our policies make them think we're happy, but we're not happy. We're upset about all this illegal immigration, and we will use our leverage to get them to pay for this wall.

[What leverage? I can't believe this zombie lie hasn't been shot in the head, yet.]

On Day One, I'm going to end President Obama's terrible executive orders that have attacked our Second Amendment rights and gutted our border security?


We're going to Make America Great Again by creating great jobs One of the things I'm most proud of is creating jobs. I know firsthand, there's nothing like helping people by getting them great jobs.

When it comes to trade, we'er going to start winning again. Right now we're losing We're losing hundreds of billions of dollars to China and billions to Japan, Vietnam and India. Mexico is beating us at the border and at trade. This will stop.

Crooked Hillary and her crowd will say, "Trump will start a trade war." But the truth is, her husband signed the worst trade deal ever. It is called NAFTA, and now these countries are in a trade war with us and they are beating us so badly.

[Really? Because the economy has been looking up lately, and it hasn't really had a negative trend since Obama took office.]

We are losing millions of jobs, tens of thousands of plants, and thousands of companies. It is really discouraging when great American companies like Nabisco, Carrier, Ford and Pfizer take their jobs and their profits overseas.

[Ford debunked this one. Nice try.]

Right now, there's no incentive for companies to stay here. We will change that. There will be consequences. We're not going to keep losing.

We're going to Make America Great Again by making our military so big, so strong and so powerful, nobody will mess with us. We will get rid of ISIS -- FAST! -- and we will have great relations with many, many, many foreign countries, as long as they understand it is a two-way street.

[Nukes so fast, you'll freak.]

Very importantly, we will take great care of our veterans. They've been treated so badly under the Obama regime and that will change.

[Great. Tell Republicans to stop opposing veterans bills so Obama can sign them.]

Of course, Crooked Hillary and her extreme liberal allies hate me. [So do your fellow Republicans, you dolt.] Right now, they are laying their plans to tear me down with the most vicious, brutal, and expensive advertising campaign our nation has ever witnessed. And their plan is to take down every other Republican candidate along with me.

I've seen what she's capable of saying and doing, and I won't put anything past her.


And that is why I am writing to you today.

I won the Republican primary by self-funding my own campaign. [Bullshit!] But in the General Election, I can't do it alone.

This is the first letter I've sent during this campaign asking for financial help. But it isn't just for me; I'm asking you to give your financial support to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee.

This vital project is a joint effort led by the Donald J. Trump for President campaign and the Republican National Committee to make sure our GOP ticket has the funds needed to win this November.

Our Party's candidates from county courthouses on up to Congressional, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates rely on a strong, well-funded operation to provide essential campaign services we all need to win.

So please join me by signing and returning the enclosed Pledge of Support today.

And when you do, I hope you will include a generous campaign contribution of $35, $50, $100, $250, $500 or $1000 to help our Party win back the White House and elect Republicans up and down the ticket this November.

Your gift today will be immediately put to work supporting our Get-Out-The-Vote and absentee ballot programs, as well as funding volunteer training in every targeted county that is vital to electing Republicans at every level.

Your investement will go a long way toward helping me and other Republican candidates overcome Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their far-left special interests whose multi-billion dollar war chest is just waiting to be unleashed to rip us apart with the most crooked scorched-earth campaign you've ever seen.

[Pot, meet kettle.]

Whatever amount you can send is.... [blah, blah, blah, I'm skipping this part].

You know, some people -- mostly liberals -- criticized me for the tough campaign we ran in the primary. But I play to win, and we won. Now we need to join together and defeat one of the most corrupt, crooked, establishment politicians in history, Hillary Clinton, and her rubber-stamp Democrat ticket.

Our theme is very simple: Make America Great Again. We will Make America Great Again. [Yeah, we got it the first time.] We will start winning again. You will be so proud of how we turn around this country so very, very soon.

Please be a part of this amazing movement.

God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

Sincerely yours,

Donald J. Trump.

In response, I enclosed my reply, moneyless, and wrote the following on the donation slip in red Sharpie:

Sandra Hildeman is deceased. Please remove from your mailing list.
Oh, and BTW, fuck you for insulting my dead mother with this shit!


Eric Hildeman

(Just for good measure, I drew a Hitler mustache on Trump's picture.)



Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Trump Sacrifices To Satan, Polls Increase

In a dramatic scene, Donald Trump sacrificed a baby in patronage to Satan last Monday. "All hail, Satan!" he cried, and then threw the baby upon the hot coals of a fiery altar. As the black smoke rose into heaven, several people caught the incident on their smart phones and posted it to YouTube. The identity of the baby was unknown.

As soon as the videos went viral, Trump's approval ratings jumped 5%.

