Stuff reports:

Wellington City Council has no plans to evict and may provide toilets to protesters, some who are using a tent erected by Mayor Andy Foster on council land.

A one-man sentry at Shelly Bay became the starting point of an occupation on Sunday afternoon as four others joined Anaru Mepham, of the group Mau Whenua, at the Miramar peninsula site, where a $500 million development is planned.

Foster, Wellington’s Mayor, was on Sunday photographed braving a staunch wind as he helped erect a tent for protesters, who say they are ready to stay till March.

The land they chose to occupy was the same land that Wellington City Council earlier this month voted to sell and lease to developer Ian Cassels. The land deal is expected to be completed in the New Year, meaning Cassels could well take possession of occupied land.

This is appalling judgment by Foster. He put his best case to his colleagues and lost. They voted to continue to sell the land. To then go out and help setup an illegal occupation of the land is incompatible with being Mayor.

How can he expect his colleagues to have confidence with him, if he acts like this against a democratic decision of the Council?

The UN Watch NGO put out a statement a couple of weeks ago that said:

As 194 countries gather online for the World Health Organization’s annual assembly, which is slated this afternoon to hear the first progress report from its international inquiry into the origins and global response to the coronavirus pandemic, an independent human rights watchdog is calling on the panel’s co-chair, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, to recuse herself from the position on account of her numerous prior statements praising the WHO’s response, and due to her close ties with the Chinese government.

Clark was appointed by the world’s top health agency to co-chair the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, an impartial inquiry that will probe the WHO’s handling of the coronavirus and the response of governments around the world. The panel is scheduled to present its progress report today, and the final report in May 2021.

However, according to Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO UN Watch, “Clark’s numerous statements this year praising the WHO for the very actions she is meant to investigate, as well as her history of close ties with Beijing—which backed her recent bid to become UN chief—give rise to the appearance of bias, and could seriously undermine the credibility of the panel’s findings.”

This call for Clark to resign was newsworthy. In fact both the NZ Herald and Newshub wrote stories about it, but then deleted the stories without trace.

Now Clark obviously disagrees with UN Watch that she is compromised, and has complained to the media outlets that ran a story.

But surely the media should add in comments from her refuting the claims, rather than just deleting the story?

I’m not critical of Clark for complaining to the media, but I am critical of the media for deleting a story that deemed newsworthy merely because a politician or public figure complains about it.

Clark is a public figure and comments about her are clearly covered by qualified privilege. And this is not a minor story, but about the leadership of a global inquiry into the WHO response to the worst public health crisis of 100 years.

This doesn’t mean I agree with UN Watch that Clark is compromised or should resign. The fact that China backed her for UN Secretary-General doesn’t mean there is a quid-pro-quo. Anyone who has been active on the global stage will have relationships with various countries.

The issue is that the media decided this story was newsworthy and presumably in the face of legal threats just deleted them, rather than amended them.

UPDATE: The Herald has now republished the story it deleted, with the addition of comments by Clark. This is what they should have done in the first place.

The FEE report:

“In 2016, real median household income was $62,898, just $257 above its level in 1999,” writes Smith. “Over the next three years it grew almost $6,000, to $68,703.”

Indeed, median household incomes increased from $64,300 to $68,700 in 2018 alone—an increase of $4,400. To put it another way, US incomes increased more in 2018 than the previous 20 years combined. (Household incomes were $61,100 in 1998 and $64,300 at the end of 2017.)

This is why Trump almost won. For the first time in 20 years, the average household was better off.

The year 2017 saw massive deregulation and passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Estimates placed the deregulation savings at $2 trillion. But what was likely even a bigger factor was the cut businesses saw in corporate taxes.

Prior to 2017, the US had the highest corporate tax in the developed world (if not the whole world). With a top bracket of 35 percent, its corporate tax rate was higher than Communist China and socialist Venezuela.

This was a terrible policy on a number of levels. For starters, the revenue-maximizing rate of a corporate tax is 15-25 percent, which means anything above that isn’t even generating more revenue, it’s simply punitive and economically harmful. (Evidence bears this out. The United Kingdom, for example, reduced its corporate tax rate and saw revenues grow.)

Our corporate tax rate is 28%.

I don’t think I can recall a legal opinion which has so brutally eviscerated the arguments put together by a plaintiff as this ruling by Judge Brann. You would normally expect this sort of dismissal in a case put forward by a lay plaintiff, not by lawyers representing the President of the United States.

Courts reporter Brad Heath has a series of tweets with the highlights or lowlights from the ruling. Here’s the first couple of paras:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs
(collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this
Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.

And on the substance:

Plaintiffs’ only remaining claim alleges a violation of equal protection. This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent.

I was going to say this is a polite way of saying the arguments were nonsense but actually not that polite.

