Biden stops Keystone XL construction at great environmental cost.

Newly elected Joe Biden has decided to stop building the Keystone XL pipeline, thus satisfying the environmentalists that want to wean us off our dependency on carbon based products, such as fuel, food and fertilizer. The arguments for denying the decision are nearly exclusively political, while the arguments to build the pipeline are concerns for our national security, economy and the environment.

Here is the deal:

Canada has the tar-sands and is extracting the oil. This was not our decision. If we don’t buy the oil, China will.

We export refined products to the Caribbean islands, which by the way have a larger carbon footprint per person than the U.S. This is good business, since the islands are too small to have a refinery of their own.

It takes more energy to run a refinery up north in a cold climate than in hot, humid Baytown, Texas.

The last time a major oil refinery was built in the U.S was 1976. A small refinery was built in 1993, in Valdez, Alaska. The  US. regulatory climate is hostile to refineries. Warren Buffett bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad in February 2010 and paid 44 Billion dollars for it. The railroad paid Berkshire Hathaway 2.25 Billion in dividends during the first 13 months. Warren Buffet bought the railroad after President Obama took office, since he nixed the pipeline the first time.

Right now the crude oil is transported from the Athabasca tar sands to Houston mostly by Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad. It is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the early decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
With modest expansion, railroads can handle all new oil produced in western Canada through 2030, according to an analysis of the Keystone proposal by the U.S. State Department.
The cost of transporting the oil is about #14 dollars per barrel, much of it the cost of burning diesel fuel, generating CO2. The pipe-line can do the job for about seven dollars per barrel, much of it capital costs, some of it already spent.
We can see what happens when transporting crude oil:

Warren Buffet is a major Democratic political player; he will again have frequent access to the White House.

Sarah Palin once succinctly coined the phrase: “This is Crony Capitalism.”

By not importing oil from Canada the total carbon footprint will increase. We lose, and Canada loses. (I am not concerned that the CO2 is increasing, but that a valuable natural resource is unnecessary depleted.) Now it turns out that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol but has joined the Paris accord, so they have to export the crude oil to countries that still can expand their fossil fuel burning, such as China, but they would rather export to the U.S.

So why is Joe Biden against the Keystone XL pipeline? Here are seven possibilities:

1. Like Obama, Joe Biden is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

2. Joe wants to deliberately wreck our economy to create a more fair society of shared sacrifices, refuses to have an energy policy that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.

3. Joe is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.

4. Joe wants to show leadership in implementing the Paris Climate Conference 2015, and its associated treaty.

5. Joe Biden wants to show leadership on something, like touting the “breakthrough” agreement with China, where China is allowed to emit six times as much CO2 as the U.S. by the year 2030.

6. The real reason? Like Obama, Joe is fully bought and paid for, this time by China. The old reason:

7. Joe is half insane and surrounded by bad advisors.

This is the best I can do to explain the reasons for this decision.

Why so few Libertarian votes in the last election? A clue from Pennsylvania. And a Limerick.

The votes Libertarians lost

went somewhere, but at a great cost.

For integrity’s sake

Let’s recount and remake.

If not, we are all double-crossed.

If you hate Donald Trump, but can’t get yourself to vote for the Biden Harris ticket, what to do? After all Harris dropped out of the competition with less than 2% support before the Iowa primary and Biden came in fifth in the New Hampshire primary. I fully expected that the libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen would get at least as many votes in 2020 as her predecessor got in 2016. Instead the vote count dropped from 3.3% to 1.2%.

Here is a hint of what happened; this time on election night in Pennsylvania:Between 12:09 a.m. and 12:15 a.m. Jo Jorgensen LOST 42,038 votes. Where did they go? It is my assumption that they went to Biden. Only a manual recount of Pennsylvania can resolve this. As it stands now, we have no election integrity.

29. President Donald J. Trump on Jan.12 issued an Executive Order on Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration. Only Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can meet all the needs.

This is reason 29 why Thorium Nuclear power is the only realistic solution to our future electric energy needs. The other 28 can be found here.

This is the President’s executive order signed Jan 5, 2021:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Nuclear energy is critical to United States national security.  That is why I have taken a series of actions to promote its development and facilitate its use.  On June 29, 2017, I announced an initiative to revive and expand the nuclear energy sector and directed a complete review of United States nuclear energy policy to help find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource.  On July 12, 2019, I signed a Presidential Memorandum entitled “The Effect of Uranium Imports on the National Security and Establishment of the United States Nuclear Fuel Working Group,” with the goal of examining the current state of domestic nuclear fuel production and reinvigorating the nuclear fuel supply chain, consistent with United States national security and nonproliferation goals.  On August 20, 2019, I signed National Security Presidential Memorandum-20, entitled “Launch of Spacecraft Containing Space Nuclear Systems,” calling for development and use of space nuclear systems to enable or enhance space exploration and operational capabilities.

