Will Trump make the American flag the 21st century Swastika?

       Almost 40 years ago now, I served in the United States Army. It was a daily occurrence to salute the American Flag, Old Glory, or the Stars and Stripes if you prefer. In those days, and even in the not that distant past, the American Flag stood for something good, something proud, and was the symbol of that mythical shining city of freedom up on the hill.

       Our flag WAS a symbol of freedom. It welcomed peoples from all over our planet to our shores. it beckoned to them as a sign that under its shade they would kind find freedom and opportunity, in a country young and bold. A Country that would have many a growing pain, but the chance to grow with it and help it achieve even greater heights was there to be taken.

       The flag of my youth is no more. It is now waved in crowds of intolerant, isolationist, bigoted, and greedy self serving cultish louts who, while I still consider them my siblings as beneficiaries of our American freedoms, they are not the guardians of those same freedoms that previous generations sacrificed so much to protect. These "prodigal children" of our American family are recklessly endangering our Democracy with their allegiance to a false prophet presently in leadership. Watching them wave the same flag that was raised on Iwo Jima, and Omaha Beach on Normandy makes me sick to my stomach.

       The flag of before protected the weak, welcomed the homeless, and was the standard bearer for an American People that were always willing to help the rest of the World.  The flag of Nazi Germany featured the symbol of the Swastika. It is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon in the cultures of Eurasia. It is still used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions, including Buddhism and Hinduism.  Yet because of the Nazi regime, the rest of the world sees it as a reminder of the brutal Nazi Fascist government it represented.

        Could that legacy befall our beloved Stars and Stripes? Could future generations see our flag, and only remember America as Trump and his enablers are trying to permanently remake it? A Nation of hate and selfishness, where there is no kindness or empathy, only scorn and disdain for those seen as below those in power and their acolytes?

         The first Tuesday in November 2020 may be the last chance for American citizens to exercise their voice and stop the insidious, internal, and slow assault on our personal freedoms and the destruction of America's stature on this Earth.  I believe that most Americans are better than this. I believe that like Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" that rose up to engage the Great Depression and mobilized to defeat Fascism in World War Two, We have it within us to overcome the pandemic and put down the rise of hate on our shores. 

     If we don't, Old Glory will be just a footnote in history centuries from now, another symbol of what happens when a society succumbs to the temptation of its lesser demons, instead of striving to follow the possibilities of its better angels.

Vet ab Cave. (Voter beware) Part 1

         One of the advantages of graduating from St. Charles Borromeo College Preparatory School back in 1979 was the four years of exposure to Latin. The adage, buyer beware, is recognized by most folks as "caveat emptor".  This series of posts will explain a tale that offers a warning for all would be voters.

          Our (Fictional?) story begins a few days after election day, where a primary nomination was decided by a handful of votes cast out of several thousand. One disappointed voter made a phone call, asking how they could be sure their vote had been counted, because the candidate they had voted for had lost. This particular voter revealed they had given their Mail in Ballot to the candidate the weekend before the election to deliver for them. The Candidate had assured the voter that the ballot had been delivered to the County office on Monday before the election. There was no mention of if it were mailed or put in the drop box at the government building, just that it had been delivered.

           Thanks to the wonderful world of technology, the voter found out that their ballot was time stamped at say, 2:44 pm on the day before the election.  Also thanks to technology, there were digital surveillance files of all the folks who put ballots in the box. So lets stop there for a minute, and go back to the mail in ballots, and where they came from.

           IN Pennsylvania, any citizen can go on the state website and request a mail in ballot, as long as they have a state ID and can enter the number on it to prove who they are. There is no face to face real time verification, you just need that state ID and you are set.

           So what happened when looking up that voter's ballot to see if it came in on time, it was noticed that a whole bunch of ballots from that same general area (within a 2 block perimeter.) all came in at that time as well. To make an analogy to what a certain candidate said recently about certain precincts, more ballots were placed in the drop box than people came thru the door. Hmmmmm?

           So then someone decided to ask the state internet wizards to look at the origin of these ballots, and printed out a list that showed, who applied, what day, what time, and from what IP.

             Wouldn't you know that some of those dropped ballots were all applied for on the same days 5/18 and 5/19, from the same IP, and in increments ranging from 7 to 20 minutes apart. Also in alphabetical order.