Crucially, Plaintiffs fail to understand the relationship between right and remedy. Though every injury must have its proper redress, a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted. By seeking injunctive relief preventing certification of the
Pennsylvania election results, Plaintiffs ask this Court to do exactly that. Even assuming that they can establish that their right to vote has been denied, which they cannot, Plaintiffs seek to remedy the denial of their votes by invalidating the votes of millions of others. Rather than requesting that their votes be counted, they seek to discredit scores of other votes, but only for one race. This is simply not how the Constitution works.

Common sense really, plus the law.

Here, leveling up to address the alleged cancellation of Plaintiffs’ votes
would be easy; the simple answer is that their votes would be counted. But Plaintiffs do not ask to level up. Rather, they seek to level down, and in doing so, they ask the Court to violate the rights of over 6.8 million Americans. It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution.

Yes the Trump campaign unconstitutionally tried to remove legally cast votes from 6.8 million Americans.

Granting Plaintiffs’ requested relief would necessarily require invalidating the ballots of every person who voted in Pennsylvania. Because this Court has no authority to take away the right to vote of even a single person, let alone millions of citizens, it cannot grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief.

No court will find so. The Supreme Court would be at risk of dying from laughter if this case somehow ended up before them.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint are granted
with prejudice.

Now lawyers might not know what this means. To quote Wikipedia:

A civil matter which is “dismissed with prejudice” is over forever. This is a final judgement, not subject to further action, which bars the plaintiff from bringing any other lawsuit based on the claim.

If it is an involuntary dismissal, the judge has determined that the plaintiff has brought the case in bad faith, has failed to bring the case in a reasonable time, has failed to comply with court procedures, or on the merits after hearing the arguments in court.

I recommend you read the full ruling if you have time.

Also not that it should matter but Judge Brann is a member of the Federalist Society, was a member of his local Republican committee for 18 years and was or is a member of the National Rifle Association.

In its bid for power during the 2017 campaign, Labour vowed to solve what Jacinda Ardern is now calling the housing “problem”.  

For much of its nine years in government, National was an ostrich with its head in the sand on the issue, pretending that the country wasn’t in the midst of an escalating crisis. 

For Labour, this failure was central to its 2017 election critique. During its first term, it promised, it would flood the market with thousands of affordable homes, increase state stock and eliminate homelessness. So important it was to Labour that, when Jacinda Ardern outlined her priorities for the first 100 days of the Labour-NZ First coalition, housing was at the top of her list. 

Ardern had assured the country that, under Labour, they could “make home ownership possible again” – that things could and would be better. 

Promises of big and bold transformation were made, with the construction of 100,000 KiwiBuild homes in 10 years being the most obvious example. 

So, three years on, how much progress has been made?  

Well, we all know the disaster that is KiwiBuild. By September 2019, only 258 homes had been built at which point the policy was reset and the targets were dropped. A year on and less than 600 have been completed. The programme was a complete and utter flop – and has continued to be so even after Phil Twyford lost his ministerial responsibility for it.  

The Government has been more successful when it comes to boosting public housing (though demand exceeds supply significantly). It has built around 3,500 state houses in its first term and put an end to National’s state housing sell-off policy. The blemish here was the Government being caught out having quietly sold at least 146 state homes worth more than $30 million since 2017. 

Overall, however, its record on homelessness and social housing is no better than that of KiwiBuild. The wait list has tripled to more than 20,000 households since 2017. 

And all the while, house prices have continued to rise and rise without let up or remorse. 

For all the inspirational rhetoric and promises that were made in 2017 and the months following, Labour has figured out that tackling the housing crisis is not as easy as it looked. Back when the coalition government was first formed, it claimed we had a housing shortfall of 71,000. Today, the Government doesn’t even bother giving a number. 

The newly elected Labour-only Government can’t blame anyone else for what happens this term. There is no other party or individual there to throw a spanner in the works. The buck stops with Labour.  

Those who think a capital gains tax or wealth tax would help the situation will continue to be disappointed. Jacinda Ardern has repeatedly ruled out both for as long as she is Prime Minister. There is no chance she would risk her popularity by going back on her word and introducing either – especially without anybody else to whom she can attribute blame.  

There is agreement from all sides that the Resource Management Act needs an overhaul with Labour going so far as promising to replace the RMA during the 2020 campaign. But the legislative process is expected to take considerable time to see through. Even then, it will be a while before we see an impact on house prices. 

There has been some suggestion that the Government could loosen the income caps on the First Home Grant scheme. However, while this will help first home buyers earning over $85,000 (or $130,000 jointly), the effect of injecting more state money into the sector will likely lift house prices even further. It is the kind of measure National was rightly criticised for by Labour when in opposition. 

As for Kiwibuild, the prospect of it having a major impact on supply is bleak. Almost non-existent. 

It’s clear that finding a solution is not easy. But when a political party comes to power largely on the back of a promise to tackle something like the housing crisis, conditions should at least become better, not worse. People are right to expect some improvement and equally right to feel disappointed when it does not happen. 