The purpose of this order is to take an important additional step to revitalize the United States nuclear energy sector, reinvigorate America’s space exploration program, and develop diverse energy options for national defense needs.  Under this action, the United States Government will coordinate its nuclear activities to apply the benefits of nuclear energy most effectively toward American technology supremacy, including the use of small modular reactors for national defense and space exploration.  This work is critical to advancing my Administration’s priorities for the United States to lead in research, technology, invention, innovation, and advanced technology development; its mission to promote and protect the United States national security innovation base; its drive to secure energy dominance; and its commitment to achieving all of these goals in a manner consistent with the highest nuclear nonproliferation standards.

The United States was the first nation to invent and develop the technology to harness nuclear energy.  Since the 1950s, the United States Navy has been operating and advancing transportable nuclear reactors, resulting in powerfully enhanced marine propulsion for its aircraft carriers and allowing nuclear-powered submarines to remain submerged for extended periods of time.

The United States must sustain its ability to meet the energy requirements for its national defense and space exploration initiatives.  The ability to use small modular reactors will help maintain and advance United States dominance and strategic leadership across the space and terrestrial domains.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to promote advanced reactor technologies, including small modular reactors, to support defense installation energy flexibility and energy security, and for use in space exploration, guided by the following principles:

(a)  A healthy and robust nuclear energy industry is critical to the national security, energy security, and economic prosperity of the United States;

(b)  The United States should maintain technology supremacy for nuclear research and development, manufacturing proficiency, and security and safety;

(c)  The United States Government should bolster national defense and space exploration capabilities and enable private-sector innovation of advanced reactor technologies.

Sec. 3.  Demonstration of Commercial Reactors to Enhance Energy Flexibility at a Defense Installation.  (a)  Micro-reactors have the potential to enhance energy flexibility and energy security at domestic military installations in remote locations.  Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall, within 180 days of the date of this order, establish and implement a plan to demonstrate the energy flexibility capability and cost effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed micro‑reactor at a domestic military installation.

(b)  If the demonstration is successful, the Secretary of Defense shall identify opportunities at domestic military installations where this capability could enhance or supplement the fulfillment of installation energy requirements.  In identifying these opportunities, the Secretary of Defense shall take into account considerations that are unique to national defense needs and requirements that may not be relevant in the private sector, such as:

(i)    the ability to provide resilient, independent energy delivery to installations in the event that connections to an electrical grid are compromised;

(ii)   the ability to operate for an extended period of time without refueling;

(iii)  system resistance to disruption from an electro‑magnetic pulse event; and

(iv)   system cybersecurity requirements.

Sec. 4.  Defense Capabilities.  (a)  The Department of Defense is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world, using more than 10 million gallons of fuel per day and 30,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year, nearly all of which is provided through civilian electrical grids.  Fuel demands for a modern United States military have dramatically grown since World War II and are anticipated to continue to increase in order to support high-energy-usage military systems.  In this context, nuclear power could significantly enhance national defense power capabilities.

(b)  The Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA Administrator):

(i)    determine whether advanced nuclear reactors can be made to benefit Department of Defense future space power needs;

(ii)   pilot a transportable micro-reactor prototype;

(iii)  direct an analysis of alternatives for personnel, regulatory, and technical requirements to inform future decisions with respect to nuclear power usage; and

(iv)   direct an analysis of United States military uses for space nuclear power and propulsion technologies and an analysis of foreign adversaries’ space power and propulsion programs.

Sec. 5.  Space Exploration.  (a)  Nuclear power sources that use uranium fuel or plutonium heat sources are essential to deep space exploration and in areas where solar power is not practical.  NASA uses radioisotope power systems, such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators and radioisotope heater units, to provide power and heat for deep space robotic missions.  Nuclear power sources in the kilowatt range may be needed for demonstrating In-situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) and robotic exploration of permanently shadowed craters on the Moon that contain frozen water.  Nuclear reactors up to 100 kilowatts may be needed to support human habitats, ISRU, other facilities, and rovers on both the Moon and Mars.  Power sources in the megawatt range would be necessary for efficient, long‑duration deep space propulsion.  Affordable, lightweight nuclear power sources in space would enable new opportunities for scientific discovery.  The sustainable exploration of the Moon, Mars, and other locations will be enhanced if small modular reactors can be deployed and operated remotely from Earth.