Donald Trump made the sacrifice while doing a campaign swing through southern California. On his way through Los Angeles, he stopped by the Satanic Temple and paid his homage there. But when confronted by reporters regarding the heinous act, he flatly denied it.

"I made no sacrifice to Satan," he said. "I don't know what you're talking about."

"But we have you on tape!" reporters asked him. "It happened just a little while ago!"

"No, no," he insisted. "This is the first I've heard of it." His security detail then quickly stepped in, and Trump was escorted away from the press.

Trump's surrogates quickly stepped in on Meet the Press afterward. Governor Chris Christie insisted Trump has no affinity whatsoever with Satan.

"He never did that," he told Chuck Todd. "He made no sacrifices. He doesn't need to make sacrifices. He's too wealthy for that."

"But you also told us that he didn't perpetuate the birtherism lie after 2011." Chuck Todd pointed out.

"That's right, he didn't," answered Christie. "I already made a statement about that."

"Which was also wrong," said Chuck.

"That's your opinion," he said.

When pressed for details, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway also denied the Satanic sacrifice. "Donald would never do that. I've come to know Donald very well, and I can unequivocally say that he is the most Christian man I've ever met."

"Who happens to engage in Satanic activities on the side?" asked Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room last night.

"Well, what Christian hasn't done a little of that?" Conway replied.

Reporters at Reuters worked with Gallup to determine what effect, if any, Trump's sacrifice of a baby to Satan might have. The results were interesting.

"It's all fake," said one Trump supporter. "It's part of the media and Hollywood conspiracy to smear Mr. Trump and make him look like a Satanist."

"I'll bet it was all done with a body double and special effects," one woman said. "It's amazing what they can do with CGI these days."

Trump's next campaign event will be hosted by the NRA at Columbine High School, Jefferson County, Colorado.


Monday, September 19, 2016

It's Not 'Okay' To Vote For Trump

In a normal election year. It would be okay to overlook our political differences just to get on with day-to-day life. I mean, I hated George W. Bush, but I shopped at businesses that supported Bush, I didn't avoid coworkers who were Republican, and I enjoyed friendly debates with them.

This term is different. This time, the Republican party has selected a candidate so hideous, so horrifying, that I cannot help but vote with my conscience and my pocketbook as well as at the voting booth.

I'm deadly serious. If I hear you are a Trump supporter, I'll boycott your business! I will refuse to work for you. I will refuse to have anything to do with you. Even family members of mine will be ostracized if they vote Trump. If you are a Trump supporter, you are shunned!

And I am not alone!

Trump isn't like Hitler. He IS Hitler! The parallels are obvious! And that this could possibly happen in America is an especially low insult.

And supporting him is not okay! You Trump voters will NOT be forgiven for this! Ever!

So that's our stand. Yes, I said, 'our.' We, the responsible citizens of the United States, stand unified against you. We say that any Trump voter is Anathema, and has given up any true claim at being a true American.

There are real world consequences for voting for Trump that will sting you for the rest of your life. If you voted for Trump, you will lose a significant percentage of your business, forever. If you vote for him, you will lose family! You will lose face! You will, potentially, lose so much more.

I've systematically debunked all the misconceptions about Hillary. If you don't buy them, that's okay. If you think Hillary is Satan, that's okay. You don't have to vote for her.

But you DO have to never vote for Trump. That's a hill I'm willing to die on!



Saturday, September 17, 2016

Trump And Oz

There was quite a spectacle on the Dr. Oz show last Thursday. Donald Trump appeared on the show to demonstrate the world he's healthy. And what a pair they made in front of the camera!

One of them is a sleazy, unethical businessman who will say anything to make money. The other is Donald Trump.

Seriously, dude? You went on the Doctor Oz show to demonstrate you're healthy?

Never mind that the new medical statement comes from the same kooky gastroenterologist who wrote the previous one. Never mind that it really tells us nothing new, or indeed anything whatsoever. Appearing on the Dr. Oz show to demonstrate your health is akin to appearing on The Ozbournes to demonstrate your sanity, or Keeping Up With The Kardashians to prove that you're chaste.

As doctors go, Oz can't get much worse. He has repeatedly promoted products that are not only not healthy, they are downright harmful! He has abandoned his hypocratic oath to endorse any so-called "health" product that is willing to meet his high endorsement price. It would be one thing if he were pushing products that were merely homeopathic crap. Who cares about frauds who hawk sugar pills? But he has pushed for things that actively damage the bodies of his viewing audience. He takes healthy people, and makes them sick! There is no better definition of the word "quack" than Dr. Oz!

How bad does it have to get when the most prestigious medical scientists want him dismissed as vice president of Columbia University's prestigious department of surgery, when he doesn't even do anything there? How bad does it have to get when a Senate panel blasted him for promoting a "miracle" weight loss product that didn't work? If there's one thing politicians know, it's fakery! And when they call someone out on it who isn't running against them, it's a pretty good bet that it's a special level of low.