If Ardern wants to keep her grips on power and live up to her repeated claims of leading a transformational government, she needs to come up with a plan. Fast. 

Monique Poirier has a Masters degree in Political Studies, and is a small business owner and former Parliamentary staffer. She is the Campaigns Manager for the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance.

Radio NZ reports:

Managed isolation planning is under fire after figures show there are still more than 1000 empty places – while returning New Zealanders and separated families say they are being told there is no room at the inn. …

The chair of thinktank the New Zealand Initiative, Roger Partridge, said the vacancies were shameful when so many people are crying out for places, including New Zealanders returning for a family Christmas.

“My impression is that officials are more interested in being ‘in control’ than meeting the needs of New Zealand families, firms and workers. This will have long term adverse effects on jobs and wellbeing,” Partridge said.

“Quite apart from the human tragedy behind the empty beds, feedback from the business community is of projects stalling, critical roles being left unfilled, and business activity suffering as a result.”

He asked whether officials were being held accountable for the unused capacity.

Our MIQ systems seems designed to meet the needs of the bureaucracy, rather than the needs of New Zealanders.

The Herald reports:

Former Prime Minister John Key had a staunch message to any National MPs who continue to leak against the party: “If you can’t quit leaking, quit the party”.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

It would be hard to overemphasise how much damage to National’s brand is done by stories about leaks. They don’t just do damage in the week they’re reported, but they do long-term damage.

A \friend once said forensic analysis of statistical records can unearth various anomalies that become the pointers to provable fraud. I am going to focus exclusively on statistical anomalies in the New Zealand election that at the very least raise questions and likely point to targeted election fraud.

1 – MMP anomaly. MMP is designed to stop any party getting a majority. But Labour won 65 seats out of 120.

2 – Party vote anomaly. Our election history shows that parties never get 50% of the vote. No party has got over 50% since 1951. Yet Labour got 50% in 2020.

3 – Suspiciously round percentages. Labour got almost exactly 50% of the vote, which is very suspicious. Not 49%. Not 51%, but 50%. And even at one decimal place 50.0%. What are the chances of that happening randomly?

4 – Advance vote differences. In 2017 parties got almost the same share of the vote in advance votes and election day votes. In 2020 parties of the left did 9% better with advance votes. This has never occurred before. Can we rule out that advance votes which were stored out of sight for up to two weeks were interfered with?

5 – Special votes. Where did all these special votes comes from? They weren’t included in election night totals. There were no progressive updates on them, such as we had on election night. Suddenly two weeks later the Electoral Commission just announces new results and Labour suddenly wins three more electorates – and two of them were seats they had never won before

6 – Electorate anomalies. In 2002 National got even fewer party votes than in 2020, yet it still won Northland, Whangarei, Ilam and Nelson. How does it make sense that you lose these four seats in 2020 when you got more party votes?

CONCLUSION. These various statistical patterns raise some serious concerns. The current election results sees a seemingly defeated National Party defy a number of statistical conventions going back many decades over dozens of elections. The various anomalies unearthed by various people point to irregularities in the vote that should be investigated and litigated to the highest level possible to ensure widespread integrity in the voting system.

I used to be a huge Rudy Giuliani fan. It is with a degree of sorrow I observe how he has gone from one of the most respected guys in America to basically a clown.

His appearance in court was almost painful. He didn’t even understand basic legal concepts a first year law student would be expected to know. And then his ranting press conference where his (presumably) hair dye melted down his face made him look like a clown.

He once was in fact a great lawyer. As the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York he successfully prosecuted mafia bosses. His eight years as Mayor of New York saw crime fall massively – well beyond the national average.

His response to 9/11 was a shining example of hands on leadership – he went to the front line and co-ordinated the many city departments involved in the response as well as state and federal authorities. His approval rating hit 79%. He was Time’s Person of the Year.

He was a serious candidate for the Republican nomination in 2008, and he was one of three I thought would be good. He was the front runner in polls for most of 2007. He was one of my political heroes.

But now he has become a clown. Well worse than a clown. Rarely has someone fallen so far. To go from being one of the best District Attorneys in America to someone who couldn’t even mount a coherent legal argument in court.

A good friend is a forensic investigative accountant after serving for a time on the NZ Police Fraud Squad. She specialises in detecting corporate fraud for a variety of private sector companies (often insurance companies) in various countries. She once said the beauty about her profession is that the data cannot lie, and that forensic analysis of statistical records can unearth various anomalies that become the pointers to provable fraud. As the Trump campaign seeks to overturn results in key states alleging various types of electoral fraud as covered in my last post, today I will focus exclusively on statistical anomalies in the 2020 Presidential race that at the very least raise questions and likely point to targeted election fraud.