(b)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the NASA Administrator, in consultation with heads of other executive departments and agencies (agencies), as appropriate, shall define requirements for NASA utilization of nuclear energy systems for human and robotic exploration missions through 2040 and analyze the costs and benefits of such requirements.  In defining these requirements, the NASA Administrator shall take into account considerations unique to the utilization of nuclear energy systems in space, such as:

(i) transportability of a reactor prior to and after deployment;

(ii) thermal management in a reduced- or zero-gravity environment in a vacuum or near-vacuum;

(iii) fluid transfer within reactor systems in a reduced or zero-gravity environment;

(iv) reactor size and mass that can be launched from Earth and assembled in space;

(v) cooling of nuclear reactors in space;

(vi) electric power requirements

(vii) space safety rating to enable operations as part of human space exploration missions;

(viii) period of time for which a reactor can operate without refueling; and

(ix) conditioning of reactor components for use in the space environment.

Sec. 6.  Domestic Fuel Supply.  (a)  A thriving and secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain is critical to the national interests of the United States.  A viable domestic nuclear fuel supply chain not only supports defense and national security activities, but also enables the success of the commercial nuclear industry.  Many advanced reactor concepts, however, will require high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU), for which no domestic commercial enrichment capability currently exists.  The United States must take steps to ensure a viable United States-origin HALEU supply.

(b)  The Secretary of Energy shall complete the Department of Energy’s ongoing 3-year, $115 million demonstration of a United States-origin enrichment technology capable of producing HALEU for use in defense-related advanced reactor applications.  Within funding available for the demonstration project, the Secretary of Energy should develop a plan to promote successful transition of this technology to the private sector for commercial adoption.

(c)  The Secretary of Energy shall consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the NASA Administrator regarding how advanced fuels and related technologies can best support implementation of sections 3, 4, and 5 of this order.

Sec. 7.  Common Technology Roadmap.  (a)  The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the NASA Administrator shall develop a common technology roadmap through 2030 that describes potential development programs and that coordinates, to the extent practicable, terrestrial-based advanced nuclear reactor and space-based nuclear power and propulsion efforts.  Agencies shall remain responsible for funding their respective mission-unique requirements.  The roadmap shall also include, at a minimum:

(i) assessments of foreign nations’ space nuclear power and propulsion technological capabilities;

(ii)   pathways for transitioning technologies developed through Federally supported programs to private-sector activities; and

(iii)  other applications supporting the goals provided in section 1 of this order.

(b)  The roadmap shall be submitted to the President by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Executive Secretary of the National Space Council before submissions of budget proposals by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, and the NASA Administrator.

Sec. 8.  Definitions.  For purposes of this order:

(a)  The term “small modular reactor” refers to an advanced nuclear reactor of electric generation capacity less than 300 megawatt-electric.  Because of the smaller size, small modular reactors can generally be designed for factory fabrication and modular construction to take advantage of economies of serial production and shorter construction times.

(b)  The term “micro-reactor” refers to a nuclear reactor of electric generation capacity less than 10 megawatt-electric that can be deployed remotely.  Micro-reactors are a subset of small modular reactors and are also known as “very small modular reactors.”

(c)  The term “transportable micro-reactor” refers to a micro-reactor that can be moved by truck, ship, or large military transport aircraft and is capable of both rapid deployment and teardown or removal, typically with safe teardown or removal less than 1 week after 1 year of full-power operation.

(d)  The term “space exploration” refers to in-space scientific and resource exploration, in-space economic and industrial development, and development of associated in-space logistical infrastructure.

(e)  The term “national defense” refers to the protection of the United States and its interests from foreign attack or other natural danger, including phenomena occurring on Earth and in space.

Sec. 9.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

January 5, 2021.

American Medical Association Rescinds Previous Statement Against Prescription of Hydroxychloroquine to COVID-19 Patients. (Updated)

CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

It has come to my attention that the resolution, while adopted got stopped before a new and valid recommendation was issued. There are powerful interests in the AMA that want to keep things as they are rather than advance real medical science based on real results, and never admit a mistake. Meanwhile, people are dying because of lack of solid, but inexpensive medical solutions.

The recommendation is still up on their website, but should it disappear, here it is , the important part part.


