CALIFORNIA RULING CLIQUE SOLIDIFIES ITS GRASP ON POWER

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” ― Joseph Stalin In her recent column "Are CALIF Democrats Also Cheating Their Way to Power?, Katy Grimes described a series of elections "coincidences" that led the Democrat Party to their takeover of the US House of Representatives. As we have seen, many Republican candidates who were ahead of their Democrat rivals on the election day lost after the polls closed. At the same time, no Democrat who was winning on the election day lost to his or her Republican contender. Whether these were countings of late votes of absentee ballots, or recounts when the results were close enough to trigger them, the direction of change was almost always the same: Republicans were losing to Democrats, eventually, behind the closed doors.

The counting fraud is but an end game in the election fraud process

Statistical chances that the election results have been trending this way "spontaneously" are practically zero. In California, it has been that way since I remember. Election after election, the Democrat party and the propositions that it supported gained votes as the counting went on, flipping what were expected Republican wins onto Democrat "surprises". Based on this kind of observations, the blatant cheating on behalf of the Democrat party must have been obvious to any impartial observer with a basic knowledge of probability theory. There were just too many "coincidences" that almost always benefited the Democrats to doubt that the Dems were "cheating their way to power". Here is some new statistical evidence that further supports the thesis of Democrats' cheating. In the last elections in California, Democrats beat Republicans almost 2 to 1 in the total count of votes in races for the US House. According to ABC, the total count of votes for Democrat candidates in these races was 6,855,213 while the total for Republican candidates was 3,506,658. Yet only eight of 53 Congressional seats went to Republicans while 45 of them went to Democrats. In other words, Democrats won almost six times as many seats as the Republicans did, and almost three times as many as the aggregate vote count would suggest if the elections were fair. Yet another statistically-unlikely "coincidence" that invariably benefits the Democrat party. Well, "redistricting" ("gerrymandering" is a more adequate descriptor here) and open primaries really worked well for them, didn't they? We may not know the details of how these lucky "coincidences" have been engineered, but we certainly can judge the credibility of the elections results based on their likelihood, very much the same way as we may not know how a professional gambler cheats in a poker game but can smell the cheating when he keeps getting straight flush after straight flush right from the hand. We need to remember that the counting fraud is but an end game in the election fraud process. It begins with "redistricting" that gives the Democrat party higher chances for electoral wins even if the prospective voters are split 50/50 between the parties. (The data that I quoted above clearly supports such a conclusion.) Then in the open primaries the Democrats often manage to prevent the Republican party from freely nominating viable candidates that could be appealing to the majority of voters. Then comes mass and often illegal importation of future Democrat voters from the nations that exhibit strong left-leaning tendencies. Then comes registration of ineligible voters that California facilitates about as much as it is possible without calling it for what it is. (For instance, the only "verification" element in the registration process is to check whether the address given by the registrant is a physical address in California.)

---

Then goes the usual anti-Republican propaganda from the education establishment and from the media and entertainment celebrities, supplemented with political telemarketing manipulations by the Silicon Valley Tech Giants. The latter use their powerful big-data predictive-analytic software for the Democrats' benefit very much the same way as they use it for commercial marketing and advertising. As a result, the voters who actually do vote Democrat constitute a disproportionately large sample of all voters, significantly larger than those who actually do vote Republican. This creates a situation where the majority of all eligible voters might have voted for a Republican candidate or candidates but among those who actually cast their ballots, legally and illegally, the Democrat candidate of candidates enjoyed a larger share of voters that they would get if all eligible voters did actually cast their votes. Finally, there comes counting and re-counting that is meant to accomplish what the previously mentioned tricks failed to, according to Stalin's observation that “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” No surprises here as California got its disproportionately large share of ex-Soviets immigrants, many of whom and their offspring trying to do here what they failed there: to build a successful socialistic regime centrally run by one party that has a monopoly on political power. The elections may be over, but this doesn't make the California ruling clique any more credible or legitimate than the Soviet government was when Russia was the USSR. The clique might have strengthened its grasp on power but this doesn't mean that we should validate its blatant manipulations with our silent approval. Will President Trump use whatever is left of his presidential authority to expose and stop the clique's obvious pattern of brazen election fraud? All the good people in California, currently under the Democrat illegitimate regime, would certainly appreciate that.