1 – Incumbent loss anomaly. Donald Trump is the first incumbent President in 132 years since Grover Cleveland’s failed bid for re-election in 1888 to have increased his vote from his initial election and seemingly to still not win re-election. Whilst the Nixon and Reagan re-election landslides of 1972 and 1984 dwarf Trump’s 10 million increase in the popular vote since 2016, nonetheless an increase of a similar size was enough for George Bush to be reasonably comfortably re-elected in 2004.

2 – House of Representative results anomaly. The party whose candidate wins a Presidential election normally increases its representation in the House of Representatives thanks to the campaign momentum of the winning candidate at the top of the ticket. I’ve analysed the net House seat gains in each Presidential election since 1964 and the party winning the Presidency gains on average of net 16 House seats. Biden appears at this stage to be the 2020 winner however the Democrats are on track to lose a net of 12 House seats. This is a swing of -28 seats from the norm which is a huge statistical anomaly because normally a winning Presidential candidate has down ballot coattails that benefit House candidates for their party. This did not happen for Biden in 2020.

3 – Senate results anomaly. Anomalies even extend to the Senate where voting swings are less pronounced than the House due to the 6 year term and only 33% of Senate seats being up for re-election in a given Presidential election. Because so many Senate races involve incumbents who fundraise and campaign aggressively in addition to their party’s candidate at the top of the ticket, on average the number of votes cast for a Senate candidate of a party is more than the votes cast for the winning Presidential candidate of the same party. I have analysed the Senate voting patterns for 17 swing states since 1964 concentrating on the Senate races in states where the candidate for Senate is in the same party as the WINNING candidate for President. The numbers of races caught in this analysis ranges between 6 and 9 races per each Presidential election. The average vote differential between the Senate candidate and the winning Presidential candidate of the same party is 4.4% more votes for the Senate candidate over the Presidential candidate. The 2020 election bucks this trend with votes for Biden in the swing states exceeding his own party’s senate candidates votes by on average 2.5% (provisional results only of course). This is a statistically significant 7% swing which may not sound much but given Biden holds leads of 1% or less in four states (AZ, GA, WI, and PA), this differential is consequential. In Georgia, Biden polled 99,000 more votes than the Democrat Senate candidate in the normal two candidate Senate race in GA (a second Special Senate election was held for the other GA senate seat but it was a three way race). Sidney Powell (a Trump lawyer) estimates that, of those 99,000 excess Biden votes in GA, there were 65,000 votes solely for Biden and no other votes for any other candidate anywhere on the ballot. Biden’s current lead in GA is only 12,000.

SOURCE: All the election results were taken from Wikipedia which, for this subject matter, is very reliable. The spreadsheet I have made is too big and complex to post but is available upon request – indicate in the comments and I will find a way via David to get it to any interested party.

4 – Swing state anomalies versus Obama’s very strong 2008 performance. Biden’s leads in swing states are uneven and the difference seems to be who is in control of the voting procedures at the state level. Trump won comfortably in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina and Iowa and his leads in those states were barely dented overnight by the significant vote shifts in favour of Biden that occurred in the 11 other swing states Biden appears to have won.  Trump had sizable leads overturned in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona and then, in states like Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Hampshire where he was surprisingly close on election night, only to see it dramatically slip far away. Only in North Carolina did Trump cling on to a lead and go on to win despite the added Biden votes. I compared the Biden vote in all these swing states with the 2008 vote for Obama. The Obama 2008 vote has been adjusted for population to make for a more apples v apples comparison to reflect the 8.7% increase in the US total population since 2008. In the 11 swing states that saw late surges in Biden votes, Biden increased his vote over Obama’s adjusted 2008 vote by 2.6 million or 13% whereas in the other 5 states, Biden’s vote compared to Obama’s 2008 adjusted vote was down 667,000 or -5%. This is an almost 20% variance between battleground states, a result all the more remarkable given Obama clearly ran a powerful populist campaign barnstorming the country in 2008 with huge attendance at massive rallies with a palpable enthusiasm to elect a young charismatic first black President whereas Biden is a geriatric quintessential Washington insider with obvious cognitive impairment who ran a lackluster campaign with few appearances that were poorly attended. Trump’s campaign was the one with all the energy and enthusiasm that more closely matched Obama’s winning 2008 campaign and yet Biden managed to juice Obama’s big 2008 vote by 15% …. but only in just the right states! It defies belief. And why do you think that his vote versus Obama was down in the other 5 swing states (in almost all cases he was even down on Clinton’s vote)? Voter integrity laws and procedures in these Republican run states are more robust thus forcing even Democrat run counties to follow stricter balloting procedures. But you say what about Georgia with a GOP Governor and Secretary of State. Well, the Republican Governor Brian Kemp beat Stacy Abrahams by 50,000 votes in 2018 and she alleged voter suppression and never conceded and in order to appease her, Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger entered into a procedural Consent Decree that relaxed the Georgia absentee ballot rules for 2020 and made the auditing process in a recount so complex as to render an audit to be little more than a standard recount which is why the Georgia recount is now the subject of various lawsuits as it is not a full audit because it has no signature reconciliation component as Kemp and Raffensperger negotiated that away.

