David Hong @DHPat

here are some facts about California. some of this is hard to believe. first of all, it's important to understand the concept of "ballot harvesting," which is perfectly legal in CA. this refers to a situation where someone completely unaffiliated with the voter can collect and submit their ballot for them. this flow is completely legal: - a homeless person arrives in LA, where they are eligible for cash assistance, SSI, food stamps, healthcare through medical, and an array of other taxpayer-funded services - they are registered to vote by an NGO (many such NGOs exist and explicitly do this). - they do not have to provide a residential address or any proof of residency to vote. they only have to provide a mailing address, which can be anywhere (church, NGO HQ, homeless shelter). their home address can be "a park" or "an underpass". - their ballot is mailed to the homeless shelter (or whatever address the NGO elects for them) - the only verification done for the mail-in ballot is "signature verification" and uniqueness (only one vote per person is counted theoretically). - the signature can be an X. if they register with an X, they can sign with an X. that is sufficient to pass verification. signature verification is also deliberately loose. the signature does not have to be a perfect match. now consider the hypothetical scenario, which is fraudulent, but virtually impossible to detect: - a homeless person cycles through the LA system. they get registered with their mailing address listed as the NGO HQ or homeless shelter - they "sign" their registration with an X or nondescript, easily replicable signature - they disappear. never seen again. or they exist, but it doesn't matter. they don't get purged from the voter rolls for 4-8 years typically. - the address where they registered receives their ballot for several cycles - operatives are aware that they have X amount of votes to make up. they fill in X many thousand mail-in ballots themselves. the ballots are manually postmarked (permitted). they forge the signature to match whatever signature (could be an X) was submitted upon registration - ballots can be accepted even if they are postmarked at 11.59 pm. polls closed at 8 pm. (you would need an accomplice who is a USPS employee) - the only fraud checks are de-duplication (if the homeless person through some miracle voted in person, only one of their ballots would be counted) and signature verification - because very few of the homeless people in question would have voted in person, this gives NGO operatives tens of thousands of possible mail-in ballots to submit unilaterally. the big problem is that there is NO way to detect this type of fraud. NGOs that register homeless people to vote exist. that isn't a secret. ballot harvesting is fully legal. voting by mail is encouraged. signature verification is as loose as possible. de-duplication doesn't solve anything, since few homeless people vote in person. and no one in power locally is going to spend political capital on rooting out such fraud, since they are all wholeheartedly committed to "voting rights". in a situation where fraud is undetectable, the absence of hard proof of fraud is not evidence that no fraud exists. Raman has gained around 20k votes since election night. She is around 3k votes ahead of Pratt now. there are over 72 thousand homeless people in LA county.

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." @BretWeinstein

@AlexVilanueva33 Thank, God!

@AWRHawkins Parts, extra BCG, cleaning and lube materials and ammo are as important. CA made it very difficult to get rifle parts without showing ID, but of course, you can vote without ID. Also, extra beef jerky.

@BuzzPatterson @Milajoy @rightwingertoo @dojphofficial @CivilRights What frustrates me is these obvious election shenanigans are not being fully investigated by state legislatures, including Republican ones. The courts will not touch these cases -- defer to state legislatures.

@ZynxBTC If you truly believe in BTC, then as Mr. Saylor says that these lower prices are a gift from Satoshi.

@JoshuaDHCM CryptoDad on YouTube has great demos on how to use cold storage solutions.

@AAStack I was trying to educate my friends and clients about BTC, then the Oct. 2025 crash. Even though, I kept saying for them to do their own research and knowledge gathering, I still felt a little bad. I felt sheepish going to my dentist after giving him BTC info.

@AveryDaye Also, ammo.

@JustineBateman Maybe a short film on what is "legal but insane" here regarding voting in CA.

You literally just signed SB 73 before the LA mayoral election. This law prohibits unauthorized access, disruption, modification, or seizure of voter rolls, voter lists, or certified voting technology by law enforcement (including federal agents) without a court order or specific state election law investigation. You are actively making laws to make it HARDER for there to be election integrity. Time to take down the California Communist Party

🚨 WOW! Dr. ALVEDA KING just said it PERFECTLY on Capitol Hill "I still have a dream. I dream that one day we will move beyond black power and white power and embrace GOD'S power and human dignity!" "I reject the notion that Americans who hold traditional Christian beliefs should be treated as THREATS or TERRORISTS simply because we disagree with a prevailing political thought!" 🙏🏻 "I dream that Americans will one day see each other, not as enemies, but as neighbors. I dream that we will hear each other, see each other, and recognize that every human life has value from the womb to the tomb and beyond." "We are as scripture teaches, one blood, one human race. And if we remember that truth, we can build a future worthy of the sacrifices made by those who came before us." "We must speak out for truth and against the forces that would manufacture hate, fear, division, and violence simply to line their pockets and further their political ambitions." "God bless America, God bless you!" 🇺🇸🇺🇸👏🏻

Get you a woman who will soccer kick a mountain lion to save her goat

Had AI run a statistical analysis on Pratt coming in 3rd based on the ballot drops. See below: The trajectory established in the first three batches showed the gap closing at 0.18 points per 1% of ballots counted. The late batches closed the gap at 0.54 points per 1% counted. The late batches were moving 3 times faster than the early batches established. If the trajectory from the first three batches had simply continued, Pratt would still have been leading by +2.93 points at 83% counted. He was actually trailing by -0.40 points. The late batches moved 3.33 points further toward Raman than the established trajectory predicted. The z-scores on that deviation are -7.81 and -11.29 for the last two batches. The probability of both late batches deviating that far from the established trajectory by chance is effectively zero. The t-statistic for the acceleration between early and late batch rates is -6.225. With two degrees of freedom, anything above 4.303 is significant at the 5% level. This is well past that. The plain English answer: The early batches established a clear, consistent trajectory. The late batches didn’t continue that trajectory they moved three times faster in the same direction. That acceleration is not explained by the trajectory that preceded it. The probability that it happened by chance is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

Again, if I have to show my ID to buy Sudafed, you have to show your ID to vote. Stop it.

A disarmed populace makes a government very disrespectful very fast.

THEY PLANNED THIS! As we witness shady shifts in CA election results, we now know why Gavin Newsom and CA Democrats rushed SB 73 into law as an "emergency measure” and passed AB 2230 a week before the election to undermine investigations of election fraud.  Corrupt stuff is going on here, folks! WATCH:

@TonyMichaelX True face of Hope.

Yah, bitch... they are.