Lies, Damned Lies, and Insane Statistics
The American Conservative:
By the same standard of statistical analysis that the left applies to everything, it is easy to prove that the election was stolen from Donald Trump.
The presidential election is all but over now—“all but” because it was so obviously stolen that there is still a chance truth and justice will prevail, with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) yesterday becoming the first senator to announce plans to object to congressional certification, which will force the House and Senate to vote on whether to uphold Biden’s contested victory in the Electoral College.
The wokies are beyond ecstatic, humming “Hail to the Chief” whenever they think of Joe Biden—or even Hunter Biden, China Joe’s son, under investigation by the Justice Department since late 2018.
The woke media—a media too corrupt to print, during the presidential campaign, stories of the Biden family’s years of corruption—was oh, so uninterested in the statistical disparities in voting that clearly indicated election fraud. They were willing to bear any burden, pay any price, including the traducing of democracy, to get rid of Donald Trump.
Let’s face it: everyone who pays attention to politics knows the election was stolen. Here’s how you can tell.
A 35-page report issued by Peter Navarro, assistant to the president, director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and national Defense Production Act policy coordinator, lists a number of statistical anomalies in the battleground states, including significant changes in absentee ballot rejection rates from previous elections, and excessively high voter turnout (at times exceeding 100 percent).
The Navarro report says that “in Nevada, the overall rejection rate dropped from 1.6% in 2016 to 0.58% in 2020. In Pennsylvania, the 2016 rejection rate of 1.0% dropped to virtually nothing at 0.28%. The biggest fall in the overall absentee ballot rejection rate came, however, in Georgia. Its rejection rate fell from 6.8% in 2016 to a mere 0.34% in 2020.”
And the report says, “In the 2020 race, Georgia election officials received 1,320,154 mail-in and absentee ballots. If these ballots had been rejected at the 2016 rate of 6.8% instead of the 2020 rate of 0.34%, there would have been 81,321 ballots rejected instead of the 4,489 ballots that were actually rejected.
“Under the conservative assumption that 60% of these mail-in and absentee ballots went to Joe Biden, this dramatic fall in the rejection rate provided Joe Biden with an additional 16,264 votes. That’s more than the margin of the alleged Biden victory in Georgia.”
The Navarro report also says, “Cybersecurity executive and former NASA analyst, Russ Ramsland, testified that in Wayne County, Michigan, where Dominion Voting Systems equipment was used, 46 out of 47 precincts in the county displayed greater than a 96% voter turnout. 25 out of those precincts showed a 100% voter turnout.”
Ah, yes, the wokies say, but those are just statistics. We didn’t see any actual evidence of fraud, and man can’t live by statistics alone. But in fact, wokies have been living by statistics for decades. Look at their claims of racial profiling by police and by housing lenders.
Justice O’Connor may have given birth to the statistical disparity business in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (1989) when she wrote: “Where there is a significant statistical disparity between the number of qualified minority contractors willing and able to perform a particular service and the number of such contractors actually engaged by the locality or the locality’s prime contractors, an inference of discriminatory exclusion could arise.”
It’s been statistics ever since.
A piece in the June 10, 2020, issue of The Washington Post says: “A New York Times examination after the death of George Floyd found that while black people make up 19 percent of the Minneapolis population and 9 percent of its police, they were on the receiving end of 58 percent of the city’s police use-of-force incidents.”
And the point is precisely—what? Presumably that we would expect near-precise racial proportionality in use-of-force incidents by police. Because the percentage of use-of-force incidents against blacks is three times the percentage of blacks in the population, the police must be discriminating by race.
Here are two more items from The Washington Post piece:
- A study of criminal cases from 1983 and 1993 found that prosecutors in Philadelphia removed 52 percent of potential black jurors vs. only 23 percent of nonblack jurors.
- Between 2003 and 2012, prosecutors in Caddo Parish, La.—one of the most aggressive death penalty counties in the country—struck 46 percent of prospective black jurors with preemptory challenges, vs. 15 percent of nonblacks.
In the first example, black jurors were removed 2.6 times as often as whites. In the second example, black jurors were struck three times as often as whites. This, the wokies say, is clear proof of racism.
They live by statistics. And yet …
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.