         Just like someone might be going down a list and filling them out. So now some people in Government who are really concerned about voter fraud and ballot security are trying to determine if all these votes came from the same device. 

    The powers that be might have considered that perhaps a would be good Samaritan was walking the neighborhood that day using their phone to help folks who wouldn't have normally voted get a ballot and participate in the election, which is a guaranteed right of all citizens. (At least for a little longer)

     But it didn't happen in just that little area. It happened in another place, a building with subsidized rents for low income senior citizens, in another precinct in that same race. In that building, 12 people all applied for ballots on the same days (As the ones in the other area, 5/18 and 5/19)  All these applications were done within 2 weeks of election day. Getting them filled out and back in time to be counted would be cutting it close if you mailed them. Which may be why so many ended up in the drop box at the government center. There is another suspicious building presently being researched, and the list of suspect ballots being compiled.

      So here is what worries me about Mail in ballots, in particular, senior citizens in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Many need help getting and filling out ballots. What is to stop an unscrupulous staffer from collecting the ballots from all the residents and altering them to assist their favored candidate before mailing them? Or even, as they fill it out for the senior, telling them one thing while marking the ballot in another? You have dozens to hundreds of residents in some of these places who could have their ballots compromised , destroyed, or never sent before a deadline, and no one would really know.

      Anyone casting a vote by mail needs to personally fill it out, sign it, seal it, and if they have to can give it to someone they trust to mail for them. Your vote is yours, don't let anyone get between you and the certified poll workers and elections officials. When someone else handles your vote, you are ceding control over it. Unfortunately, some who would insert themselves in that custody chain do not have your best interests at heart, but theirs

       Vet ab Cave, Voter beware.

P.S. There is so much more to this story, so stay tuned.

          

Santiago and the vote Builder data.

         In the brouhaha over the primary election for the PA 22nd district State house district, candidate Enid Santiago is claiming data discrepancies thru what her campaign has gleaned on what is known as the "Vote Builder" data base.

          Vote Builder is a licensed product of the Democratic House Campaign caucus. It has the purpose of helping identify voters by their demographic in the precincts of specific races. For example, when Mark Pinsley ran against Republican incumbent Senator Pat Browne in 2018 his campaign had access to that info to compile campaign flyer mailing lists and target specific voters on specific issues.

           It is a good idea in principle, but in practice, it has flaws out the kazoo. It contains data errors such as multiple entries for one voter, having precincts in the wrong house districts, misspelling voters' names, and even having them listed as the wrong party. I could go on and on with why it is not a reliable source, but it does function as a good basic source for a voters' address, party affiliation, and age, so it's a good place to start. 

           But Vote Builder is only supposed to be used by those with specific permission to access it. Enid Santiago did not get that permission, nor does she have it. Incumbent Pete Schweyer's campaign had that access, the HDCC as a rule does not let Vote Builder be used against incumbents.

            So how did Santiago get that info? An unscrupulous political operative who helped direct Mark Pinsley's failed Senate race used their access to the data and assisted Santiago. 

             So not only is Santiago using  faulty, inaccurate data that she had no legal right to, she obtained it in an underhanded deceitful way.

             Not exactly the kind of honesty and virtue that voters need in their candidates. If you're willing to play fast and loose with rules and throw any ethical behavior to the wayside to try and win an election, I have to question where the moral compass is pointing, as well as just whose interests would be getting served if elected.  I know who gave Santiago the info and how they accessed it. Their actions are on their conscience, and any future consequences are theirs to deal with.

            One thing I know for sure in politics, is the people who get screwed over have long memories.

Clueless 2020: Starring Enid Santiago and her lawyer!

      This is the 25th anniversary Summer of the movie "Clueless." How appropriate for the information I am about to share. On Thursday August 13th, at 10 AM LOSER candidate in the 22nd House District, Enid Santiago is planning to hold a press conference in front of Lehigh County Government Center to unveil her "Proof" of fraudulent ballots. 

       She claims that in the 3rd Ward, the state results showed only 120 votes cast by 147 voters. I don't know where she obtained those figures from, but I have a copy of the certified results from that precinct, printed out for me on July 31st. 

      Here are the actual certified results, with known registration statistics included.

      Total registered voters: 1127. 973 Democrats, 154 Republicans.

       Ballots cast, total, 178, 103 on election day, 16 absentee, 59 MIB. (Mailed in ballots)

       Ballots cast, Republican, 25 total. 14 on election day, 5 absentee, 6 MIB.