His show should be on QVC, not ABC.

And yet Oz and Trump are similar creatures. They both lie for a living. They are both fakes of television, and they both put showmanship ahead of professional integrity.

No wonder Trump chose him to deal with a "health" issue.

As a result, we still know nothing about Trump's health. And although Hillary has been less than immediately forthcoming on that subject either, we at least know something about her health with certainty. Trump, by contrast, could drop dead of a heart attack tomorrow for all we know.

We can only hope.

Donald has committed a few hundred gaffs so far this election cycle. But in my opinion, this is the worst one. Simply appearing on the same stage as Dr. Oz shows that he is a man without scruples, without morals, without integrity.

Just like Dr. Oz himself.



Wednesday, September 14, 2016

"Election Justice USA" My Ass!

Maybe you've seen this little tidbit floating around social media:

"Election Justice USA Study Finds That Without Election Fraud Bernie Sanders Wins In A Landslide."

A landslide, eh?

That's the sort of hyperbole you get from a bad liar, and I said so to my Facebook friends who posted the news article as it appeared in Daily Kos. Of course, Daily Kos also posted a contrary opinion article, and you can read that here. But I promised to research this anyway, and besides, it seems the Internet could use a more thorough investigation. Who the hell is "Election Justice USA" and what are they all about?

According to their website, which you can access here, Election Justice USA is "a non-partisan national organization of seasoned election integrity experts, statisticians, attorneys, journalists and activists." Sounds good in and of itself, but who specifically does that mean?

Mostly, the organization is comprised of a hodge-podge mix of people who have long been disenfranchised with how America's election process takes place. Some members are people of high integrity, but who likely have little time to vet this organization, and so simply belong to it on general principle. One such person is Lulu Fries'dat, a woman who did a remarkable documentary back in 2008 called, "Holler Back: Not voting in an American town," which explored the problems of non-participants among American voters. Or Fritz Scheuren, senior fellow and vice president of NORC (originally the National Opinion Research Center) at the University of Chicago - a major think-tank for excellence in survey results. But there are others in the mix who are not people of integrity at all, and are mostly just Bernie-Bros who refuse, even now, to accept Hillary Clinton's clear-cut primary win. Tucked in among these are some true crackpots, and their handiwork can be seen in this latest publication.

Take, for example, the list of acknowledgements on the "Democracy Lost" report, which is the one that purports the alleged "Bernie Sanders landslide victory." In that list of names are a couple of people I spotted when I debunked the exit polling arguments months ago. Such as Nicolas Bauer, whose background I don't know well but was one of those who argued that the early exit polls gave more accurate results than the election itself. (An empirical falsehood, by the way.) Or Doug Johnson Hatlem, a former street preacher turned freelance journalist and filmmaker. Now, these two are merely misguided passionate advocates who have been caught up in the whirlwind of "Bern Outs" who refused to listen to what Bernie Sanders told them directly to do when he endorsed Hillary Clinton (proving that they were only fair-weather fans to begin with).

But then one other name stands out. Theodore de Macedo Soares.

Wait, Ted Soares?

Yes! Ted Soares! The very man who collaborated with that loony Richard Charnin, whose bullshit I debunked on this blog back in June, and then debunked it again, and then debunked it yet again after that! At the time, I thought Ted was just some well-meaning but misguided fool. Now I know that he's out to infect Richard Charnin's bullshit into lots of other organizations with integrity.

So much for the nice, misguided guy hypothesis.

According to the aforementioned acknowledgements, Ted Soares is responsible for providing the data having to do with exit polling. Well, that means its suspect right there. But I will deal with that at length later on. For now, let's deal with each of the segments in the report itself.

The report is fully named, Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries. The title alone says it all as far as the opinion of the authors is concerned. It is divided up into six sections:

  • Section I is comprised of introductory material, and an executive summary.
  • Section II is a summary of direct evidence for election fraud.
  • Section III covers current and pending legal actions taken by Election Justice USA and other parties.
  • Section IV covers documented types of voter tampering and election fraud in the 2016 primaries.
  • Section V covers evidence for fraud or suppression in each primary, state-by-state.
  • Section VI give conclusions and recommendations.

For the purposes of this blog, I will only need to deal with sections I and II. The introductory and summary material is all I really need to debunk this as nonsense, and the remaining material is exhaustive details covering the shit I already debunked. Also, any legal actions taken are irrelevant to whether the allegations are true or not. By the same token, any conclusions based on flawed allegations are moot. So, with the relevant areas sequestered, let's deal with each one it its turn. If you want to read the original source text as well, and compare it to my analysis, you can find it here.

Section I: Executive Summary.

