The Theft of the American Birthright: Notes on 2000 Mules

2000 Mules

Chief Justice Roberts in a 2018 opinion: “When the Government tracks the location of a cell phone, it achieves near perfect surveillance as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.”

Businesses buy geotracking data. Military, intelligence, law enforcement use it. J6ers were tracked preemptively.

What criteria was used to identify mules? The person’s geolocation data had to show them traveling between 10 or more drop boxes and 5 or more Democrat non-profits.

The researchers refer to "unique visits inside of a space." Nowhere does the film say within “100 feet” of a dropbox. Geotracking is precise.

Latitude, longitude, elevation, and time. Examined data from October 1st through the November 2020 election (and to January 6th in Georgia).

In Atlanta were 309 drop boxes. They were geofenced. Researchers ensured avoiding false positives by looking for aberrant patterns.

In Atlanta, 242 people went to an average of 24 drop boxes and 8 left-wing organizations during the two-week period. Of those 242 Atlanta mules, 67 were in the riots. Probably not Trump supporters.

29:30: “How do you know that … big family … this person didn’t just work …?” etc. Answer? The additive elements: Going to the non-profit, identifying a pattern of approach to the drop box, going not past but directly to a drop box, then to other drop boxes, 2 AM visits.

30:09 A pattern of life rather than a spreadsheet of numbers. One in Georgia: 28 drop boxes and 5 organizations in one day.

32:48 Philadelphia: 1100+ mules, close to 50 drop boxes each. “We’re saying someone should investigate.”

Validated data with Secoriea Turner’s murder.

35:02 “Do you have video evidence?” “Four million minutes of surveillance video around the country.” “Official surveillance video of these mail-in drop boxes?” “Yes.”

From Georgia’s presidential and runoff elections, including “I do not have an explanation I can provide other than they do not exist” from Fulton County. Video turned off for particular drop boxes in Arizona. No video available from Wisconsin.

36:28 Same mule in different locations at different times. Official surveillance video. One box, middle of night. Another box, 1962 ballots, 271 people approached that box in 25-hour period.

Gloves appeared from December 23rd to the runoff. December 22nd, Arizona: Indictments for stuffing ballots based on fingerprints. January 5th, 1:00 AM, out-of-state mule at “dozens” of locations.

55:40 “You’ve got video of the same guy going different places?” “Yes.” One mule across six counties, 27 different drop boxes, 5 organizations, in one night.

Clips shared were examples, not exhaustive. Only official video. Criteria so high that it’s likely many have not been identified.

58:34  Whistleblower hired by National Republican Senatorial Committee to monitor drop boxes in Georgia’s runoff. Backpacks of ballots, plates from out of state, two women with large numbers of ballots confronted whistleblower. NSRC did nothing. Law enforcement did nothing.

1:01:50 San Luis, Arizona. Informant says people paid for ballots. Personally dropped off hundreds. Told to go in the dark to drop box with no cameras. Elections “fixed.” “Mafia.” “You’re gonna end up in the trash can in pieces.”

Trump the racist?

I was sitting in a hotel dining area in Texas eating breakfast when I heard Donald Trump announce on the television behind me his intention to run for the Republican presidential nomination. I knew that when he mentioned illegal immigration, his political opponents -- who knew that they’d be actual enemies? -- would twist his statement into hatred of Mexicans and people of Mexican descent.

He denounced David Duke in the '90s;

He’s repeatedly denounced racial hatred in general and anti-Semitism in particular;

He’s been the best friend Israel’s had in the White House in at least a generation;

It turns out that Mexico also opposes illegal immigration -- when they’re the victims of it; and

Cohen's "racist" has been refuted by Candace Owens and Lynne Patton.

Darwin's Crime Scene Investigators

This is in response to @JaTapps, who dances around Darwin's difficulties like Fred Astaire on Red Bull:

I overestimated you. Considering the limitations of Twitter, I thought that you would be able to address the salient points of your creation myth directly, not run like a coward:

a) You absurdly try to dismiss a perfectly useful English word ("kind") while dancing around your misuse and abuse of "species." (If you must have it translated into your own dialect, then genus or species seem the best fit. Family may or may not be too broad, depending on the family.)

b) When you define all fossils as transitions (including the latest, since everything is always "evolving," right?), then you're not only reading your faith into the facts, but you're sidestepping the issue. Why did Darwin need them? Because you can't get from A to Z without all the letters in-between. He needed proof of Evolution's "failures."

c) The only aspect of macroevolution that really matters in the controversy is simpler forms' "evolving" into newer, more complex forms. All you've got are bacteria to bacteria, mollusks to mollusks, fish to fish, and finches to finches. No one's seen otherwise, ever.