Resolution: 509 (November 2020)

Introduced by: Georgia

Subject:Hydroxychloroquine and Combination Therapies – Off-Label Use

Referred to:Reference Committee E

Whereas, SARS-CoV-2 is the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19; and

2 Whereas, Three distinct stages of COVID-19 infection have been observed in some people who test positive for the disease and have variable degrees of symptoms as noted (1); and


Whereas, During the early infection phase (Stage 1), the virus multiplies inside the body and is likely to cause mild symptoms that may be confused with a common cold or flu; and

Whereas, The second phase is the pulmonary phase (Stage 2), when the Immune System becomes strongly affected by infection and leads to primarily respiratory symptoms such as persistent cough, shortness of breath and low oxygen levels. Problems with blood clotting–especially with the formation of blood clots–may be predominant in Stage 2; and

Whereas, The third hyperinflammatory phase (Stage 3), occurs when a hyperactivated immune system may cause injury to the heart, kidneys, and other organs. A “cytokine storm”–where the body attacks its own tissues–may occur in this phase; and

Whereas, There is no current Federal Drug Administration (FDA) indication for the treatment of Early Coronavirus infection, but early emergency use authorization (EUA) originally approved the use of hydroxychloroquine and then rescinded it (2); and

Whereas, The FDA limited use of convalescence plasma but now has rescinded that limitation (3); and

Whereas, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are FDA approved medications for over 50 years, and these medications are safely prescribed long-term for other indications (2); and

Whereas, AMA President, Patrice A. Harris, MD, issued the following statement: “The AMA is calling for a stop to any inappropriate prescribing and ordering of medications, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and appealing to physicians and all health care professionals to follow the highest standards of professionalism and ethics” (4); and

Whereas, The AMA, American Pharmacists Association, and American Society of Health System Pharmacists issued a joint statement on March 25, 2020 on inappropriate ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of medications to treat COVID-19 (4); and

Whereas, Some states, pharmacy boards and institutions have forbidden the use of these medications for COVID-19 infection (4, 5); and

Whereas, A proposed regimen to treat COVID-19 for Stage 1, includes 10 days of hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, zinc, and on occasion Vitamin D (6); and

Whereas, This regimen is not being advocated for Stage 2 and Stage 3 COVID therapy; and

Whereas, The original studies published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) initially citing harm due to hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine use were retracted by said journals due to dubious research methodology and incorrect conclusions (7, 8, 9); and

Whereas, AMA policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” supports a physician’s autonomy to prescribe medications the physician believes to be in the patient’s best interest, where the benefits outweigh risk and the patient consents; and

Whereas, Physicians have used off label medications for years and this use is supported by existing policy; and

Whereas, Data regarding harm have been limited due to poorly designed studies or studies usually in Stage 2 or later, or stopped without harm but no effect in phase 2 and hypothesis (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); and

Whereas, There are many studies that indicate that the use of Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin is effective and front-line physicians are using the therapy where permissible (13, 14, 15); and

Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists.

(Directive to Take Action) Fiscal Note: Modest – between $1,000 – $5,000

Received: 10/23/20


1. Stages of COVID-19.

2. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine.

3. Recommendations for Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

4. “The A.M.A. is calling for a stop to any inappropriate prescribing and ordering of medications, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and appealing to physicians and all health care professionals to follow the highest standards of professionalism and ethics,” said AMA President Patrice A. Harris, MD. The American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association, and American Society of Health System Pharmacists issued a joint statement on March 25, 2020 on inappropriate ordering, prescribing or dispensing of medications to treat COVID-19.

5. Pharmacy Practice New. Rosenthal M. Hydroxychloroquine: Where Pharmacy, Medicine and Politics Intersect, Pharmacy Practice News August 8, 2020

6. Risch H. Opinion: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis Am J Epidemiol. 2020 May 27;kwaa093. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa093. Online ahead of print.

7. Piller C, Servick k. Two elite medical journals retract coronavirus papers over data integrity questions. 4, 2020

8. Lancet retraction website

9. NEJM Retraction: Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI:


11. NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine 509 (November 2020) Page 4 of 6

12. Filippo Albani F, Fusina F , Giovannini A et al. Impact of Azithromycin and/or Hydroxychloroquine on Hospital Mortality in COVID-19. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2800; doi:10.3390/jcm9092800

13. Schwartz RA, Suskind RH DTH-9999-e13785 Azithromycin and COVID‐19Prompt Early Use at First Signs of this Infection in Adults and Children an Approach Worthy of Consideration. DTH-999-e13785 doi 10.1111/dth.13785

14. Meo SA, Klonoff DC, Akram J. Efficacy of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2020; 24: 4539-4547

15. US ‘frontline’ doctors’ website exposes ‘criminal’ campaign by tech giants, govt agencies to block COVID med file:///C:/Users/JGoldman/Documents/Corona%20Virus/critique%20of%20HCQ/US%20%E2%80%98frontline%E2%80%99%20doctors%E2%80%99%20website%20exposes%20%E2%80%98criminal%E2%80%99%20campaign%20by%20tech%20giants,%20govt%20agencies%20to%20block%20COVID%20med%20_%20Blogs%20_%20Lifesitenews.html

The vote count in Wade County, Georgia, an “election fraud 101” lesson, a Limerick.