A great deal of space is given to two of what the paper says are thousands of examples of vote tampering, that of Alba Guerrero and Chloe Pecorino, both from New York. Their cases are indeed worthy of attention, but by themselves do not establish any widespread impact. In a primary race where well over 16 million people voted for Hillary Clinton, roughly 3.5 million more for her than for Bernie Sanders, having "thousands" of votes tampered with would not have any significant impact on the outcome.

But truthfully, we should ignore that. There should not be one vote tampered with, or one vote discounted. That goes without saying. But that having been said, there is no evidence presented in this summary that conclusively shows that vote tampering solely benefited Hillary Clinton. The truth of the matter is that some disenfranchised voters were Bernie Sanders supporters, and others were Hillary Clinton supporters. So long as a plurality of voters were affected, and there were, the net result on the election results would be a wash or a near-wash.

Here's a special paragraph in the executive summary that I recognized right away:

Exit polling has been used throughout the world as a means to verify election results. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) stated in their 2015 booklet "Assessing and Verifying Election Results," [e]xit polls are powerful analytical tools... [a] discrepancy between the votes reported by voters and official results may suggest the votes have been manipulated." [sic]

This was lifted directly from Richard Charnin's blog, right down to the improper use of quotation marks at the end. It is a thumbprint which exposes the source material as conspiracy-theory laden bullshit, fed to a caring yet gullible public by the tin-foil-hat caucus.

The executive summary leans heavily upon the "evidence" which I have repeatedly debunked - that early exit polling data shows a significantly higher percentage of votes for Bernie Sanders than for Hillary Clinton.

Okay, for everyone who missed it the first four times, here it is again. Here's how exit polls actually work:

Say you're an exit poller. You stand outside a polling station, holding your clipboard, waiting for those people who are exiting to come and answer the survey you are pleading with them to fill out.

Now, there are two basic types of potential respondents in the 2016 primary. There's the younger, more enthusiastic Bernie supporter, who is empowered both with emotion and free time, and who is 180% more likely to answer some anonymous volunteer's survey.

Then there's the other type, who is older, wiser, and has been through this shit countless times before, and who looks at the exit-poller as only one of any number of distractions who want to destroy what little free time he or she has left. So of course he or she is unwilling to answer the questionnaire. They have a much-needed nap in their future.

So, bearing these two basic types in mind, you can imagine that the early exit polls would be totally biased in favor of the first type of voter. You know, the type who takes exit poll conspiracy theories far too seriously in the first place?

Adjustments are then made to the exit poll data. How? Why, by the exit poller counting and/or guesstimating the head counts of different demographics walking out of the poll station. The pollster is mentally noting how many elderly, black, latino, middle-aged and young people are walking out. They don't know how these people voted, but they have a good idea based upon earlier polling data. They will then note their "eyeball estimates" on a separate clipboard and use these to adjust the totals afterward.

This is an open process. Journalists know damned well exit pollers do this, and this is why the early results are shit, and the later results are more reliable.

You see, never before in the history of primary elections has there been such a high disparity between young vs. old, and enthusiastic vs. stoic, on the Democratic ticket. Comparisons with other primary scenarios are pointless. The Republican party has never had such a disparity in our lifetimes, nor was there such a divide even in the 2008 elections when Barack Obama faced off with Hillary Clinton. This is unique to the Democratic Party, right now.

That makes no difference to EJUSA, who try to make the comparison to past elections or other parties in their executive summary anyway. This flatly shows that the entire report is based upon the wishful thinking of disappointed Bernie Bros.

EJUSA makes three recommendations at the end of its executive summary which I find to be very helpful. These are meant to prevent any future vote fraud from taking place. They are:

1.) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections.
2.) Automatic voter registration with same-day party affiliation switching as a mandatory condition for all elections publicly funded.
3.) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access to polling sites.

I have no problem with any of these three items, and wholeheartedly endorse the last two. I think that the first one would be a major pain in the ass for all concerned, and would drive up the costs of running elections even as a rising population makes paper-only balloting more impractical. But if enough people insist on it, and the billions of tax dollars that will cost, who am I to stand in the way?

As for number two and three, I say bravo! It's especially interesting to note that the third recommendation is meant to restore voting rights that were taken away by Republicans, ostensibly to prevent "voter fraud!" Oh, the irony!

Section II: Evidence for Election Fraud?

We now go to the bulk of the "direct evidence for vote tampering, which is itself divided into six parts: A.) Voter Suppression, B.) Registration Tampering, C.) Illegal voter purging, D.) Evidence of Fraudulent or Erroneous Voting Machine Tallies, E.) Miscellaneous, and F.) Estimate of Pledged Delegates Affected. We will deal with these in order.

