Category Archives: Election Issues, Fraud

C&C. Russian Election. Head-scarf Mandates. Myocarditis?

Source: Coffee & Covid ☙ Saturday, September 24, 2022 ☙ DOTS


🚀 Russia is already holding referendums in the occupied territories of Ukraine, which make up about 20% of the country. There are only two boxes on each ballot: a box to join Russia and a box to remain in Ukraine. Depending on which ‘side’ you are on, the referendum is either a shining example of democratic self-determination, or it’s a disgusting travesty of a sham election. In fact, the Economist’s story about the referendum this morning even has the word ‘sham’ right in the headline:

I won’t list all the various elections issues Remainers are rightfully complaining about, there are a lot. But one is that the election is being run by armed Russian soldiers, which might tend to depress the Remain vote for some reason. And the election’s lightning speed leaves no time for campaigning, education, or even any real discussion. Just hurry up and vote! Third, Remainers validly complain that many pro-Remain voters fled when the Russians occupied the zone, reducing their voting bloc.

On the other hand, the Russians appear to be making every effort to be transparent; for example, the soldier/proctors clearly don’t object to being recorded on video, and — from what I can tell — citizens are even being allowed to record video INSIDE polling locations, which you can’t do in Florida. I have seen no complaints about cheating or backdoor ballot deliveries or secret suitcases of ballots under tables.

Even better, they aren’t using machines. No electronics. It’s just paper. I wish America would go back to paper. The machines are a problem.

Remainers in the occupied territories also have understandable gripes about the legitimacy of the vote in general. To them, it probably feels a lot like it would feel here if the Mexican cartels held a “referendum” in South Texas about whether a bunch of Texas counties should join Mexico. Um, problem.

On the other hand, the referendum would have no chance at all if there weren’t a large group of Ukrainians in the territories, obviously profoundly unhappy with their existing government, who clearly prefer to live under Russian rule. It might even be a majority; there’s no way to tell now.

Pro-Ukraine Remainers are allowed to protest and rally:

Pro-Russia voters seem happy to vote to leave Ukraine:

Maybe even a whole LOT of them:

And the Russians may have invited foreign observers to monitor the fairness of the elections:

I can’t vouch for any of the videos; I’m just including them for flavor. During my research, I found pictures and videos of rallies and protests that were re-used from other past events, sometimes other causes, sometimes even the other side of the issue. So who knows? Everybody is lying.

There’s a strategic reason Russia is racing to complete the referendums. Once the occupied territories become part of Russia — a result that seems inevitable at this point — then Russia can claim self-defense, and can legally access previously-unavailable military tools. That’s where all the nuclear talk (on both sides) comes from.

This new strategy is Russia’s response to the recent Ukrainian military gains in the occupied territories. Russia has done this before; it was the strategy it used to annex Crimea. So Western military experts should have easily predicted this would happen, but of course, well, you know. Our brain-damaged experts have been completely useless for ages. They’re just bleating packs of ‘yes’ men now, apparently.

Swirling internet rumors suggest that the warp speed Russian mobilization announced this week is secretly a whole lot bigger than 300,000 new troops. Since I can’t confirm it from any official Russian source, I won’t cite the figures. Whether it’s 300,000, or more than 300,000, the timing suggests that the new troops will be used to hold the annexed territories. In other words, Russia could end the war by just hunkering down, loudly claiming legal entitlement to the annexed regions, and threatening a nuclear response to any continued hostility.

So get ready for all the people who claimed the 2020 U.S. elections were the fairest and cleanest elections in history to start bitterly complaining about the Russian referendum election. And, whereas criticizing U.S. election results makes you a domestic terrorist and an insurrectionist, the schizophrenic psyops teams are going to try to make it your moral duty to criticize the Ukraine election, including all-new Facebook profile flags or ribbons or something.

If you say the Ukraine elections were fair, you’re also a terrorist or insurrectionist or whatever. You can follow this, right? Criticizing U.S. elections = bad. Criticizing Ukraine elections = good.

It’s so simple!

🚀 Iran has been roiled with country-wide protests by thousands and thousands of angry women who are sick and tired of being threatened into wearing the muslim hijab, or headscarf. The genesis of the massive waves of unrest is disquietingly similar to the George Floyd protests here in the U.S. in the summer of 2020.

