Psalm 43

Nellie, with her two younger brothers "Daydoh" and "Dehwick" when they were little.

A nice smile to end the work day.

Tomorrow, I am off to Missouri.

Happy new year, everyone!

The entire satellite record. I've been tracking this measurement since it started in 1979.

Note that nothing unusual is taking place. Continuation of trend from little ice age of about 1.3C per 100 years.

Everyone panic!

Detroit...

Missouri

"Infighting"

It takes two to Tango.

And I'm not dancing.

I have too much work to do.

"Missouri"

The people in Missouri have been amazingly gracious and a delight to be with. What a fabulous two days, with one more to go! Tomorrow morning I will be addressing a large crowd in the capitol rotunda after being formally introduced to their state legislatures.

Last night I spoke at an impromptu meeting with about thirty in attendance. Intimate, fun, and very interactive. The press was there, and not surprisingly there was hit piece in today's paper. The press is so intellectually dishonest it is appalling.

Today I had two private meetings with legislators. The Missouri legislature is full of especially good folks. I think Missouri has a very good formula... their legislators are obviously not in it for the pay—their aides make more than they do.

I'm especially proud to call Representative Ann Kelley my friend. Like lone legislators in other states, she is coming under fire for standing up for Missouri elections. She is a warrior, and a patriot.

I also met today with the "Missouri Canvassers," one of the most skilled and productive canvassing groups in the country. I am honored that they consider me their friend, and I am pleased to help them whenever I can. I'm glad they are on our side!
https://t.me/MO_Can

Tonight I spoke to a large group at a dinner event. Great food and great company.

I've spent so much time in Missouri... perhaps I should to register to vote here. 😉

"If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness."

—The Apostle Paul, to the Corinthian Church

(The following is re-posted from some comments above)

This is Ally Rose. Do not judge a man until you know the man. To know Dr Frank is to love ❤️ him. I know this man. Michelle and Sarah know this man. The Supermoms know him. People who have met him in person at events all over this country love the man they have met. He commented with no comment because he was making it clear that he would not be addressing insane comical allegations. He has the right to do that because it his channel. Everyone who knows him will testify to his humility, his humor, his brilliance, and to the love and warmth he shows to everyone he meets. This man doesn’t brag about his incredible resume, but I will proudly step in and do so. This man finds pure joy in data and it resonates through his work. He is known for his hugs and his love of teaching the children he meets. When you know Dr Frank, you instantly become part of his extended nationwide family. He is a gift and a treasure to this country. When the truth comes to light and this country is saved from tyranny and a stolen election, Dr Frank will go down in history. Not for accusations coming from petty jealous men, but for following the data to find the absolute truth. God bless.

It is humbling to be so loved. Thank you, Ally Rose. Perhaps you should speak at my funeral someday... 😇

In the Missouri capitol rotunda.

I'm considering bringing a bozo costume. ;-)

"Bullies"

When I was in the 5th grade a bully and his two followers waited for me after school to rough me up. I was the smart, small, nerdy kid.

I mounted my purple stingray and tried to escape, but they grabbed the handlebars and stopped me.

I kept trying to escape, but things kept escalating. So I set the bike down and beat the crap out of the main bully.

With his two buddies watching in stunned amazement, I made sure to break his nose and gave him two black eyes. He did not return to school for over a week.

No one ever bullied me again, but I always felt bad about it.

While I was in high school, a bully drove out to our farm to beat me up. As he raced up the gravel driveway, my step-dad said, "If it comes to blows, make sure that you hit him first, that you break his nose, and that he sees stars."

I walked out into the driveway to meet my would-be assailant, remembering my earlier experience and my new advice.

As the big guy flew out of his truck, I quickly reached out my right hand for his.

My outstretched hand caught him off guard... and he took it.

I didn't let go, and I looked him dead in the eyes. He was way bigger than me.

But I didn't let go. I was a wirey but strong farmboy, and I wasn't letting go.

There were inches between our noses, eye to eye, he was blabbering on, and I had his right hand in my vice grip.

I wasn't letting go.

Finally, he'd said his piece, I let go of his hand, he got back in his truck, and he left.

There is more than one way to deal with a bully.

The first step is... don't back down.

The second step is to stare directly into their eyes.

What happens next is up to them.

If they insist, I'll open a can of whoop-ass on them.

But I'd prefer to stare them down and give them the time that they need to blow off steam.

All the while, shaking their hand.

After all, bullies usually have unresolved issues, and giving them the chance to avoid stupid mistakes is a charity. Opportunities they may later thank you for.

"Disabilities"

At the K-12 private school where I've taught part time for 25 years (my 'recess') the median IQ is 145. These kids are a national treasure.

Over the years, about 1/2 of the students were "plain vanilla," no issues, just delightful brilliance.

About 1/4 of the students were burnouts from public school. Amazing minds who nevertheless struggled with boredom and being two standard deviations or more different than their peers.

Redeeming these minds was rewarding, watching the requickening of minds that had been numbed in their former circumstances.

The remaining 1/4 typically had a disability, such as severe ADD, autism, or aspergers. We only succeeded with about half of these lovely children, because sometimes their disability made them just too incompatible with their peers.