A. Voter Suppression
The initial complaints are legit: Fewer polling stations in Arizona, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, etc. The study argues that this disproportionately affected Bernie Sanders vote share, because Hillary Clinton had larger vote shares for early/absentee ballots while Sanders fared best on election day.

The part that they leave out is that while Sanders fared best on election day, he did not necessarily fare better than Clinton did even then. Because while votes for Sanders peaked on election day, they were often not enough to overcome Clinton's support. If Sanders' peak performance didn't do better than Hillary's "valley" performance, then it's a pretty clear win for Hillary.

The rest of this portion of the survey is all "California, California, California." And here, we all understand why voters were upset. Unaffiliated or Independent voters were allowed to cross over to vote in the Democratic Primary, but not in the Republican one. Rather than be upset at the Republicans barring votes against Trump, all the angst came down upon the Democratic Party, because although Independents were allowed to vote, they had to proactively request a "crossover" ballot. In many cases, crossover ballots were not supplied to Independent voters, causing them to be upset that they could not vote for Bernie. In other cases, crossover ballots were asked for, but not supplied.

And sometimes I get a regular Coke at McDonald's when I specifically asked for a Diet Coke. No, I'm not equating the two, but high volume means that there will be mistakes. What matters is how we deal with them.

California is comparatively good at making up for mistakes and making sure late ballots get counted. Not perfect, no, and there were still mistakes made, but all in all, they did a pretty good job of cleaning up all the Independent voters who wanted to cast their ballot for Bernie Sanders.

A month after Hillary was declared the winner, how did she do? Well, Sanders cut into her lead, as expected. And as expected, he did better among young people and same-day registrants. But this was not as significant as the complainers expected. Sanders added 879,671 votes. But Clinton added 804,713. That means the margin added for Bernie was only about 75,000 votes. That's better than Hillary's victory declaration day, but not nearly enough to make a dent into the fact of her victory.

The "study" ignores all this, and deliberately overestimates the California outcome in favor of Sanders. Never mind that 49 other states had already sealed the deal for Hillary, California or not.

B. Registration Tampering and C. Illegal Voter Purging
The study recorded numerous accounts of registration tampering during the 2016 primary. In cases in New York, Arizona, California and others, voter registration was either purged or else switched without the voters' knowledge.

I agree with this sort of thing being disturbing. But I also recognize that this is the sort of thing that happens when voters are inactive for too long a time. The people making the complaints are, in large part, the same voters who abandoned our country to extremists in the Republican party back in 2014 and 2010. And now they're complaining that their registration has been tampered with? They would have never had any tampering done if state officials had seen any activity! And don't think some voter fraud doesn't happen by taking inactive registrants and switching affiliations, and then voting in their stead!

Yes, it is disturbing that such registration tampering took place. But voters beware! Vote, and do so every election, not just when Bernie-like candidates are running. That way, no one will dare tamper with your registration. Use it or lose it!

D. Evidence OF Fraudulent or Erroneous Voting Machine Tallies
The claim of inaccurate voting machine tallies is possibly the most interesting segment of this study. It makes the claim, not that the actual voting machines were shown to be in stark error, but rather that the population size of the precincts show favorably towards Clinton. In other words, larger precincts, which use more voting machines, showed more favorably towards Hillary.

*Sigh!* I should not have to say this, but correlation does not imply causation! It was already known that denser urban areas favored Clinton. Now, suddenly, that's a problem? Clearly, there was a well-established African-American correlation with denser population centers. There was also a correlation with Democratic party loyalism with major urban districts. Either or both of these could be the cause of the correlation before anything to do with voting machines comes into it!

I suppose the study could make an honest case that the machines were in error, and try to support this with evidence of machine tallies not matching hand-held counts. But instead, the case is again made that exit polls indicate an error in the machinery.

Okay, excuse me while I go head-slap my forehead until my hand hurts.

But it gets worse. Further down we find this little gem:

"Multiple studies, including one published recently by graduate students at Stanford University and the University of Tillburg, show that across all primary states Clinton performs best in counties with voting machines that don’t leave a papertrail, and that this difference is statistically significant."

Holy shit! Are they actually citing the fake Stanford study that I debunked, and which got laughed off the table as soon as it came out?! THEY ARE!



They have no integrity left at this point. Zero. Zilch.

At least they try to make some sort of an actual case with one piece of evidence from Chicago, in which a voting tally machine did produce results which were in error when compared with the paper ballots. But the outcome of the election still matched pre-election polling almost perfectly. One faulty machine or not, the results matched the projections.

E. Miscellaneous
Various caucus irregularities are here cited, focusing on Iowa and Nevada. I needn't waste time with these, as other news outlets have covered this extensively. But I do want to focus on another claim made in this section, which is that the DNC worked against Sanders' campaign, and colluded with the media to undermine it.