       So to catch up, 25 from 178 is 153 Democratic voters.

       Ballots cast, Democratic, 153. 89 on election day, 11 absentee, and 53 MIB.

       Now lets show you by candidate:

       Enid Santiago, 95 votes, 63 were walk ins on election day, 7 were absentee, and 25 were MIBs

       Peter Schweyer 52 votes, 22 on election day, 3 absentee, and 27 were MIB. 

        The undervote in this race was 5 votes.

       I honestly believe that this 27 vote discrepancy she claims is that the State either forgot to add the 25 Republicans and possible  original provisional ballots to the total voters or they forgot to add 27 votes by MIB for Schweyer. Either way, There is an actual printout of all those who voted in the precinct, 178 people, names and addresses, plus party affiliation.There are no fraudulent votes here. The data is available to cross check everything, and I really doubt that 25 people ghost voted in that little precinct. 178 phone calls are not that hard to make, Santiago and her attorney should have tried that first before once again, blurting out charges that have no base in actual fact.

   Now lets move to Allentown first district, where Santiago claims 148 people voted, but only 146 in her race. Guess what the data shows on that one?

     It shows 148 votes were cast in that race by 151 Democrats, and undervote of three.  

     Lets go right to the results of that precinct.

      Santiago received 120 votes. 86 on election day, 7 by absentee, 8 provisional, and 19 mail in.

      Schweyer received 28 votes, 16 on election day, 2 absentee, and 10 MIB

      So where are the fraudulent votes in a precinct she won overwhelmingly? Maybe some of hers? In case you wondered, here are the precinct registration statistics:

    Total voters, 1237, 1072 Democrats, 165 Republicans.

    I can point to an undervote by Democrats and Republicans in each precinct of the county, Enid Santiago lost the election, and no amount of TV court antics will change that. 

     The bottom line is, Candidate Santiago, all along the line, has proceeded without educating herself properly on the basic procedures for candidates to follow, and hasn't hired anyone around her to steer her on the correct course. The mistakes by the Judge of election gave her cause to challenge, yet she couldn't get it done. It is all on her for being woefully uninformed about the electoral process. In one word, CLUELESS

Morning Update:  I forgot to address the overall disparity of 4440 Democrats voting at the polls, but only 4339 voting in the Santiago/Schweyer race. The vote differential of 101 is the exact number across the 27 precincts of the undervote. Sometimes people go to the polls to cast a ballot in a specific race and ignore the down ballot contests. That also occurs vice versa. to those with experience about how elections are tabulated, this is common.

One building, four precincts, in one statehouse race. Just the numbers.

         The Place is 1221 South Front street in Allentown. The Fearless Fire Company is a Social Hall and Community gathering place on Allentown's South side. This year four precincts shared the building as a voting facility. Allentown 12-1, 12-2, 16-1, and 16-2.

          12-1 has 946 registered Voters. 756 Democrats, 190 Republicans. 201 ballots were cast in 12-1, 154 Democrat and 47 Republicans. 100 Democrats used MIBs, while 54 walked in. On the Republican side 29 used MIBs while 18 walked in. 

           Santiago won this precinct with 86 votes to Schweyers' 66. Two voters did not cast a ballot in the house race. That is called an undervote and happens in every election.  Santiago had 36 walk in votes and 50 MIBs. Schweyer had had 18 walk ins and 48 MIBs.

         12-2 has 1266 registered voters, 1035, Democrats and 231 Republicans. 277 ballots were cast in 12-2, 114 in person, 157 MIBs, and 6 provisional. There were 218 Democrat voters and 59 Republican. 132 Democrats used MIBs, with 4 Provisional Democrat voters. Republicans had 25 MIBs with 2 Provisional voters. 

       This is the precinct that had the wrong provisional ballots, as noted earlier, all those who wanted to vote were able. There were 8 Democrat voters that did not cast a vote for the House race in this precinct. Santiago had 51 walk ins, 37 MIBs, and 2 provisional votes. Schweyer had 30 walk ins, 89 MIBs, and 1 Provisional. One provisional ballot did not vote in this race. Schweyer won this precinct 120 to 90.

     The undervote in 12-2 was 8 ballots

      16-1 has 1024 voters, 805 Democrats and 219 Republicans. 246 ballots were cast, 139 on election day, 106 by MIB, and 1 provisional. 173 Democrats and 73 Republicans voted in 16-1.