Thanks, OAN!

The votes that was counted in Wade

to Biden were switched, or mislaid.

What was meant for Don Trump

switched to Biden, or dumped.

New Age, like of Marquis de Sade.

Eleven counties that may overturn the election. Their votes in 2012, 2016 and (so far) in 2020.

County          2020  Biden     Trump      %B  %T

                       2016  Clinton   Trump     %C   %T

                       2012  Obama   Romney    %O  %R

Philadelphia 2020 594,005 131,330 81.4% 18%

                       2016 584,025 108,748 82.3% 15.3% 

                       2012 557,024   91,840 85.2% 14.1%

Allegheny      2020 428,876   282,170 59.6% 39.2%

(Pittsburgh)  2016 357,167  259,480  55.9%  39.5%

                        2012 348,151  259,304  56.6%  42.2%

Maricopa co 2020 1.040,774 995,665  50.3% 48.1%

(Phoenix, AZ) 2016 702,907  747,361  44.8%  47,7%

                         2012  532,284 680.089  43.2% 55.1%

Wayne Co       2020  587,074 264,149  68.1%  30.7%

(Detroit)         2016   519,444 228,993  66.4%  29.3%

                         2012   595,253  213,586 73.1%  26.2%

Kent CO           2020  186,753  165.318  52%     46%

(Grand Rapids) 2016 138,683  148,180  44.6% 47.7%

                          2012   134,560  157,801  45.5% 53.4%

Milwaukee co 2020  317,270   134,357  69.4% 29.4%

Wisconsin        2016    288,822 128,069  65.5% 28.6%

                           2012   328,090  158,430  66.8% 32.3%

Dane Co            2020  260,185    78,800  75.7%  22.9%

(Madison)         2016  217,697    71,275   70.4% 23.0%

                           2012   215,389    83,459   71.1%  27.6%

Clark Co            2020   521,852  430,930  53.7%  44.3%

(Las Vegas)       2016   402,227  320,057  52.4%  41.7%

                           2012   387,978  288,223  56.4%  41.9%

Fulton Co          2020  381,144   137,240  72,6%  26.2%

(Atlanta)           2016  297,051  117,783  67.7%  26.8%

                           2012   248,479  133,837   64.2%  34.6%

DeKalb Co         2020   308,140   58,369    83.1%  15.7%

                            2016   251,370   51,469   79.1%   16.2%

                            2012    237,704    64.308  77.9%  21.1%

Gwinnett Co      2020   241,827  166,413  58.4%  40.2%

                            2016   166,153  146,989   50.2%  44.4%

                            2012    131,879  159,563  44.6%  54%

Vote count 2012, 2016 and 2020 by state and (D) vs (R) . (2020 as per 10/15)

State      ·  Clinton (D) Trump (R) D %    R %   D’12  D’16 Margin Total ’12     Total ’16

                     Votes           Votes      2016   2016      Margin   Shift    Votes           Votes  

2020          Biden (D)   Trump (R)                        total 2020

Raw Votes vs. ’12 U.S.

 Total      65,844,610 62,979,636 48.2% 46.1%  3.9% 2.1% -1.8% 129,075,630 136,628,459 

2020        79,982,189 73,288,903                                                       153,271,062  

Swing States

Arizona*     1,161,167 1,252,401 45.1% 48.7% -9.1% -3.5% 5.5% 2,299,254 2,573,165

2020            1,672,054 1,661,677 49.4% 49.1%

Colorado*   1,338,870 1,202,484 48.2% 43.3%  5.4% 4.9% -0.5% 2,569,521 2,780,220

2020            1,803,921 1,364,202 55,4% 41.9%

 Florida*     4,504,975 4,617,886. 47.8% 49.0%  0.9% -1.2% -2.1% 8,474,179 9,420,039

2020            5,297,029 5,668,728  47.9% 51.2%

Iowa*             653,669    800,983  41.7% 51.1%  5.8% -9.4% -15.2% 1,582,180 1,566,031

2020              758,597     897,356  45%    53,2% 

Maine*           357,735.   335,593. 47.8% 44.9% 7.3% 15.3% 3.0% -12.3% 713,180 747,927