Essentially, this is the same old griping about superdelegates supporting Hillary. Never mind that Bernie Sanders going back to being an Independent pretty much made the case regarding that for us. Bernie was never truly a Democrat. So why should the Democratic Party insiders have sided with him when he didn't have anywhere near the votes on the ground to sway them? Why should they have sided with a man who hadn't paid his dues by fighting with them in the trenches for 40 years the way Hillary had? Why should they have supported a man who raised no money for the party down-ticket, not only this year, but ever?

But I digress.The "study" claims that the AP colluded with the Clinton campaign by declaring her the winner the day before the California primary. But this is just sour grapes. There is no evidence that this was a conspiracy theory between the media and the Clinton campaign. And if there were such a conspiracy, where is it now? At a time when Donald Trump seems to have closed the polling gap between himself and Hillary, where is this so-called alliance between HRC and Reuters? Because she could surely use it about now!

The paper goes on to claim that "the most damning evidence" comes from the DNC email leak showing collusion between the party and journalists to smear Sanders or plant stories.

Except that didn't happen! As I already reported on this blog, the emails clearly show the DNC officials talking about smearing Sanders, and then doing nothing about it! Talk is not only cheap, it's just talk without actions to back it up.

F. Estimate of Pledged Delegates Affected.
This gets really interesting. Watch this.

The "study" states:

Our Upper estimate of delegates affected, spelled out in more detail in section three of the report, is at least +184 for Sanders, at least -184 for Clinton for a 368 delegate switch in delegate margin. 

Did you see it? If not, let me highlight it for you: "The upper estimate... is at least..."

Well? Which is it? An upper estimate, or a lower estimate?!

This is not just a grammar error. It reveals the mindset of the authors. They clearly began the sentance with an upper estimate. We know, because they said so. Then, they wanted to set that maximum upper estimate as some sort of floor which established Bernie Sanders fake margin of victory. That's why they immediately hedged with "at least."

Well, it's not "at least." I ran the numbers through my trusty spreadsheet analysis, still warm from the last time I used it to debunk this shit. If one takes ALL of the estimated voter fraud numbers quoted in this section of the "study," and then applies it to the final vote tally, you might barely get it up to 184 pledged delegates. But keep in mind, that's every single one of the disenfranchised voters casting their ballot for Bernie Sanders, something which is mathematically impossible. A plurality of voters were disenfranchised! And even if you grant that Bernie won the vast majority of these votes, some votes would still have gone for Hillary, and some for Trump.

A shift of 184 pledged delegates is ludicrous! And even if it somehow weren't, this wouldn't give Bernie a victory. It would give him a mere lead over Hillary of 10 pledge delegate votes. He would then need to persuade a majority of superdelegates to come over to his side in order to win, and we all know how likely that would be.

Hillary would still have won handily, even with a +184 delegate shift in Bernie's favor.

Don't like it? Too bad. The numbers don't lie, even when you fudge them into Bernie's column this blatantly.

This piece of unprofessional shit is no serious "study," but rather a hash of previously debunked bullshit claims, all rolled together like sushi, and cut into neat portions to make it seem more scholarly. It hides behind the coattails of more respectable statisticians and polling scientists, all of whom should be on high alert that crackpots have infiltrated an organization they are affiliated with. They should move swiftly to disavow anything to do with this animal house coalition of mad-hatters, and I expect some have already done so as of this writing.

The only thing I don't find at fault is the recommendations for reform. But these are commonsense items that anyone on either side of the political spectrum should endorse. Suggesting simple fixes does not excuse irresponsible accusations of fraud which, in the final analysis, are nothing more than arguing over the ingredients after the cake has been baked.

We've got Hillary. Yes, we're stuck with her, but she's a good candidate, in spite of what the media, and the poor lemmings who belong to Election Justice USA, have to say about her. She's a ruthless bitch, but she's our ruthless bitch!

Now let's get her elected!



Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Media Bias Favors Trump

For anyone who still believes in the pink unicorn known as "liberal media bias," let me set you straight. There is no liberal media bias. The clear and unambiguous media bias, at least right now, is in favor of Donald Trump.

Take, for example, Hillary's one and only gaff: She has called half of Trump supporters "a basket full of deplorables." And for this, she is being virtually burned in effigy on CNN and - yes! - even on MSNBC, which I am watching right now as I type this, and am listening to the talking heads ripping Hillary.

As if to rub salt in the self-inflicted wound, they reported Trump's veep candidate, Mike Pence, saying, "I have never seen a candidate of a major political party speak so disparagingly of the American people."

Dude, have you MET your running mate?!

And guess how many talking heads called him out on it? That's right. None of them.

