Election 2020: A Data Coup with Deep High-Tech Capital Involvement

The 2020 U.S. election is a carefully planned data coup, a classic textbook of all kinds of fraud in the history of human elections, exposing not only the darkness of U.S. politics, but also the bankruptcy of America’s proud “soft power” and the disappointment of people who love this beacon of democracy. More importantly, the data coup has exposed in many ways the lack of adequate risk prevention capability of the American political system in the high-tech era. This point was made very clearly by Pennsylvania Senator Mastriano at a hearing in the Pennsylvania General Assembly on November 27: “What happened here 50 years ago when we could put a man on the moon, but (today) we can’t hold reliable and safe elections in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania? It’s absolutely by design, because we have this technology, we have stealth aircraft that are the envy of the world, and yet we can’t hold elections better than Afghanistan.”

Letting states use the security-ridden Dominion system

Dominion’s creation of the “Biden Curve” on the night of November 3 shocked the world: How could the U.S. Democratic Party operate its electoral machine in such a way that it ignored real public opinion and created a custom president for the United States? As I searched all kinds of data, I found out that this feature of the election machine-a flaw in election security-is no secret. Not only had the U.S. Election Commission and its experts known about it for a long time, but it had also been reported in several mainstream media outlets that promoted the Dominion system as secure after the election.

I found two articles on The Technology that Drives Government IT (GCN, a trade association that provides technology assessments, recommendations, and case studies to support public sector IT managers responsible for standardizing, evaluating, and selecting technology solutions) from January 2019 and January 2020, and even the titles were remarkably similar. One is “Voting security guidelines: too little too late?” (FEB 28,2019); “Electoral machine security: is it too little too late? (Voting machine security: Too little too late? Jan 10,2020), by the same person, Derek B. Johnson. These two articles, written a year apart, are about the same thing: In January 2019, the U.S. Board of Elections noted in a hearing on election machine security that Dominion’s machine security standards cover only the technical aspects of voting systems and do not address cybersecurity, which could have an impact on elections. State participants noted that the Federal Election Commission has issued Guidelines for Voluntary Voting Systems, but that many states may not have time to test their systems against the new standards before the 2020 elections. Alex Haldeman, a University of Michigan professor and election security expert, noted at the conference that the updated standards are “relatively weak in scope” and do not include guidance on post-election audits and other integral components of a secure election system. He asked lawmakers to require states and voting machine vendors to comply with minimum viable security regulations as a condition for federal funding.

On January 9, 2020, the National Board of Elections met again on election machine security, with some experts warning that Dominion machines are not conducive to an effective voter verification and post-election audit process. There are also concerns about the company’s software and hardware supply chain, as at least one major voting system supplier sources parts and components from China. But state officials say it’s too late to correct them before the election. (Video of this meeting: 2020 Election Security, https://c-span.org/video/?467976-1/2020-election-security)

That is to say, there are problems with the machines, and when combined with the results of the two hearings on machine security performance by the U.S. Elections Commission in 2019 and 2020, the conclusion is that Dominion’s security has long been found to be faulty, and it is a fact that it cannot verify voter identification and cannot be audited afterwards; it is also a fact that China provided the parts. It is also true that China provided the components, but most states in the US adopted them despite the warnings of election security experts (many states reportedly received kickbacks for purchasing Dominion systems, such as Georgia’s Governor and Secretary of State).

The New York Times and CNN have reported in previous years on the problems of faulty US election machine systems. Not to mention, on January 3 of this year, Bloomberg published an article titled “U.S. Won’t Give Up Its Hackable Wireless Voting Machines,” which focused on Michigan’s voting system and pointed out two major problems with the Dominion system: first, even a short connection to the Internet, even for a millisecond, is enough to spread malware through the system; and second, local governments have made familiarity, convenience, and accessibility a priority. Placed above security, anyone can access the system and operate it, leading to security risks. In fact, this Biden Curve occurred right here in Michigan. Whether or not this was an intentional backdoor to cheat, one only has to look at the legal preparations made by the Democrats to do so.

It is important to mention that both of these hearings took place while former FEC Chairman Alan Weintraub Bush, who claimed to CNN on November 7 that the election was fraud-free, was in office, allowing states to use these security-hazardous machines and endorse the cheating party. The current FEC Chairman, Trey Trainor, took office in mid-July of this year.