2020               430,023    359,502  52.9%  44.2%

Michigan*   2,268,839 2,279,543  47.3% 47.5% 9.5% -0.2% -9.7% 4,730,961 4,799,284

2020             2,795,184 2,649,063 50.6%  47,9%

Minnesota*  1,367,716 1,322,951  46.4% 44.9% 7.7% 1.5% -6.2% 2,936,561 2,944,813

Nevada*         539,260.    512,058. 47.9% 45.5% 6.7% 2.4% -4.3% 1,014,918 1,125,385

2020               703,486     669,890  50.1%  47.7%

N. Hampshire 348,526     345,790  46.8% 46.5% 5.6% 0.4% -5.2% 710,972 744,158

2020                423,291     365,373  52.8% 45.6%

N. Carolina* 2,189,316. 2,362,631. 46.2% 49.8%  -2.0% -3.7% -1.6% 4,505,372 4,741,564

2020              2,683,787  2,757,112  48.7% 50%

Ohio*            2,394,164  2,841,005  43.6% 51.7% 3.0% -8.1% -11.1% 5,580,840 5,496,487

2020              2,603,731  3,074,418  46.5% 52.1%

Pennsylvania2,926,441 2,970,733   47.9% 48.6%  5.4% -0.7% -6.1% 5,753,546 6,115,402

2020             3,434,458  3,361,131  50.0%  48,9%

Wisconsin*  1,382,536 1,405,284   46.5% 47.2%  6.9% -0.8% -7.7% 3,068,434 2,976,150

2020             1,630,683 1,610,139   49.6%  48.9%

Non-Swing States

Alabama*        729,547 1,318,255  34.4% 62.1% -22.2% -27.7% -5.5% 2,074,338 2,123,372

2020                 843,724 1,434,315  36.6% 62.3%

Alaska*           116,454    163,387   36.6% 51.3%  -14.0% -14.7% -0.7% 300,495 318,608

2020   (98%)   150,155    185,807   43%    53.2%

Arkansas*        380,494.   684,872. 33.7% 60.6% -23.7% -26.9 -3.2% 1,069,468 1,130,635

2020                 418,811    757,315   34,6% 62.6%

California*   8,753,788 4,483,810 61.7% 31.6% 23.1% 30.1% 7.0% 13,038,547 14,181,595

2020 (96%) 10,759,316 5,749,736 63.8% 34.1%

Connecticut*   897,572    673,215 ,54.6% 40.9%  17.3% 13.6% -3.7% 1,558,114 1,644,920

2020             1,080,471    714,581  59.3%  39.2%

Delaware*       235,603    185,127  53.4% 41.9%  18.6% 11.4% -7.2% 413,890 441,590

2020                295,493    199,829  58.8%  39.8%

D. C.*              282,830      12,723  90.9%   4.1%  83.6% 86.8% 3.1% 293,764 311,268

2020                307,265       18,172  92.9%  5.5%

Georgia*       1,877,963  2,089,104 45.9% 51.0%  -7.8% -5.2% 2.7% 3,900,050 4,092,373

2020              2,472,002  2,457,880 49.5% 49.2%            

Hawaii*           266,891     128,847  62.2% 30.0%  42.7% 32.2% -10.5% 434,697 428,937

2020  (96%)     365,802    196,602  63.7%  34.3%

Idaho*             189,765     409,055  27.5% 59.3%  -31.9% -31.8% 0.1% 652,274 690,255

2020                 286,991     554,019 33.1%  63.9%

Illinois*        3,090,729   2,146,015  55.8% 38.8%  16.9% 17.1% 0.2% 5,242,014 5,536,424

2020             3.414.236   2,405,750  57.6%  40.6%

Indiana*      1,033,126.  1,557,286.37.8% 56.9% -10.2%-19.2% -9.0% 2,624,534 2,734,958

2020             1,242,163   1,729,472   41%    57.1%

Kansas*          427,005      671,018  36.1% 56.7%  -21.7% -20.6% 1.1% 1,159,971 1,184,402

2020                551,144       752,903  41.3% 56.5%

Kentucky*     628,854   1,202,971 32.7% 62.5%  -22.7% -29.8% -7.1% 1,797,212 1,924,149

2020                 772,285   1,326,418  36.2% 62.1%

Louisiana*      780,154 1,178,638 38.4% 58.1%  -17.2% -19.6% -2.4% 1,994,065 2,029,032