5 – Bellwether county anomaly. All western first world democratic countries have bellwether districts that election prognosticators look to during result counting as they have gone with the winning party in many elections. In the First Past the Post days in NZ it was the electorate of Eden in Auckland, in Australia it is still the electorate of Eden-Monaro in NSW south of Sydney. The UK has the bellwether constituency of Dartford in Kent and in Canada, the riding of Cambridge, Ontario is one of their bellwethers. In the US, because votes are almost always administered and counted at the county level, two counties have emerged as reliable harbingers of the winner Presidential candidate. They are Vigo County in Indiana encompassing the town of Terra Haute and Valencia County in New Mexico just south of Albuquerque. Vigo County has picked the winning President in every election since 1956 AND has only missed twice since 1896!  Valencia County’s winning streak extends to Eisenhower’s first victory in 1952. And yet strangely Trump won Vigo County in 2020 by a comfortable 56/41 margin or 15 points and he won Valencia County a slightly smaller 10 point margin 54/44!

6 – Thousands of precincts all reporting significant over vote in Michigan. Russell Ramsland of Allied Security Group, LLC of Dallas, TX swore an affidavit concerning a detailed audit his company did on voting machines in Texas in 2018. He wrote in detail of the many serious security inadequacies of the software and then examined the 2020 Presidential vote count in a number of counties in Michigan. He reported that over 3,000 precincts in the state of Michigan reported a vote count between 80 and 350% of registered voters. He lists a number of precincts in his report and in some cases a massive over vote. The vast majority of the precincts on the list were on or about 100%. The whole affidavit makes for interesting reading.

7 = Biden underperforms Obama in 80% of Wisconsin counties but hugely overperforms in just 5 counties. This anomaly was actually covered in my post last week but this time I have put what happened to the Biden vote in table form:

The 5 counties with the disproportionate vote for Biden encompass in order, north west of Milwaukee, outskirts of Minneapolis MN, Madison (a liberal college town and the state capital), eastern suburbs of Milwaukee and northern suburbs of Milwaukee. Obama’s and Clinton’s votes are distributed along historical Democrat strength patterns as was Trump’s vote for Republican areas in 2016 and 2020. Biden’s vote is well down across almost all the state and massively even unnaturally up in a few key urban strongholds.

8 = Wayne County, Michigan anomaly. On Tuesday attempts were made to certify the vote in Democrat heavy Wayne County in which Detroit Michigan sits. Initially the decision was deadlocked 2 -2 but after various online attacks, doxxing and threats on a Zoom call the two Republicans on the County Elections Board caved and certified. They have since reversed their decision and filed affidavits alleged intimidation and bullying tactics. One of the Democrats on the Board in his rant on Twitter to heavy his colleagues, uttered some inadvertent but important truths that shed light on yet another anomaly, that of the fact that in fully 71% of precincts in the county, the tally of absentee ballot of those who requested ballots and those who cast ballots was unable to be reconciled because the number of actual absentee ballots counted exceeded the number legally requested. Furthermore, 28% of ballots could not be verified because they have either been lost or destroyed! There is no doubt that Biden would carry a county like this but for the sake of voter integrity, election officials ought not certify until all ballots can be properly reconciled.

9 = Anomaly of hugely lopsided Biden votes added in minutes in the dead of night. This statistical anomaly was picked up in real time by an analyst awake in Switzerland at around 3am Central Standard Time (CST) of the morning of November 4th watching the results coming in for Wisconsin. He noticed Fox News’ election map of Wisconsin went from light red for Trump with a 77% likelihood for Trump to light blue for Biden with an 80% for Biden IN THE SPACE OF MERE MINUTES. He got suspicious of such a massive switch in such a short period of time and so he went to the New York Times minute by minute electronic update from the raw data feed supplied by Edmonds Polling of reported election results and observed this:

“For non-programmers, here is the translation:

At 3:37 AM CST, total votes were 3,018,212; Trump had 1,536,270 votes (50.9%); Biden 1,427,614 votes (47.3%); other candidates 54,328 votes (1.8%).

At 3:42 AM CST, total votes were 3,186,598; Trump had 1,561,433 votes (49.0%); Biden 1,570,993 votes (49.3%); other candidates 54,172 votes (1.7%).

Total increase in Trump votes in 5 minutes: 25,163 (1.64%).

Total increase in Biden votes in 5 minutes: 143,379 (10.04%).

Before the Biden vote dump, both candidates’ votes were increasing at about the same rate, 1.64% per 5 minutes. So, the “legitimate” Biden vote increase is likely around 23,400 votes. The remaining 119,979 votes are fake.

Here is his analysis of the same trend in Michigan

“At 5:32 AM CST on November 4, total votes were 4,574,555; Trump had 2,346,747 votes (51.3%); Biden 2,150,041 votes (47.0%); other candidates 77,767 votes (1.7%).

