Did Mark Zuckerberg Buy the Oval Office for Joe Biden?
Article by Rajan Ladd in The American Thinker
Did Mark Zuckerberg Buy the Oval Office for Joe Biden?
Last week, a study by Dr. William Doyle, from the Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute, that appeared in The Federalist presented some starling discoveries pertaining to the presidential election of 2020.
The study revealed that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated nearly $419 million to nonprofit originations that aided in the administration and infrastructure of the 2020 election.
These donations were specifically made to The Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and The Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR).
These organizations claimed to be both non-partisan and non-profit. However, there is a lot more here than meets the eye.
How did the CTCL and CEIR use their funds?
o begin with, the CTCL actively lobbied for the promotion of universal mail-in voting and extending deadlines that favored mail-in over in-person voting using COVID-19 as a reason.
This probably contributed to most states changing their rules around voting, with nine states and the District of Columbia sending mail-in ballots to all active registered voters.
In the end, a record-breaking 64 million Americans cast their ballots by mail during the 2020 presidential election.
Mail-in ballots inherently compromise the confidentiality and integrity of votes.
Federal laws clearly restrict partisans and activists from making overt political displays or indulging in coercion or intimidation, or even asking voters whom they voted for, anywhere near polling stations on Election Day.
However, these laws do not apply to mail-in ballots.
This is where CTCL and CEIR saw an enormous window of opportunity.
CTCL/CEIR funded activists in Wisconsin, who euphemistically called themselves "vote navigators." Their job was to "assist voters, potentially at their front doors, to answer questions, to assist in ballot curing and witness absentee ballot signatures." Wisconsin went to Biden by a narrow margin.
They also funded a temporary staffing agency affiliated with Stacey Abrams called "Happy Faces" to assist in counting votes amid the election-night chaos in Fulton County, Georgia. Georgia also went to Biden by a narrow margin.
CTCL also promoted the practice of unmonitored private drop boxes for ballots, which are vulnerable to myriad fraudulent practices such as ballot-stuffing. They also allowed the inclusion of numerous questionable post–Election Day ballots.
CTCL increased funding for temporary staffing and poll workers all over the country, which led to Democrat activists infiltrating election offices and vote-counting stations.
In the end, all of this yielded huge benefits for the Democrats.
CTCL funded 25 cities and counties with $1 million or higher grants in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia, totaling $87.5million in grants. Biden won 23 of those jurisdictions in the election.
It is amply clear that battleground states, specific cities, and counties across the country were surgically targeted to affect the results of the election.
The study also showed that counties that Biden won were three times more likely to get funding from the above organizations than Trump ones.
It is now perfectly obvious why Biden's handlers chose to keep him in his basement. They knew that their proxies were working tirelessly to rig the outcome such that he didn't need to shed a drop of sweat.
U.S. elections already have very serious issues pertaining to campaign financing.
It is legal for private individuals and organizations to donate millions of dollars to finance electoral campaigns. This functions as a legal form of bribery.
NASCAR drivers with endorsement stickers attached all over them is a symbolic representation of an elected candidate funded by big donors. The elected representative obviously fulfills obligations to his big donors first, including voting for certain bills and endorsing certain projects. The consequences of his actions may be disastrous for his voters, who pay his salary with their tax money. But the candidate is more concerned about the same big donors funding his re-election campaign.
This grave problem was compounded when, for the first time, private donations were made and accepted for government-run election administration and infrastructure.
We therefore have private individuals who are not content merely buying candidates; they also want to buy the entire electoral process.
To put things in perspective, Zuckerberg's contributions nearly matched the federal and state funding for COVID-19-related election expenses, which totaled $479.5 million during the 2020 election.
A perfect example is the state of Wisconsin, which Biden won, where the Legislature gave the city of Green Bay, a Democrat-heavy area, roughly $7 per voter to manage the election. But CTCL boosted resources in Green Bay to $47 per voter.
Similar disparities were found in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Flint, Dallas, and Houston, all of which received large grants from CTCL.
Funding and managing elections must strictly be a government function because government employees are, at least on paper, subject to accountability and transparency. If matters go awry, they are compelled to submit themselves for investigations and hearings.
Private individuals or enterprises have no such obligations. They donate and leave it to their proxies to do the dirty work.
The conducting of free and fair elections trusted by every citizen is the hallmark and the foundation of a thriving democracy.
The fact that Zuckerberg's donations were not rejected by government bodies is proof that democratic values are gradually eroding and are being replaced by a subtle form of totalitarianism.
There will be elections, and you will be able to vote, but the outcome will have been decided already by a few wealthy and powerful individuals. They bend rules and regulations to facilitate the desired outcome.
Conducting audits of these votes may not lead to the discovery of many discrepancies because the votes are probably genuine. It is just that the circumstances that led to the choice are compromised.
With so much time, money, and effort involved, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that master forgers may also be employed to make it impossible to differentiate between real and bogus votes.
This story should have hit headlines across newspapers and should have been debated on each and every TV news show.
When the government is compromised, it is the media that should be the watchdog and make enough noise to compel the government to take action.
The current mainstream media are not compromised. They are instead a department of the Democrat party.
When they see a story such as this, they either spin it or disparage it and dismiss it as a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Finally, they bury it. Since most people are casual consumers of the news, they probably never discover these shocking facts.
It is left to the Republicans to fix the situation. Thus far, they have made all the right noises. "Are our elections for sale? Did Zuckerberg purchase the Wisconsin presidential election?" asked Kentucky senator Rand Paul. Florida governor Ron DeSantis blasted Zuckerberg and touted new election laws he recently signed into law as a ban on "Zuckerbucks" in Florida. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said: "I continue to question whether Mark Zuckerberg's highly partisan 2020 election spending was even legal."
The question is, will these words be backed by actions to investigate the extent of voter fraud and to prevent it from ever occurring again? We must be cautiously optimistic!
Post a Comment