      Schweyer won this precinct 87 to 83

Enid Santiago had 60 election day, 5 absentee, and 18 MIB

Peter Schweyer had 29 election day, 4 absentee1 provisional, and 53 MIB.

    The Democrat undervote in this precinct was three.

      Finally we get to 16-2.   it has 1629 total voters, 1240 Democrats and 389 Republicans. 434 ballots were cast, 332 by Democrats and 102 by Republicans

     Santiago received 155 votes. 81 were walk ins, 17 were absentee, 5 were provisional, and 52 were MIB.

      Schweyer received 166 votes, 37 were walk ins, 14 were absentee, and 114 were MIB. The undervote in this precinct was 11 votes.

      Note to observers, the higher your vote totals, the more undervotes you will have. We had a Federal Presidential race and there are some people who blow off down ballot races and vice versa. Just some food for thought.

          

Ballot harvesting 101 in the 22nd Statehouse district?

        I haven't lived in Allentown in almost two decades. I still live in Lehigh County, and with Allentown as the seat of local government, I know it as a fact that what happens in Allentown politically does have some residual effect out in the burbs.

      The Democratic Party Statehouse race for the 22nd House district was much closer than anyone expected it to be. Incumbent Peter Schweyer retained the nomination by a mere 55 votes when all votes were counted in the 27 precincts that comprise that seat.

        The challenger, Enid Santiago, has contended that the election was stolen from her, and has demanded a new election. She has no real evidence to support that claim, but it was admitted by Elections officials that mistakes were made on election day, and one Judge of Election admitted to coloring in submitted ballets so that they were easier for the scanner to read. Santiago had cause to issue a challenge, but failed to follow proper procedure to meet deadlines. That is on her. She didn't bother to learn the law or procedures, and she did not heed numerous suggestions to seek proper legal guidance. 

     Elections officials informed her at every interaction that they were not qualified to offer legal advice. They followed the law, and did their duty. They were transparent in explaining an error in the provisional ballots that were supplied to a precinct voting at the Fearless Fire company on Susquehanna Street. 

     In that lone instance, 6 provisional ballots from a different precinct that was in a neighboring state house seat were inadvertently packed in that precincts' supply package. When poll workers became aware of the error, they contacted Voter registration, and a solution was found. All those who needed provisional ballots were able to vote, and all those votes were eventually found valid and counted.

    Bottom line: The System Worked. The election results have been certified. There will not be another election.

    Yet Enid Santiago has continued in her claims of a rigged election, and has not held back in besmirching the reputations of those who work at voter registration in Lehigh County. Those folks are my friends. I have been studying trends and turnout in the Lehigh Valley for over a decade. Because of my knowledge of the voting system and how it works, I decided to research the possibilities of any chicanery in this particular election.

     There have been accusations (no proof) that in one particular precinct, Allentown 14-2 some voters were assisted in filling out their Mail in Ballots. There is also an accusation (No Proof) that someone went around collecting those ballots in person. That is called ballot harvesting, and it is against the law. So I availed myself of the publicly open voting records and started analyzing them. I have breakdowns for each precinct for each category of voter, as you shall see.

     I am going to start with the overall results. For future reference, I categorize all ballots that Voter registration received by mail, as MIB, for mailed in Ballots. That includes absentees that were requested and those where voters wishing to avoid exposure during a pandemic availed themselves of an opportunity to vote without going to a polling place. It will become evident later on why I am clarifying this.

     On the 27 precincts that make up the 22nd statehouse district, Peter Schweyer won 11, Enid Santiago won 15, and in one, Allentown 2, they tied at 60 votes apiece. 

      Schweyer received 1584 MIBs and 613 in person on election day votes for a total of 2197. 72.1 percent of his voters were by MIB.

       Santiago received 856 MIBs and 1286 in person election day votes for a total of 2142. 39.9% of her votes were MIBS. 

      In Allentown precinct 14-2 Enid Santiago received 160 votes. 97 were in person, 12 were regular absentee, 4 were provisional and 47 were MIBS. Pete Schweyer received 90 votes, 21 were in person, 19 were absentee, 1 was provisional, and 49 were MIB. Of the 250 votes cast for the two candidates in 14-2, 127 were received by mail, or 51% were MIBs. There were a total of 132 Democratic ballots returned to voter registration. Five Democrat voters did not vote for either candidate. 