Then, still at 5:32 AM CST, only five seconds later than the prior reading, total votes were 4,724,327; Trump had 2,352,715 votes (49.8%); Biden 2,291,299 votes (48.5%); other candidates 80,313 votes (1.7%). In that brief five-second period, Trump’s vote total increased by 5,968 (0.25%) while Biden’s vote total increased by 141,258 (6.57%)! Folks, that is a clear, fraudulent electronic “ballot dump” for Biden. I calculate that this fraud created about 135,883 fake votes for Basement Joe.

The count kept uneventfully grinding on to 6 AM CST, where at 6:03 AM total votes were 4,752,966, Trump votes were 2,366,977 (49.8%), Biden votes were 2,309,941 (48.6%). Ballots (presumably real paper ballots) had been counted at the rate of about 1,000 ballots per minute for the preceding half-hour, with Trump votes having a slight edge over Biden votes during the counting.

Then between 6:03 and 6:14 AM CST, more than 113,000 “votes” were counted, at an average rate of 9,800 ballots per minute. Total votes increased sharply to 4,866,279. Trump votes were 2,403,942 (49.6%), an increase of 36,965 votes (8.16% increase). Biden votes were 2,379,610 (48.9%), an increase of 69,699 votes (30.17% increase). Unlike the previous half-hour of counting, this deluge produced almost two Biden votes for every Trump vote counted.

Of those 113K total votes, 40K showed up in the last two minutes – between 6:12 and 6:14 AM. In two minutes, Trump gained 5,665 votes; Biden gained 29,588 votes. That’s about 5.2 Biden votes for every Trump vote. Because paper ballots simply cannot be fed into the ballot boxes that quickly, I consider this interval to also be electronic vote fraud, adding about 24,037 fake votes to Biden.

Then the ballot-counting quieted down and returned to “normal,” with votes for Trump and Biden about equal, until just before 8 AM, when another sudden burst of 107,700 heavily-Biden votes – 41,914 for Trump, 65,786 for Biden – erased Trump’s lead and tied the candidates at 49.2% each of the total votes. My total count for electronic fraudulent Biden ballots from this 2-hour, 30-minute period is 159,920”

10 – Anomalous turnouts in Wisconsin and Minnesota

Minnesota’s turnout average for the last 3 elections was 76% and in 2020 it was a full 13% higher. In Wisconsin, the average was 71% last 3 elections, so the 2020 increase was a whopping 18%. The 2020 turnout percentages in WI and MN are fully 9% higher than NZ’s highest turnout election in the last 5 (2017) and is only 3% lower than the average 92% rate in Australia that has compulsory voting! But perhaps the most telling comparison is with the GOP controlled battleground states that went for Trump and where no anomalies have arisen. Florida averaged 74% last 3 elections and at 75% in 2020 was only 1% higher. Ohio averaged 65% and in 2020 was 67% so only 2% higher. The average increase in turnout across PA, WI and MN was 14% and the average for FL and OH was 1.5% or a 9 times higher turnout average. Are there any statisticians out there that can calculate the odds of this huge voter turnout in these key swing states being a natural and normal trend?

Data for Florida is from here, 2020 turnout here, historical turnouts here and Pennsylvania here:

11 – Pennsylvania’s mail in ballot anomaly. Democrats will say that Trump lost Pennsylvania because the mail in ballots went so heavily to Biden. Trump won in-person voting in PA 70/30 and had a 900,000 vote lead on election night but as the night wore on and mail in ballots were counted, his lead was whittled away and over the next week, he ended up being 40,000 votes behind. The trouble is that when you look at the margin that Biden beat Trump in the mail in ballots broken down by each county, the margin at which Biden won was at or around 40% in each county. That defies logic in that Biden would be expected to lead Trump strongly in the Democrat stronghold counties and lead less strongly or trail Trump in the Republican stronghold counties, much as was the pattern with the in-person voting on election day. This result is statistically impossible and has never been replicated anywhere. As an examination of another state’s mail in ballot ratio, the authors took Arkansas as a state that is not a battleground state. In that state, you see fluctuations of the Trump-Biden mail in ballot count from a 2% Biden lead to a 40% Biden lead depending on the demographics of the county and the overall average was a 25% lead. There is no denying Biden did stronger with those mailing in ballots but a 40% lead in rural Pennsylvania is unheard of as is the uniform identical lead across EVERY COUNTY!