Twitter avatar for @ReutersWorldReuters World @ReutersWorld

Iran must deal decisively with protests, president says


What is undisputed is that a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, was arrested in Iran for not having her hijab on properly. According to reports, she was wearing a hijab, but it wasn’t the right kind or was out of place or something. After being arrested, she fell into a coma and several days later, she died. Widespread rumors in Iran claimed she was beaten to death, but Iranian authorities claimed Amini suffered from “pre-existing conditions.”

Sound familiar?

Mostly-peaceful protests broke out all over the country. Thousands of Iranians have been arrested, all over Iran, according to regional reports, and at least eight people have been outright killed by security forces.

Iran’s Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi told media that the government’s initial investigation showed it had done nothing wrong. “Reports from oversight bodies were received, witnesses were interviewed, videos were reviewed, forensic opinions were obtained, and it was found that there had been no beating,” Vahidi claimed. In a statement last week, Tehran police said right after her arrest, Amini “suddenly suffered from a heart problem” and was “immediately taken to hospital”.

But Amini’s father says the 22-year-old had no pre-existing health problems, and he says the police are responsible for her death.

Hmm. You know, I can think of ONE reason that an otherwise healthy 22-year-old might experience sudden and unexpected heart problems, especially when under stress. It’s given in two doses. But I’m not allowed to name it on Facebook, so mum’s the word. And I doubt the officials are going to suggest that possibility, either.

Seventy-four percent of Iranians are vaccinated:

Iran didn’t use the mRNA vaccines, but it did use AstraZeneca, well-known to have similar problems to the mRNA jabs. It would be ironic, wouldn’t it, if the government’s vaccine policy led to a George Floyd event? They can’t tell the truth to stop the protests, because that would probably lead to other protests. It’s a conundrum.

I don’t know; I’m not saying anything. I’m just saying.

Finally, mandatory headscarves are a lot like mandatory masks. Both are religiously based and include strong associations with social conformity and government compliance.


💉 God bless him, Tucker Carlson continues courageously reporting on problems with the jabs. Most recently, he discussed a Lancet study following up with kids 12-29 who suffered from myocarditis. Almost a third of the studied kids required chronic medication to manage the condition at three months, and a fifth (20%) said they still experienced pain.

Tucker also reported on Presbyterian Hospital’s goofy new advertisement for pediatric myocarditis — a condition that used to be so rare nobody’d ever heard of it before last year. People are upset at Presbyterian, not because it ran the ad — treating these vaccine injuries is important, as is awareness — but they are understandably upset because the ad ignores what CAUSED the kids’ heart damage.

True, so far it’s only Tucker. But Tucker’s audience exceeds the combined totals of the other networks. And there are signs the signal is getting through the noise: booster uptake is pitiful. NBC ran a story yesterday headlined, “Less Than 2% of Eligible People Have Gotten Updated Covid Booster Shots, 3 Weeks Into the Rollout.”

Oh no. (Sad emoji.)

NBC reported Dr. Scott Roberts, a Yale Medicine infectious disease expert, called the relatively low booster uptake “demoralizing.” He’s demoralized! He explained glumly, “I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point.”

Dash it! Disappointed expectations!

Dr. Eeyore, I mean Dr. Roberts, blamed Joe Biden for the new jab’s pitiful performance, and he isn’t too optimistic about its future prospects either. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message,” he sighed. “Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

Poor, poor experts. 🎻

Still, nearly 5 million Americans have taken the new shot, even though, as NBC admitted in its article, the jabs “were distributed without results from human trials.” There are a lot of customers who want even MORE spike protein out there, they can’t get enough of the stuff, and as long as that holds, and as long as the rivers of cash keep flowing, they’ll keep making them.

As for me, nope. No thanks. I’m doing fine!

Have a wonderful weekend. Enjoy this cooler weather, and I’ll be back on Monday with some seasonal pumpkin-spiced Coffee & Covid for you.


C&C is moving the needle and changing minds. If you can, I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope:

Twitter: @jchilders98
Truth Social: @jchilders98
C&C Swag!
Emailed Daily Newsletter:


Democrats Were the First Election Deniers

Source: Democrats Were the First Election Deniers – WSJ

Among the more grating parts (and there were many) of President Biden’s Independence Hall speech last week were his repeated references to election deniers. “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: either they win or they are cheated,” he thundered. “I will not stand by and watch elections in this country stolen by people who simply refuse to accept that they lost.”