2020                856,034    1,255,776  39.9% 58.5%

Maryland*    1,677,928.     943,169  60.3% 33.9%  26.1% 26.4% 0.3% 2,707,327 2,781,446

2020              1,905,407     958,547   65.3% 32.9%

Mass.*          1,995,196   1,090,893  60.0% 32.8%  23.1% 27.2% 4.1% 3,167,767 3,325,046

2020              2,316,338   1,148,777 65.6%  32.6%

Mississippi*   485,131    700,714  40.1% 57.9%  -11.5% -17.8% -6.3% 1,285,584 1,209,357

2020                514,891       741,571  40.4% 58.2%   

Missouri*     1,071,068   1,594,511 38.1% 56.8%  -9.4% -18.6% -9.3% 2,757,323 2,808,605

2020             1,242,851   1,711,848   41.3% 56.9%

Montana*        177,709       279,240  35.7% 56.2%  -13.7% -20.4% -6.8% 484,048 497,147

2020                 244,833      343,643  40.5% 56.9%

Nebraska*       284,494       495,961  33.7% 58.7%  -21.8% -25.0% -3.3% 794,379 844,227

2020                 371,921      553,793   39.3% 58.6%

N. Jersey*    2,148,278   1,601,933  55.5% 41.4%  17.8% 14.1% -3.7% 3,640,292 3,874,046

2020  (94%) 2,419,324   1,759,713   57.2% 41.6%

New Mexico* 385,234.    319,666.   48.3% 40.0%  10.1% 8.2% -1.9% 783,758 798,318

 2020              499,782      401,361     54.3% 43.5%  901143

New York*  4,547,218   2,814,346  59.0% 36.5%  28.2% 22.5% -5.7% 7,072,083 7,710,126

2020 (81%)  3,804,597   2,890,532  56.1% 42.6%

North Dakota* 93,758       216,794  27.2% 63.0%  -19.6% -35.7% -16.1% 322,932 344,360

2020                114,902      235,595  31.9% 65.5%

Oklahoma*   420,375      949,136 28.9% 65.3%  -33.5% -36.4% -2.8% 1,334,872 1,452,992

2020              503,289     1,018,870 32.3%  65.4%

Oregon*     1,002,106.       782,403. 50.1% 39.1%  12.1% 11.0% -1.1% 1,789,270 2,001,336

2020            1,329,567       949,646   56.9% 40.6%

Rhode Island* 252,525      180,543  54.4% 38.9%  27.5% 15.5% -11.9% 446,049 464,144

2020                306,192       199,830  59.6% 38.9%

 S. Carolina* 855,373 1,155,389 40.7% 54.9% -10.5% -14.3% -3.8% 1,964,118 2,103,027

2020                 1,091,348 1,384,852   43,4% 55.1%

South Dakota*   117,458    227,721 31.7% 61.5%  -18.0% -29.8% -11.8% 363,815 370,093

2020    (94%)       150,467    261,035 35.6% 61.8%

Tennessee*     870,695  1,522,925 34.7% 60.7% -20.4% -26.0% -5.6% 2,458,577 2,508,027

2020                  1,139,666  1,849,211 37.4% 60.7%

Texas*            3,877,868  4,685,047  43.2% 52.2%  -15.8% -9.0% 6.8% 7,993,851 8,969,226

2020                  5,236,610  5,874,547  46.5% 52.1%

Utah*        310,676 515,231 27.5% 45.5% 27.0% -48.0% -18.1% 30% 1,017,40 1,131,430

2020                     555,694      852.677 37.8%  58%

Vermont*       178,573     95,369 56.7% 30.3% 13.1% 35.6% 26.4% -9.2% 299,290 315,067

2020                   242,805       112,688 66.4% 30.8%

Virginia*     1,981,473 1,769,443 49.8% 44.4% 5.8% 3.9% 5.3% 1.5% 3,854,489 3,982,752

2020                   2,404,510   1,961,126 54.3% 44.3%

Washington* 1,742,718 1,221,747 51.8% 36.3% 14.9% 15.5% 0.6% 3,125,516 3,365,644

2020                    3,359,319   1,574,498 58.4%  39%    

West Virginia* 188,794 489,371 26.5% 68.6% -26.8% -42.2% -15.4% 670,438 713,051

2020                       235,657     544,826  29.7% 68.6%

Wyoming*      55,973  174,419 21.9% 68.2% -40.8% -46.3% -5.5% 249,061 255,849

2020                         73,491     193,559 26.7% 70.4%

Vote fraud in Pa Dutch Country? You got to be kidding! A Limerick.

The vote in the land of the Dutch

had never amounted to much.