12 – Michigan counties anomalies. MIT PhD engineer Dr. Shiva  Ayyaddurai, did an interesting analysis of the Biden Trump split in 3 Michigan counties. He plotted the margin of victory of Trump over Biden on the x axis across precincts on the Y axis with the precincts ranked from left to right by the strength of the historical generic Republican vote weakest to strongest. When he did the analysis in Macomb County Michigan he saw that in the strongest Democrat precincts, the pattern remains the same but as the precincts became stronger and stronger for Republicans, the vote margin between Trump and Biden INCREASES in a direct linear line and this curious statistical anomaly happened identically for the election day vote and the early vote – the trend line is illustrated by the orange lines. The exact same trend line was observed in Kent and Oakland Counties (only McComb is shown but the others are virtually identical), again identical for election day and early voting. No real vote turns out like this smooth and linear in its progression nor would you expect a margin of Biden over Trump to get bigger the more conservative the precinct and so he hypothesises that a vote switching algorithm is the only logical way to explain such a statistical anomaly.  

13 = Same anomaly occurs in Wisconsin. Using Dr Ayyaduria’s analytical technique, a Gateway Pundit data analyst compared Dane County results which have the same flat line and normal distribution

and yet 20 miles away in Milwaukee County, the same anomalous trend line found in some Michigan counties are found there.

14 – Virginia has similar ballot count anomalies. Virginia is another state that electronically posted ballot counts through the night of November 3^rd which this analysis shows that batch after batch in a perfect 55/45 Biden/Trump split. No large series of separate mail in ballot batches would end up with identical partisan splits time and time again. The statistical likelihood is astronomical. One statistician said it was like Biden winning a coin toss 100 times in a row! Once again, the only logical conclusion is that the count must have been manipulated.

15 = Mail in ballot rejection rates in 2020 defy historical norms. Mail in ballots have been a feature of the US political landscape in various states for a number of election cycles. For obvious reasons they are subject to some rejection as voters fail to validate the ballot with a signature on the envelope or the signature submitted does not reflect the signature held on file at the time of registration. In 2016, mail in ballot rejection rates were around on average 1% and in some states as high as 6%. In Georgia they were over 6% in 2016 and yet an unbelievably small 0.2% in 2020. During the 2020 primary season, being the first voting to take place after some states switched to the mass mailing of ballots to ALL voters on the roll as opposed to posting only to voters who specifically requested a mail in ballot. In New York state during their primary in June this year, a whopping 20% of mail in ballots were rejected primarily because of the confusion and errors in sending ballots to not fully accurate voter rolls. Thus, it came as a big surprise to observers to see the rejection rate of mail in ballots in the swing states that Trump appears to have lost to have minute rejection rates of 0.3%. This flies in the face of the statistical experience of prior Presidential elections and the chaos seen only months ago with mass mail in ballots being sent during the spring/summer primary elections. A partial explanation is that the cure rate of flawed ballots is higher but that is because state and county courts have arbitrarily expanded the time allowed to cure defective mail in ballots from the usual statutory 3 days to as long as 8 additional days without any amendment of the relevant statutes by state legislatures who alone are tasked in the US Constitution with the job of setting election rules. This issue is the subject of some of the Trump campaign lawsuits.

CONCLUSION. These various statistical patterns raise some serious concerns. The current uncertified election results sees a seemingly defeated Donald Trump defy a number of statistical conventions going back many decades over dozens of Presidential elections. The various anomalies unearthed by various people point to irregularities in the vote that should be investigated and litigated to the highest level possible to ensure widespread integrity in the voting system. Many criticise the Trump team for their efforts and yet ask yourself this, were the roles reversed we all know the Democrats would litigate and demand full examination of any and all irregularities and I would support them in that quest, again so that people of all political persuasions can know that elections in the US are fair and accurate. If all these investigations and lawsuits unearth anomalies that are insufficient to reverse any of the leads Biden currently holds in key states, counter to the fevered speculations of some of the left, I believe Trump will concede and do so with grace. But if the allegations made (and there are very many I have not gone over in my two posts including those made at the explosive press conference yesterday) are true, then we have the most existential political crisis the US has faced probably since the Civil War and the possible remedies and outcomes thereafter do not bear thinking about.

Stuff reports:

Former finance minister Steven Joyce has thrown his weight behind calls for the Government to rein in the Reserve Bank.

Joyce pushed back against criticism from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that such interventions were economically reckless and said the Government had a right to let the Reserve Bank know when it was acting out of turn.

“It’s not true the Reserve Bank is the sole arbiter of economic policy in New Zealand,” Joyce said.

He said the Government should instead help the bank prop up economic growth by easing up on minimum wage increases and things like additional sick leave.

The independence of the Reserve Bank is mainly around the setting of interest rates, not around everything it does.

The ODT reports:

Newly released concept design images of the new Dunedin Hospital have given another glimpse of what the $1.4 billion project may finally look like.

Health Minister Andrew Little revealed the designs on Thursday and said the drawings were indicative only, with changes likely, especially to the facade.

“Concept design approval and the release of a tender for early contractor engagement are scheduled for next week,” he said.

Ardern’s promise in the 2017 campaign was for construction to have started by 2020. Instead they are not even past the concept stage! They won’t even be putting it out to tender until late 2021, so actual construction won’t start until 2022 or 2023.