WSJ Opinion Potomac WatchJoe Biden’s Speech on MAGA Republicans

Join Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot and Columnists Kimberley Strassel and Karl Rove live from Dallas as they discuss how inflation, Donald Trump and the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling will affect the midterms. What’s at stake in the House and Senate? Will the red wave hit as many predict? The panel will break down what the election will mean for the economy, President Biden’s legislative agenda, and the run up to the 2024 presidential race.

WSJ+ members are invited to attend this exclusive member event live in Dallas, TX, or via livestream online on Monday, October 17 at 7:00 PM CT / 8:00 PM ET. Purchase tickets to the live event in Dallas or to register for the virtual livestream.

This is annoying because Mr. Biden owes his presidency to an election denier. In 2020 his faltering presidential primary campaign was rescued by the endorsement of Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.).

This powerful South Carolina politico was one of 31 Democratic House members who voted on Jan. 6, 2005, to object to awarding Ohio’s electoral votes to President George W. Bush, despite Mr. Bush winning the Buckeye State by 118,601 votes. Flipping Ohio would have made John Kerry president by a 271-266 Electoral College vote.

On the House floor in 2005, the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat, Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), presented the case for awarding Ohio to the Democrats, claiming “electronic machines transferred” votes from Mr. Kerry to Mr. Bush, creating situations with “significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot.” He even asserted that a voting-machine company “reprogrammed the computer by remote dial-up” in a way that altered the outcome. Sound familiar?

Mr. Clyburn, now House majority whip, wasn’t the only significant Democrat pushing these wacky theories. Consider other 2005 Democratic election deniers who today hold top congressional posts. These include then-Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), now a senator; Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D., Ariz.), Natural Resources Committee chairman; Rep. Frank Pallone (D., N.J.), Energy and Commerce Committee chairman; Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), Financial Services Committee chairman; Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), chairman of both the Homeland Security and Jan. 6 committees; Rep. Danny K. Davis (D., Ill.), chairman of a Ways and Means subcommittee; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas), a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland Security and Budget committees; and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), senior chief deputy whip. Even the now-deceased civil-rights icon, Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.), was an election denier, voting not to accept Ohio’s certification for Mr. Bush.

Though she didn’t vote to flip the Buckeye State, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) defended her party’s election deniers. She said the “debate is fundamental to our democracy” and warned Republicans not to “talk about this as a ‘conspiracy theory,’ ” arguing instead “it is about the Constitution.”

Despite all this, Mr. Biden’s rhetoric on the evils of election denial was untempered last week. He assailed “MAGA Republicans,” saying they “refuse to accept the results of a free election” and are “determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.” The president vowed that he would not “stand by and watch . . . the will of the American people be overturned by wild conspiracy theories and baseless, evidence-free claims of fraud.”

Some apologists might excuse Mr. Biden’s bombast by saying he was talking about the mob that stormed the Capitol, assaulted police officers, and tried breaking up a joint congressional session. But that’s not what Mr. Biden said. His targets included MAGA Republicans who merely watched the Jan. 6 riots—with sympathy, Mr. Biden claims, though the truth is few Republicans approved of the mob’s actions.

Though Mr. Biden made some genuflections toward the idea that not all Republicans are extremists—in reality, few are—the president asserted that the GOP “is dominated, driven, and intimidated” by “MAGA Republicans.” He even lumped in pro-life Americans as enemies of democracy, suggesting that if you disagree with Mr. Biden’s social agenda on abortion, then you are a part of “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”

Though both 2005 Democratic and 2021 Republican election deniers are entitled to their opinions, I believe both groups are wrong. Neither election was stolen. The rightful winners were inaugurated and while Mr. Kerry conceded, Mr. Trump didn’t. It’s clear that while what Democratic election deniers did in 2005 was wrong, what some Republicans have done since 2020 is worse.

Still, Mr. Biden did America no good last week with his ham-handed, sanctimonious speech that indiscriminately machine-gunned his political opposition. In a deeply polarized time, he needlessly added to our divisions. Our nation desperately needs leaders who can help Americans find some measure of civility and mutual respect amid political disagreement. Mr. Biden demonstrated that isn’t him.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).


Couy Griffin, Disqualified for Jan. 6?