But the times sure have changed

now the votes are arranged

with more votes than sought: Fraudsters’ touch.

Before the English writer Rudyard Kipling in 1910 wrote the book “Rewards and Fairies,” he toured all over the United States. He spent time in Philadelphia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In “Brother Square-Toes,” a story in “Rewards and Fairies,” Kipling says this about Lancaster:

“It’s a kindly, softly country there, back of Philadelphia among the German towns, Lancaster way. Little houses and bursting big barns, fat cattle, fat women, and all as peaceful as Heaven might be if they farmed there.”

That was 1910. Lancaster Co teems with Amish and Mennonites. They stayed away from the evil ways of the English, shunned modernization, hated wars and immorality, and they didn’t vote. After Bill Clinton became President this all changed, and they started voting, pro-life.

This year there was a record participation in voting, even in Mail-in requests.

Someone took a screen-shot of the tally so far:

Mail-in ballot requests: 108,539

Ballots returned so far: 89,681

Mai-in Ballots counted so far: 142, 584.

Make of that what you will.


Voter fraud in California? Yes, millions of non-citizens with driver’s Licenses voted!

After the 2016 election Judicial Watch made an investigation of the California election. The Federal Government maintains a list of its citizens, the state governments don’t. Judicial watch made an investigation of the registered voters and found that eleven counties had more voters registered than the number of eligible voters. Here is a list of them:

County           Vote            Vote       % eligible  Clinton/
—————— Clinton      Trump   registered  Trump
Los Angeles 1,893,770    620,285   144            3.05
San Diego        567,243    386,807   138           1.47
San Francisco 312,445      34,493   114           9.06
San Mateo       192,035      47,627   111           4.03
Solano                94,622      48,712   111           1.94
Yolo                    34,460      13,178   110            2.61
Santa Cruz        85,185      20,158   109            4.23
Monterey          64,733      26,378   104            2.45
Stanislaus         73,939      72,960   102            1.01
Imperial            23,887        9,318   102            2.56
Lassen                 2,224        7,574   102            0.29
11 Co. Total  3,344,543  1,287,490                    2.60

Rest of Calif 2,514,062   1,391,229                   1.81
All Calif.       5,858,605  2,678,719                    2.19

This compilation is remarkable in so many ways.

California has 3.4 million resident aliens (green card holders and special visas). They are not eligible to vote. They also have about 3 million illegal aliens (obviously not eligible to vote)

California has motor voter registration. They issue driver’s licenses to, not only resident aliens but also to illegal aliens. All they have to do to be registered to vote is to check a box indicating they are eligible. No check for its validity is performed.

Los Angeles County is the capital of illegal aliens, so it comes as no surprise that since they now have driver’s licenses and thereby by extension are made eligible to vote, the ratio of 1.44 between registered voters and lawfully eligible voters comes as no surprise.

Silicon valley has more resident aliens than other areas of California, so it is no surprise they have registered voters exceeding eligible voters.

There is one small county located way up in North East California, Lassen County which voted heavily for Trump. It has only two major employers, two state prisons and one federal prison. Could Lassen County have registered ineligible felons?

This calls for a thorough investigation if the integrity of voting means anything.

The link to the letter from Judicial watch to CA,

As far as I know nothing was done to remedy the situation.

California is no longer a growing state. The population may even be declining in 2020. See this chart:

So we would then expect the numbers for the 2020 election to be about the same

County 2029 Vote         2020 Vote Increase  Increase
—————— Biden      Trump       Biden     Trump

Los Angeles 2,609,329  984,383   37.8%       58.7%
San Diego        933,468  577,573   64.6%       49.3%
San Francisco 373,186   55,347    19.4%       60.5%
San Mateo       225,185    54,456    17.2%       14.3%
Solano              124,752    65,558    31,8%       34.6%
Yolo                    47,504     16,128    36,7%       22,4%
Santa Cruz       109,745    25,485    28.8%       26.4%

Monterey           93,874   34,893    45.0%         32.3%

Stanislaus          84,668    79,622   16.1%           8.1%
Imperial             34,430    20,577    44.1%      120.8%   
Lassen                   2,772      8,798    24.6%        16.2%

One more county is of interest, Orange Co. It used to be solidly Republican

2020                 792,966     655,811 Total: 1,448,777 Advantage Biden   20.9%

2016                 556,544    472,669  Total: 1,029,213 Advantage Clinton 17.8%

2012                457,077     541,092  Total:    998,169 Advantage Romney 18.4%

2008                518,925     557,370  Total: 1,076,295 Advantage McCain 7.4%