Every success in this last 1/4 was particularly rewarding. It often took lots of love and patience, but I would revel in their successes on graduation day.

Sometimes really bright people with disabilities just require patience.

“Shiva / Oltmann / Clements”

The timing worked out that I was on the road, so I listened to the entire discussion last night. I didn’t take notes, since most of the time I was driving. My initial impressions:

A) Lots of good information, some of it more informed, some less. Much of it I can confirm from personal knowledge, some from people I trust, and some I cannot confirm. There are some things to follow up on before I would make a judgment on them.

B) “Peer Review” is an important process. But it is a discussion, not a proclamation. If done properly, the crucible of peer review produces a better product. So far we have only heard one side on several important questions.

C) I appreciate that Shiva wants to proceed in small bites—his scientific discipline is showing. Because if he just lists his critiques of everybody and everything, he opens too many cans of worms at a time to make constructive progress. It would also make him look arrogant and sounding like “it has to be my way or it isn’t correct.” Shiva is not the sole arbiter of truth, and real science is a slow, iterative, and methodical process.

D) There is a difference between material that one prepares for public general understanding, for legal documents, or material that one prepares for a scientific document. I know the difference; I have sixty peer-reviewed scientific publications, I have prepared several legal briefs, and I speak to the public on a regular basis. Last night’s session was not for the faint of heart.

E) Shiva eviscerated JP’s work last night. JP now needs an opportunity to respond so that the discussion can proceed productively. JP can then retract or revise his work accordingly. Shiva made several assumptions in his analysis that JP may need to address.

For example, implying that someone has little understanding of provisional ballots, under voting, or over voting are suspect assumptions for someone who has spent so much time analyzing these things. There is more likely miscommunication or mistakes that need clearing up.

F) Shiva made several claims about the Maricopa audit that demand answers. These should be addressed earlier rather than later.

G) Shiva incorrectly described a small portion of my work, dispatching with a straw man version of it. In fairness to him, he was not focused on it and likely does not yet understand it, since his representation suggests that he has a common misunderstanding of it. I look forward to discussing it more rigorously with him, but I think everyone agrees that this is not our current top priority.

H) In classic legal style, the Professor is systematically examining and cross examining the evidence. I appreciate this approach, and look forward to the cross-examination of what has been presented so far. I like the distinction he made between advocacy and representation. In the witness stand, a person should not simultaneously represent and advocate for a position. So if JP is given a chance to address the scathing critique of his work, he might do well to have a “lawyer” type person helping him.

Overall, worth my time listening, and I look forward to future installments if they represent a genuine dialogue, and not merely a set of one-sided pronouncements.

In re-reading my reflection, I noticed that I said nothing about Oltmann. Perhaps that is testament to an excellent interview—keeping the focus on the story, not becoming the story. It is the first time I’ve heard him, and I think he did a fine job.

“Systems Approach”

One of the comments made in Oltmann’s interview of Shiva last night was really important to understand. Shiva said that we need to take a “systems approach.”

He is dead on, and many of us have been saying this all along. This has been especially apparent in Patrick Colbeck’s work, as laid out so meticulously on his LetsFixStuff website. Patrick has been harping on chain of custody and the myriad system vulnerabilities ever since I’ve met him. https://t.me/PatrickColbeck

In short, our current election systems are impossible to secure because they are rife with complexity and vulnerabilities. The moment you plug one hole, another is exploited.

People like simple explanations, but it ain’t simple. There is too much going on.

This is why my suggested remedy is to “Vote Amish.” All paper, no machines.

Keep it simple, stupid. Easy to manage, easy to audit, easy to secure.

There will always be fraud. But centralizing and automating our elections only enables fraud to be even more widespread.

KISS.

“A War Without Generals”

Say that a neighboring country attacks us, and with their first strike they kill all of our leaders. They begin invading, capturing vast amounts of our country, the media, and our institutions.

Citizen militias begin forming everywhere, and the battle to reclaim our country gains momentum. Leaders emerge from the various successful efforts, and they discover and begin interacting with one another. But it’s tough when the enemy controls the media and means of communication.

Based upon their experiences, the field-promoted leaders begin to strategize. But what worked in one region does not apply in all the others. And they have different expertise, and so have been employing different tools.

All the while, the clock is ticking. Fortunately, the individual efforts have been successful enough to stall the enemy, even reclaiming lots of lost ground. But it has been difficult assembling a common strategy which combines all the efforts in order to bring a final death blow to the enemy. At least that is the thought.

But perhaps the best strategy is to continue supporting the individual efforts that are working, and not try to centralize the effort.

After all, we are winning.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?

On the other hand, maybe there is a limit to what can be accomplished without a more cohesive effort?

And maybe our strategies need to be more flexible anyway, since “No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

I’m a states guy. I’m a community guy. I’m a We the People guy. I’m sticking with the grassroots.

The more you centralize things, the more corruption and inefficiency you end up with. (And the easier to target.)

Each person needs to enjoin the effort which makes sense to them.

Each and every citizen in every community.

At present, this is a guerrilla war.