Hillary has several hundred more gaffs to go before she meets the same quota that Donald Trump has dished out. But the media seems to think that one - ONE! - gaff by Hillary means its lights out for her. While Trump gets away with gaff after gaff after gaff.

This is not bullshit. It's shit from multiple bulls. Hell, it's an entire stampede of bulls and their accompanying shit! And while this bullshit-stampede cuts a huge swath across the countryside, trampling into a bloody pulp what used to be known as journalistic integrity in this country, the public outcry is somehow lacking.

Never mind that this is the classic scandal - that a politician is in trouble for telling the buck-naked truth. Never mind that Hillary gets a cold and the media all but calls in a hearse. And never mind that Trump gets a media blackout on all his previous bullshit just because he's managed to keep his big mouth shut for an entire week. The media wrongly assumes that Hillary is a despicable person, and so reports on her despicably, reinforcing a false stereotype that 1) they first invented, and that 2) they now wrongly sustain.

The "basket of deplorables" is the media!

Why  must I, with my lone, quixotic blog, be the only one to debunk the misinformation being bandied about regarding Hillary? Why must I do the media's job for it, as if I had either the time or the money to do so? Am I Ed Murrow? Am I Walter Cronkite? Am I Dan Rather? No? Then why should I have to be? And where is the modern equivalent to these giants? There really isn't one. Our generation is stuck with David Muir, who leads off his news stories with some piece of crank "native advertising," disguised as a news story. Disgusting!

When Americans travel abroad, they always ask things like, "What is it with Donald Trump?" "How can Americans actually support a guy like that?" Most Americans put in such a position have no good answer to give them. But I do.

You see, the reason why Donald Trump happened, and is still happening, is because the media doesn't give a rat's ass about reporting the news anymore. They only care about ratings. And money. And ratings. And more money. Thanks to Ronald Reagan removing the fairness doctrine, and Bill Clinton signing into law a bill which allowed networks to be monopolized by a few small corporations, freedom of the press is all but destroyed. Oh, it exists as a part of freedom of speech, and people are free to report whatever they want, but American media is now basically only three giant sauropods of high-def misinformation, and the rest of us are just gadflies by comparison. These behemoths make so much more money when people like Trump's supporters get pissed off at Hillary, and people like Hillary's supporters get pissed at Donald Trump. The more fuel gets thrown onto the fire, the more divided America gets. The more divided America gets, the more campaign money gets raised. And the more money gets raised, the more gets spent on advertising. On their networks. All of which they own.


Donald Trump happened because he's good for ratings and advertising dollars, which is good for the bottom line.

And if he wins, it will be because these media giants decided that an irresponsible Trump presidency will net them more money than a responsible Hillary one will.

In a real world, where real reporters report the real news, Hillary Clinton would be leading by 20 points, just as she nearly did two weeks ago. After all, Barry Goldwater was an utter loser, and Trump is crazier than Goldwater by a factor of ten. But the media doesn't cash in from a laugher. They don't make the big bucks when one candidate gets to do a slam-dunk. And so, at the peril of our nation and every value that we hold dear, the networks have decided to make it a photo-finish. They have decided to rip down the deserving front-runner, Hillary, even though it could cost our nation dearly if they miscalculate just a little bit, and Trump actually wins. They tear Hillary down for the same reason the caution flag comes out with ten laps to go in a NASCAR race because of a plastic bag out on the runway or some such silly shit. They don't want one driver to win by a mile and a half. They want an exciting finish, and maybe a big crash for good measure.

If they want to play chicken, why don't they just go find a goddamned train and do it the old fashioned way?

You bet half of Trump supporters are deplorables. They have made no bones about it. They have gone out of their way to show it! They've nazi-saluted Trump at his rallies, assaulted minorities at the door, sucker punched black people in the aisles, praised building a wall to keep Latinos out, and in general acted like assholes at every turn. How dare they have the nerve to act surprised at Hillary calling them out!

Fine. But what about the other half?

The other half exist because they have been lied to by the media. Yes, Hillary has baggage, but this ought not be a close race.

And if the media were doing its  job, it wouldn't be.



Facebook Redeemed.

Addendum to my blog post from 9/12:

Facebook has now allowed my blog post, and has not taken it down 24 hours later. I would like to formally thank Facebook for allowing free speech, and ask that they continue to maintain such integrity going forward.


Monday, September 12, 2016

Wow. Facebook Really Does Block 3rd Parties!

Okay, guys. I just made a blog post arguing why "G.J." (I won't use a flaggable name) could win. My purpose was not to actually help the guy win, but to help draw sensible voters away from the Trump-monster.

Facebook blocked the post. What the literal fuck?!

You all know me. You know what offensive content I deliberately write, and how laced it is with pro-Hillary, leftist and acidic profanity.

So why, do you suppose, they finally decided to block this recent post?