Democrat Lawmakers Make Partisan Changes to Election Laws

On November 10, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., a former member of the Federal Election Commission and an expert on election law, was interviewed by prominent conservative host Mark Levin, who said that the Democratic Party’s cheating had been long and well-prepared. The interview. In addition to detailing the specific rigging of the election, he notes the Democratic Party’s preparations to harvest votes: hundreds of lawsuits were filed by Democrats and their agents before the election – an unprecedented intensity of litigation over election laws, all of which sought to eliminate existing absentee and mail-in ballot security measures, such as witness and mail-in ballots. Signatures, signature comparisons, and the descent of this election into electoral fraud and vote harvesting On November 12, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, in “Harvesting the 2020 Election, By Kimberley A. Strassel (Nov. 12,2020) briefly discusses Nancy Pelosi’s release of a 600-page House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) bill in 2019 dedicated to “electoral reform”. “. Some of the legislation is designed to weaponize campaign finance laws and give the Democratic Party more power to control political speech and intimidate opponents, two major categories: 1. The bill would require states to vote early and would have to allow election day and online voter registration, thereby weakening the accuracy of the voting rolls. 2. States would be made to automatically register voters, including federal welfare recipients, from government databases. Colleges and universities would be designated as voter registration centers, and 16-year-olds would register to vote two years in advance. 2. The bill would require “no-fault” absentee voting, allowing anyone to vote by mail for any reason. It envisions prepaid postage for federal absentee ballots. This would weaken voter ID laws in most states. It retains the “ballot collection” rule. This rule allows paid activists to wander around the community to raise absentee ballots.

This year’s epidemic gave the best excuse to mail in ballots. Arguably the biggest fraud of all, aside from the traditional fraudulent practices that have been in place for years, such as multiple repeat ballots per person, ghost voting, non-citizen voting, vote counters changing ballots, and caregivers being paid to harvest ballots at the nursing homes they serve, occurs when mail-in ballots are changed with computer software systems.

Types of mail ballot fraud include mailers throwing away Trump ballots, as evidenced by more than ten cases of mailer arrests, and the post office ordering employees to change their ballots. For example, in Pennsylvania, where the deadline for mail ballots was November 3, the post office ordered employees to work overtime and postmark all prepared mail ballots with November 2 postmarks. Hopkins, a Pennsylvania mail carrier, reported to O’Keefe of Project Truth that the Pennsylvania Postmaster had backdated a late mail-in ballot to November 3, the date of the election, and as a result, Hopkins was threatened by federal agent Russell Strasser and his Twitter account @titansfanjeff was threatened by agents. Close.

These kinds of incidents are not seen in the mainstream media, but they are all over Twitter, and some small and medium-sized media outlets in the U.S. are joining in to expose the truth. Election security expert @RussRamsland has been doing a lot of investigating of the election machines in the US. In this program, he says, “We’re starting to realize how easy it is to change an election, and this one happened right before Election Day”.

Currently, Team Trump and a number of NGOs in the United States are conducting lawsuits against election fraud around the world. Evidence is surfacing that more and more people are coming forward to expose fraud because they can’t stand the idea of cheating.

The Black and Gray Involvement of High Tech Capital in Elections

The 2020 election is different in two ways: one is that high-tech capital has replaced financial capital as the main intervention force; the other is that this intervention is not just about donations, but about direct manipulation, so it is leveraged, marking a new phase in the relationship between capital and power in the U.S. High-tech capital has become more important to power. Domination will be a political disaster in America, and the Dominion system is just one of the disasters of high-tech intervention in American elections.

A few years ago, I pointed out that the composition of the social base of the Democratic Party in the United States has changed dramatically, and that it has basically become a party of marginalized groups combined with technology and financial bigwigs, and intellectuals (around 60%), many of whom are socialists. This year’s U.S. election demonstrated the ability and desire of high-tech capital to intervene at all levels, with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg being the most reckless. According to a lawsuit filed in central Pennsylvania by the Thomas More Foundation’s Amistad Project, Mark Zuckerberg has provided funding to municipalities. , to conduct elections in violation of state law. Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline supports the Pennsylvania lawsuit. He said, “We are fighting Zuckerberg,” who is using CTCL (Centers for Tech and Civic Life) to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to left-wing strongholds in several swing states to influence the outcome of elections. According to Klein, the privatization of elections has undermined the integrity of elections, with private money pouring into government election offices to influence and change elections, including Philadelphia, where Zuckerberg actually pays the salaries of election judges.

Twitter and Facebook have long been restricting conservative speech through deletion and banning, and amplifying the spread of leftist speech, which is far more harmful to political and free speech than traditional finance capital.

The three points analyzed in this article – the election law reform of H.R. 1 of 2019 has institutionally paved the way for the Democrats to harvest votes in a variety of ways; the insistence on using election machines that experts have repeatedly pointed out as problematic and that use components from Chinese suppliers has allowed the Democrats to flood Biden with votes in a short period of time; and big high-tech capital. The final outcome of the 2020 elections will determine the fate of the United States at a time when, as General Flynn said in an interview with House on November 26, “the United States is at a crossroads that will determine whether it will be treated as a nation of nations. A free country survives or becomes an unrecognizable thing”.