There. That's a tidy summary of your prevarications. Now, back to the original question and its follow-up:

1) Who has seen Life arise apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs)?

2) We've seen Life arise from only the same kind of Life (or its programs). Whom does that support, Moses or Darwin?

And this to a serious offering from @4_site_paradigm, who asks, "can you not investigate a crime scene despite no witnesses? Should we discard the plethora of evidence[?]":

That's a perfectly good question. The problem is not the evidence, but the interpretation. If you approach the scene having determined a priori that it was an accident, then that's what you'll see.

That's fine if it was an accident, but if it was a crime, then you're dead wrong.

You're saying that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs). Who's seen that? Ever?

I'm saying that we've only ever seen Life arise from the same kind of Life, etc., which is absolutely true. Dogs from dogs, cats from cats, bacteria from bacteria, coelacanth from coelacanth, finches from finches. Man from Man.

Besides that, the basic unit of Life, the cell, is an incredibly complex Von Neumann-type metabolic machine. Who's ever heard of a machine arising from the muck by accident? And Life's programs, genetic code. In your experience, from where do machines and programs come?

You're discarding the evidence that doesn't suit your creation story.

And this in reply to methos1975, from here:

Comments were closed, so I'll just point out (for now) that you offered nothing that supports your claim that Life arises apart from the same kind of Life (or its programs).

Minor variations within species/genus -- as the organism's pre-existing genetic code allows -- examples of human manipulation of that code and its elements, and assumed descent when all you have are similarities are not evidence of your fundamental truth claim.

In other words, you still haven't answered the questions.

As for the second part of your reply, utter Biblical and historical illiteracy doesn't offer much to work with.

It is telling that you advocate for what no one has ever seen, but reject utterly the eyewitness testimonies of generations.

So much for reason and empiricism.

Notes on Trump

From here:

Unity. It does not mean what you think it means. Also ... he offered Ted a home? The Republican party was the home for conservatives long before it was home for preening autocratic, oligarchic, egomaniacal, orange-skinned, small-handed, big-government reality show celebrities, pal.

The Darwinist's blind faith

The foundation of Science is observable fact. That Darwinists must fabricate causal links is an admission that they've got no actual empirical evidence on which to base their religion.

Darwinists condemn what they insinuate is a religious zealot's making things up to fit his worldview, but when they themselves do it, it's called "Science." For anyone else, it's to the Inquisitor!

From here:

Interestingly, some defenders of dinosaur-to-bird evolution discount this evidence against their theory by saying, ‘The proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal." Of course, only evolutionary faith requires that bird lungs arose from lungs of another animal.

A fraction of a man

"God created man in His own image,

in the image of God He created him;

male and female He created them."

-Genesis 1:27

Offered in response to someone (likely Muslim) defending another tyrant's suggestion that women should surrender their God-given liberties in order to serve the men who dominate them:

Half a man views women as chattel.

A quarter of a man defends that half a man.

A standard response (and more) to the vulgar and idiotic racists emboldened by Donald Trump

The Vile Orange Bigot has coaxed out of the shadows a lot of his fellow racist swine. Rather than waste time refuting every attack individually, it seemed prudent to cobble together several responses to their nescience.

Here is a synthesis of several replies to one of these witless worms and his Trump-inspired, profanity-laden cowardice:

Name-calling, character assassination, and bigotry from another racist Democrat.

This isn't elementary school; you're defaming someone you know nothing about, and you're doing it on racial grounds. Are you always such a lying, vulgar idiot? You see my nom de guerre and assume that you know something about me.

If you weren't such an historically-illiterate coward, then you would know that Santiago Matamoros is a first-century Jew, an Apostle. Saint James the Moor-slayer, the patron saint of Spain during its eight-hundred-year Reconquista to free itself from Islamic tyranny.

But you don't care about facts. It's not up to a Trump supporter to know anything about the things on which he comments. Just like your candidate -- who has already promised touch-back amnesty and negotiations on deportation, credulous loser -- you attack first and think after, if at all.

How does it feel to make Obama supporters look informed, patriotic, and noble?

Crawl back under the liberal rock from which you slithered, vulgar wretch.

Here's a recent head-shot that found its mark:

What's in a name, illiterate racist?

Trump says that he loves the ignorant.

You must be his favorite.

And another:

Wonderful! Another vile, racist Democrat.

Facts are "stupid" only to tyrants and slaves, and your red-faced, orange-haired buffoon has certainly clowned you.

As for your idiotic and bigoted smear, if you had any integrity, any historical literacy, any dignity at all, then you would know that my nom de guerre belongs to a first-century Jew, one of Christ's Apostles, the patron saint of Spain's eight-hundred-year war to free itself from Islamic tyranny.

You're such an ignorant coward. You deserve Trump.

And another:

How can a first-century saint be "illegal," nescient?