This is America. I don't care how evil your viewpoint is, you don't block someone else's freedom of speech. EVER! After all, I hate Trump with a passion. I regard his supporters as ignorant in the extreme. But I will fight tooth and toenail for their right to speak. And that goes double for supporters of "G.J." At least that candidate was a governor.

So speak up! Make a fuss! Facebook cannot and must not institute its own Comstock Laws on people! Fuck that shit!



Gary Johnson Could Win This Thing!

It's amazing how few people who bitch that we need a third option actually vote for one. Especially since there is only one true conservative running for office this election year.

No, I don't mean Donald Trump. He's a simple narcissist, a lifetime member of the sex and money party, and he's no more a conservative than Bernie Sanders is.

Meanwhile, here's Gary Johnson. He's for lower and more responsible taxation. He was governor of Arizona, and knows the immigration controversy better than most. He wants less government. He wants to protect religious liberty. Sure, he's in favor of legalizing marijuana and is not out to destroy gays and lesbians, but other than that, what's keeping this guy from stealing every last Trump vote?

Simple. Abortion. Gary Johnson is pro-choice. Were it not for that, he would be the darling of the Values Voter Summit instead of Trump, even though Trump is about as anti-abortion as Johnson is. They would rather support someone who tells them the lie they want to hear rather than the truth which they are actually voting for.

So how could Johnson turn that around? He can't and won't compromise his principles, and he can't say something wishy-washy like, "I'll make it more difficult for abortions to take place." So what can he do?

Something very simple, actually. All he has to say is, "I pledge to put conservative justices on the Supreme Court."

That's it! He doesn't even have to say that these conservative justices are necessarily anti-abortion. The words "conservative" and "justice" are enough!

Either that, or conservatives will have to get off their high-horse and stop being single-issue voters.




Saturday, September 10, 2016

Mother Theresa Was No Saint

So, the Catholic Church has canonized Mother Teresa of Kalcota as a Saint. A no brainer, right? She fed poor children, cared for the sick, and kept almost no possessions for herself. If she's not a saint, nobody is.

Well, that's all bullshit, cooked up by a gullible media for an even more gullible public. Christopher Hitchens may be gone, but the criticisms he laid on her are every bit as true now as they were years ago.

She fed the children, you say? True. But she then denied them the contraceptive care that would have made her aid permanent. So she fed hungry children, who then had more children who needed to be fed, and these had even more children who needed to be fed, etc. etc. It became a runaway cycle, and it never occurred to this batty old nun that  maybe she could keep everyone fed if only they'd stop having so many damned babies all the time.

She cared for the sick? Hardly. She built hospitals for the sick, and kept them understaffed and under supplied. When more people gave to her charity to remedy this, she used the money to build more hospitals with the same problem instead of supplying the hospitals she'd already built. If all the resources given to her were consolidated into one, truly modern hospital, she might have made some sort of real difference. Instead, her idea of caring for the sick was to provide a cot to lie down upon until the patient died. This was medical care for the Dark Ages, not the 20th century.

She kept almost no personal possessions for herself? Not so. She hoarded to herself the worst possession of all - pride. She sought to establish an order of nuns in India - named after herself. Yes, it's true, because she told us so herself. The part she left out was that her true god in all this would logically have to be, not Jehovah, but Teresa. She did it all, not to help the poor, because the poor were collateral to her goal. Her goal was to become a Saint. Her whole "charity" schtick was to that end. And the disgusting part in all of it is, it worked!

On top of all this was the disgusting way she would pander to the wealthy elites who gave to her. For example, she accepted an award from the hand of Ronald Reagan at the very moment the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, which he had been supporting clandestinely, were slaughtering good Catholics and nuns in that country. When she was later confronted with this fact by reporters, she refused to say anything against Reagan. "I don't get into that," she dismissively said.

In other words, while her mission may have been to comfort the afflicted, she never bothered to afflict the comfortable. She knew which side of the bread her butter was on, and went out of her way to never point out the sinfulness of those who were writing her checks.

So now this charlatan, this two-faced bitch, this anti-abortion crusader who belongs in the dustbin of history, has been made a Saint by Pope Francis. This is not only proof that Frankie isn't quite the totally refreshing change the Catholic Church needs, it also is the sort of thing we've come to expect from the organization which has systematized priestly abuse of young boys, then turned a blind eye to the victims, or even viciously attacked those of them who dared seek justice through the court system.

People all over the world are going to be praying to the newly minted St. Teresa. They will ask her for healing and health, in some cases even foregoing modern medical care to do so - an irony which would be funny were it not so tragic.

Here's a prayer I sincerely pray to her: "Dear Mother Teresa: May you spend eternity experiencing the exact same 'care' you gave to the sick during your lifetime."

I cannot imagine a more perfect hell.