      I started in 14-2 because this is the precinct in which the voter who claimed they and others were assisted in their voting reside. In a face to face interview, they told me they didn't want to get the person who mailed their ballot for them in trouble. 

     When I first looked at the data, I thought there wasn't much to see, but as I started delving deeper, some outliers popped out that made me start wondering. In 14-2, 196 voters requested MIBs. 152 of them came back. The party break down for those requests was 28 Republicans and 168 Democrats. 8 Republicans did not return their ballots (4 men and 4 women), while 36 Democrats did not return theirs. (27 Women and 9 men)

     3 to 1 ratio of women to men unreturned MIBS? That is what you call an outlier.

     IN the printout of all those who voted by MIB in the 22nd, I have the date they requested the ballot, the date the ballot was sent and where it was sent, as well as on what date it was returned. I have this information for each and every precinct.

       It has taken quite a bit of time, but I have identified 30 citizens in the Overlook park area that requested MIBs and have a commonality. The biggest commonality is their addresses. Seventeen (17) of them live on North Bradford street. Fifteen in the 300 to 450 range, and two down in the under 100 block across the street from each other. Four live in the 100 block of North Carlisle, with one more up in the 500 block.

     Another four lived in the 300 block of East Turner street, with two more living near each other in the 100 block of East Chew Street. There were two more voters in the vicinity, in the 200 block of Howe Street and the 200 block of Edison. Of these 30 voters who requested MIBs, only 23 returned them. If you look this area up on Google maps, you will see that 23 of the 127 ballots cast (18%) by MIB in this precinct came from a small pocket of the precinct. 

        It keeps getting more coincidental. Every single one of these ballots were returned to Voter Registration in the last two days before the election. What are the odds of 23 people all mailing their MIBS at the same time? Also, of these 30 Requested ballots, 15 of them were requested on the same day (5/19) while all others except one were requested between 5/16 and 5 /26. One ballot was requested on 5/11. One other note, the gender breakdown of these ballots is 25 women to 5 men. Of the 7 unreturned ballots in the Overlook Park area, 6 were women and 1 male.

      So I sat down with a map and started mapping out where all those unreturned ballots were sent. As well as other voters in that small area, which included the block where the original complainant lives. Using this data I have built a list of voters I would like to talk to about their voting experience.

      Here are some things I have learned, that prove to me that someone could, in a very close election, manipulate the vote. First, if you go online to request a MIB from the state, all you need to request a ballot is your state ID or Drivers license number, and you can have your ballot sent wherever you want. You can even put in whatever email you want for them to respond to concerning your request. 

       I don't think that happened here. I think it might have been possible that someone used data they had access of to make sure ballots were mailed to certain neighbors that are a segment of the targeted population.   But let me be clear, there presently is no proof of that.         

      When they (the possible manipulator) received an email that the ballot had been sent to the prospective voter, they might have just popped by that home a day or two later. Then maybe they asked about a mail in ballot, and then offered to help the voter get it filled out and mailed in. You know, just to help, like our original complainant was. Remember this is just my conjecture, but I am trying to piece together HOW this could have been done.

      My original complainant told me they were surprised to get a ballot in the mail, they hadn't remembered requesting one, and they didn't have Internet in their home to do it from there. When a person showed up in the evening at their front door in late May to ask if they had received a ballot, they assumed that it was something the government had done because of the pandemic. The person told me that another neighbor had also experienced this. I approached that  other neighbor but that person didn't want to speak of it. No one wants to get the person who helped them vote in trouble.

      So here is the problem with 14 - 2. Remember, there is no evidence of anything so far, and no one is talking, but that cluster of voters and unreturned ballots are all in the Overlook park area off of Hanover Street. Overlook Park is a Government subsidized Housing area. It is managed by a third party. Candidate Enid Santiago is employed by that third party.  I have no evidence of skullduggery,....yet. But after Enid Santiago made claims that she knew she had won certain precincts that she lost, I had to wonder where she got that idea?

       Because of the Pandemic, four precincts were forced to have in person voting at the Fearless Fire Company. Allentown 12-1, 12-2, 16-1, and 16 -2. That is what I am looking at next. That is also where Enid Santiago is sure that she should have won. It deserves to be looked at. In the meantime, I will post the vote counts for each precinct broken down by category in the next few days.