Source: Couy Griffin, Disqualified for Jan. 6? – WSJ

The lawbreakers of Jan. 6 are being prosecuted for a variety of offenses. But should the courts also bar them from holding public office, like Confederates after the Civil War?

That happened Tuesday in New Mexico when a state judge disqualified Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin from holding public office. The 14th Amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Judge Francis Mathew, of New Mexico’s First Judicial District, says this language means Mr. Griffin must be removed and “barred for life” from office.

The breadth of this precedent is troubling, which is no defense of Mr. Griffin’s conduct on Jan. 6. According to the court’s findings, he trespassed on restricted areas outside the Capitol and riled up the mob with a bullhorn. In a Facebook video the next day he said “Joe Biden will never be President” and floated the idea of “a Second Amendment rally on those same steps,” in which case “there’s going to be blood running out of that building.”

Mr. Griffin was acquitted of disorderly conduct but convicted of entering and remaining on restricted grounds. New Mexico lets private citizens sue to eject an unlawful officeholder, and a group of residents did so with help from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Tuesday’s ruling might be only the start of this disqualification campaign.

Judge Mathew says an “insurrection” is an assemblage that uses force or intimidation to “prevent the execution of one or more federal laws.” But consider the scope of that definition. Two years ago a crowd in Portland, Ore., yelled “feds go home” and gave cover to assaults on a U.S. courthouse. In 2018 a Los Angeles councilman and 17 others were arrested for obstructing access to an immigration facility. “We need, by the millions, to be coming out and blocking the entrance to federal detention centers,” he urged. Sound a little insurrectiony?

In Judge Mathew’s view, the 14th amendment can be triggered even if the public official in question was peaceful and wasn’t convicted of a crime. He says the disqualification provision covers anyone who’s “leagued” with insurrectionists, including those who engaged in “non-violent overt acts or words in furtherance of the insurrection.” Where is the line between a Jan. 6 rioter and a person who now regrets giving $50 to a “stop the steal” fund?

Some Democrats have talked about barring Republicans in Congress from running again on similar grounds. But down that road lies more political trouble as politicians use courts, rather than elections, to defeat their opponents. Mr. Griffin is best disqualified by the voters.


unconstitutional for non-citizens to vote: new york supreme court

The Epoch Times, 6/27/2022, by Bill Pan

New York Supreme Court judge ruled on June 27 that a recently passed New York City law that extends voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizens is unconstitutional.

In December 2021, the New York City Council passed the “Our City, Our Vote” measure in a 33–14 vote. It was signed into law by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio and took effect in January, allowing foreign nationals who legally reside and work in the city to register to vote at the municipal level. The law doesn’t apply to state or federal elections.

The measure effectively created more than 800,000 new voters who would have been able to cast ballots in next year’s city council election.

A coalition of mostly Republican voters and elected officials challenged the law in court shortly after its enactment. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, a Republican endorsed by former President Donald Trump, argued in the complaint that the law is in conflict with New York state’s own constitution.

The case was heard earlier this month by state Supreme Court Justice Ralph Porzio. In his June 27 ruling, Porzio sided with the plaintiffs, stressing that U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite to being able to vote in New York.

“The New York State Constitution expressly states that citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections,” Porzio wrote, emphasizing the word “citizens.”

“Though voting is a right so many citizens take for granted, the City of New York cannot obviate the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.”

In the complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the law would “dilute” the power of citizens’ votes and force elected officials to change the way they campaign and could possibly hurt their chances of winning future elections. Porzio found these arguments plausible.

“The weight of the citizens’ vote will be diluted by municipal voters and candidates and political parties alike will need to reconfigure their campaigns,” the justice wrote. “Though Plaintiffs have not suffered harm today, the harm they will suffer is imminent.”

New York City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli, a Republican representing Staten Island’s South Shore, applauded the ruling.

“Today’s decision validates those of us who can read the plain English words of our state constitution and state statutes: Noncitizen voting in New York is illegal, and shame on those who thought they could skirt the law for political gain,” he said in a statement.

“Opposition to this measure was bipartisan and cut across countless neighborhood and ethnic lines, yet progressives chose to ignore both our constitution and public sentiment in order to suit their aims. I commend the court in recognizing reality and reminding New York’s professional protestor class that the rule of law matters.”