The Todd Herman Show
The Todd Herman Show
The DHS vs. Election Integrity: if you can’t question blatant election messes then you can’t fix blatant election messes.
2
0:00
-43:44

The DHS vs. Election Integrity: if you can’t question blatant election messes then you can’t fix blatant election messes.

2

THE THESIS: The charitable view: The Party knows they have messed everything up beyond belief, so they are obsessed with preventing us from discussing the mess. The less charitable: The Party knows they rig elections and are obsessed with hiding. The truth, I believe, is a mix of those two dynamics. The people at the very top know they are encouraging fraud; the underlings know it's a mess.

THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES: 

Proverbs 6:16-19 

There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Galatians 6:7 

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

THE NEWS & COMMENT:

The Democrats used mail in ballots, loose to non-existent signature verification and no ID checks for mail in ballots to steal the governorship from a Republican in Washington State. They counted until they won. That was over a decade ago. That is why I have been warning about the mass mail in ballots, no ID, little to no signature verification, it creates the environment for vote fraud that is incredibly hard to prove. 

In 2022, the DHS spent YOUR money in a blatantly illegal scheme to work directly with social media “companies” [they are extensions of the State] to disappear and/or suppress question skeptical of the election process, SPECIFICALLY the question anyone what watched the Washington State election theft would ask: why do Democrats so often catch-up as they continue counting, and counting, and counting, and counting? 

DHS Censorship Agency Had Strange First Mission: Banning Speech That Casts Doubt On ‘Red Mirage, Blue Shift’ Election Events

The size, scale and speed of DHS's censorship operation are vastly larger have been reported. Based on our investigation, below are seven bottom-line figures summarizing the scope of censorship carried out by DHS speech control partners, as compiled from their own reports and videos:

·       22 Million tweets labeled “misinformation” on Twitter;

·       859 Million tweets collected in databases for “misinformation” analysis;

·       120 analysts monitoring social media “misinformation” in up to 20-hour shifts;

·       15 tech platforms monitored for “misinformation” often in real-time;

·       <1 hour average response time between government partners and tech platforms;

Dozens of “misinformation narratives” targeted for platform-wide throttling; and Hundreds of millions of individual Facebook posts, YouTube videos, TikToks, and tweets impacted, due to “misinformation” Terms of Service policy changes that DHS partners openly plotted and bragged tech companies would never have done without DHS partner insistence and “huge regulatory pressure” from government."

This was NEVER about “foreign disinformation”; this was ALWAYS about censoring YOU. 

https://rumble.com/v1gx8h7-dhss-foreign-to-domestic-disinformation-switcheroo.html

One of the leaders of this inarguably illegal use of “private” “companies” to censor the speech of Americans ADMITS it is ILLEGAL for the government to do what it is doing against you

https://rumble.com/v1nd5vy-eip-fill-the-gaps-in-govt-lacked-funding-and-legal-authorization-for-censor.html

… Government censorship in Western democracies is hardly isolated. In the U.K., The Party intends to police the text messages of citizens”

The same people who pretend to PROTECT elections from disinformation LITERALLY CREATED IT to rig an election in Georgia. These SAME PEOPLE are still considered EXPERTS and still consulted by the government. 

UK moves to regulate private messaging to protect against ‘harmful content’; 'We are unable to envisage circumstances where such a destructive step . . . could be justified'

2 Comments