Stuff reports:

Five Labour-aligned politicians have withdrawn plans to oust a community board chairwoman following a strong public backlash.

The actions of the five People’s Choice members of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote board – city councillors Jake McLellan​ and Yani Johanson, Michelle Lomax, Sunita Gautam and Jackie Simons​ – to unseat Alexandra Davids have been widely criticised.

Community leaders accused them of playing “bad politics” and caring only about “power and control”. Their behaviour was described as “despicable” and on Wednesday they were warned of the consequences their actions would have at the next election.

It is good they have backed down, but the episode has exposed that what motivates them is not community service, but indeed power and control. There has been no question of the competence of Ms Davids. Her only crime was not to be a paid up member of the Labour Party. The moment they got a majority through a by-election, they moved to take control.

It is a good reminder of why local body politicians who pledge loyalty to party ahead of council should be avoided.

The New Conservatives announced:

After a thorough and robust review of the party leadership by the New Conservative Board, we have come to the difficult decision to look for a fresh approach to the leadership of New Conservative and have relieved Leighton Baker of the leadership of the party at this time. 

Elliot Ikilei will step into the position of Leader and Victoria O’Brien into Deputy Leader effective immediately. We welcome them to their new roles and know that they both have strong support within the party and huge respect outside the party. They both have what it takes to lead us through the next phase of our journey.

I’m not surprised by this. In fact I’ve done a number of presentations in the last year on the prognosis for various political parties and have often said I thought the New Conservatives would do better with Elliot. Leighton Baker has been a very diligent servant of the party, but is not good at getting cut through. Ikilei does get cut through.

So it will be interesting to see how they do with new leadership. However their chances are still not great as lifting their vote to 5% would be a huge task.

The US has now had over 250,000 people die from Covid-19. I’ve just looked through the stats for the seven most affected OECD countries and it is interesting the difference in additional deaths in the last four months.

This is the increase in deaths from 17 July to 17 November for each country:

1. US 83%
2. France 53%
3. Belgium 51%
4. Spain 47%
5. Italy 33%
6. UK 17%
7. Sweden 11%

The US continues to be the country that has experienced the largest increase in deaths per capita in the last four months. France and Belgium are pretty terrible also though.

Radio NZ reports:

Even the best-case scenarios suggest a minimum sea level rise of 50 centimetres by the end of the 21st century. It could be as much as three metres.

As always I turn to the IPCC as the consensus on the science. Not because it is necessarily right, but it is the most authoritative source. Their 2018 report on sea level rise (page 277) shows that the best case scenario for business as usual is 31 cms, and as low as 15 cms under different policy scenarios. It is simply wrong to say the best case scenario is 50 cms. It is between 15 and 31 cms.

The assertion it could be as much as three metres is also flawed. You can’t say it is wrong because I could assert that a large meteor could hit the planet in 2025 and it could happen.

But how does the three metres used by Radio NZ compared to the IPCC. What is their worst case scenario for business as usual? It is 110 cms, not 300 cms.

So Radio NZ should apologise for misrepresenting the scientific consensus.

A lot of criticism of this Herald headline. Most readers would take that to mean Trump is or was planning to use nuclear weapons.

Instead it is a reference to a possible US attack using conventional weapons on an Iranian nuclear facility. Hugely different.

Matt Nippert reports:

Auckland Council interest rate hedging swaps have accumulated $2.74 billion in unrealised losses and fixed the cost of its $10b in borrowings at double current market rates, documents show.

Incredible, and still no one is willing to apologise or be held accountable.

“Auckland Council’s Treasury Management Steering Group includes a PWC partner and other private sector experts in debt management and investment policy. Its policy reflects that of other large council and corporate entities and is regarded as good practice,” the spokesperson said.

If losing $2.7 billion is regarded by the Council as good practice, I’d hate to see what they regard as poor practice

Newsroom reports:

Not every Pike family feels the same.

Marion Curtin has spoken out reluctantly and occasionally – mainly, she says, to correct the record. The Christchurch retiree, whose son Richard Holling died at Pike River, is appalled re-entry went ahead.

“To me it was politically motivated before the previous election,” she says. “I objected to my son’s death being used as a political ploy.”

She backs the National Government’s “insight and knowledge” about Pike River. Having endured the Canterbury earthquakes, she says the millions of dollars spent on re-entry could have had a better use.

“I have never been shown or told anything that justified re-entry.”

Curtin can’t wrap her head around the idea of justice for Pike River. “Justice for what? There was an explosion in a coal mine.” It was an accident, she says, and nobody knows for sure what happened. Everybody involved, even company management, has suffered, she says.

“If anyone can prove to me that somebody in that mine at the time lit a match or did something that was blatantly stupid that caused the explosion then I would feel that it was a deliberate act. But if it was, that person has already paid with their life so what else do you want?”

The notion that the reentry will lead to some evidence that would be significant has always been farcical. It is almost certain the $50 million spent will result in no bodies found and no useful evidence.