You're a credit to your candidate, illiterate racist.

And another:

Inapt, clumsy, and nescient.

Try again, racist Democrat.

And another:

So, you're just another historically-illiterate and racist Democrat. You know literally nothing about either Santiago Matamoros or me.

Can you be any more nescient?

And another:

The ignorant racists are oozing out of the woodwork, aren't they?

You know, if you had any intellectual integrity, historical literacy, or basic human decency, then you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of exposing your bigotry over a nom de guerre honoring the patron saint of Spain's eight-hundred-year Reconquista to free itself from Islamic oppression.

But not you. Attack however stupidly whomever points out that you're being played for a fool by the other pathologically-lying liberal from New York.

Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives

Donald Trump is a RINO who will say anything, no matter how shameful, in order to win. He's the other lying liberal from New York, he's broken every promise made to his constituents, and he is a fraud completely unfit to serve as president.

If Trump were only a petty, bitter, pathetic, vile, little man who fears and loathes women, then there might be something to work with there. (His wife's public criticism of his craven personal attacks offers some hope for him). But Donald Trump is much more than just a red-faced, orange-haired blowhard.

Donald Trump is a fundamentally dishonest liberal whose "conversion" is not only conveniently recent but obviously feigned; Trump has already promised his support for nearly every item on a liberal's Festivus list, including: touch-back amnesty, declaring that "hopefully they all come back"; negotiations on deportation and not the enforcement of existing law; socialized medicine more absolute than Barack Obama's; more funding for Planned Parenthood, despite their mass slaughtering of innocents -- the literal poisoning, burning, crushing, and tearing apart of babies -- and then selling their remains; presidential edicts; one-bathroom-for-all; modifications of the Republican position against abortion; and punitive taxation and regulation for businesses that refuse to obey his orders.

Add to that his longtime funding of and praise for liberals (when Ted Cruz was opposing statists on both sides of the aisle in defense of the Constitution and the American people, Donald Trump was still buying politicians, including candidates opposed to the Tea Party), his use of Eminent Domain for personal gain (and not the public good), his making his products overseas, his support for increases in H1B visas, and his hiring of foreign workers (legal and illegal) instead of Americans, and Donald Trump is the establishment and everything that he claims to oppose.

The only thing that Trump's said that he seems to really believe is that Islam hates us; tragically, he doesn't know why, and he doesn't care to find out. And not only had he modified his "ban" (it was just a "suggestion"; Orlando's attack reinstated it, apparently), but his "concern" about Islam doesn't prevent him from condemning free people's defying Islamic totalitarianism, as he did with Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And after numerous blunders, insults, and flip-flops, Trump's offered something new: where his initial proposal of a wall to secure our borders contained no racist elements, Trump has now attacked a judge on racial grounds.

Besides the lying, bluster, and inconstancy, Trump speaks as if "2 Corinthians" is the opening to a bad joke, and he's being sued for child sex slavery, has lusted after his own daughter (publicly, on at least two occasions), defends rapists, and will engage in any character assassination -- no matter how bizarre, absurd, or crass -- in order to destroy an opponent.

But you can trust Donald Trump. Every version of him. Just ask John Miller ... over a Trump steak ... in the dining hall of Trump University.

Abraham Lincoln. Frederick Douglass. Harriet Tubman. Ronald Reagan. Ted Cruz. Donald Trump is a Trojan horse and the embodiment of every absurd lie that liberals tell about Conservatives (a term that Trump can't even define). He is merely the other side of Hillary's two-headed coin, and he will destroy the Republican Party.

America could have had a Reagan, but because of open primaries, the cult of personality, and Fox News's around-the-clock, slavish promotion of every ridiculous lie that Trump utters, we're stuck with Il Duce versus Kim Jong-Hillary.

Patrick Buchanan misunderstands Islam

Pat Buchanan asks the question,

"Will Europe remain Europe if she is repopulated by Arabs, Muslims, Asians and Africans?"

It looks like Pat instinctively understands that the problem is Islam, but it appears also that he's settled for the common misrepresentation of Islam as a "race."

What color is Islam, again?

Islam is a belief system, one that demands the rape, enslavement, and slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert. It has devoured civilizations throughout its nearly one and one-half millennia of bloodlust and terror. And Islam's been trying to conquer Europe since its armies first invaded Spain in the west and the Holy Land in the east, only to be stopped and driven back at Tours, Granada, and Vienna.

Jerusalem, Constantinople, and the rest of eastern Christendom were not so fortunate.
Christians from any land can assimilate, since they share the Common Thread that binds all of Western Civilization, but Islam comes only to destroy.

The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights

In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution:

The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:

First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless.  If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?

Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.

Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.

Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?

Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?

If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.

Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?

How perverse.