Former AG Barr suggested it was not virtuous to investigate your political opponent. That is rubbish! It is incumbent on the righteous to be on the lookout for significant evil, and to root out this evil, before it takes down society as a whole. If anyone exhibits corruption, he must be considered fair game, before the persons' corruption metastasizes, and brings down all of society. America is at the cusp of being brought down by evil, as seen in the unprecedented levels of voter fraud, as well as the courts’ covering for it, or refusing to act against it - in a coordinated way.

Patmore Douglas 12/25/2020 8:19:00 PM


It is one thing to say how Pennsylvania (and each of the swing states) conduct elections to choose local politicians has little bearing on Texas and other states; it is another thing to say if a state contributes to the choosing of the President of the United States in unlawful, highly unscrupulous ways, this has no bearing on other states. The choosing of the President of the United States (the most impactful politician on the whole nation by far), arguably affects every man, woman, and child in every state. Also, what happens when a state becomes a one-party state that is overrun by corruption? Can’t other states intervene, to at least have the federal courts reestablish fairness in the state’s elections, per the requirements of the U.S. constitution? Or are we supposed to kiss that state goodbye to corruption? If we cannot get justice from the courts on the most crucial issues, then what good are they?

Patmore Douglas 12/12/2020 8:40:00 AM


I hope the U.S. Supreme court doesn't buy the argument that justifiably disqualifying an election in a state or region, disenfranchises voters. That is the argument that keeps voter fraud alive. Voter fraud in fact disenfranchises legitimate votes, and empowers illegitimate votes.

Being intolerant of voter fraud, deprives it of oxygen to survive, and makes for fairer elections: rewarding and protecting legitimate votes. In too many Democrat regions, voter fraud is kept alive by the courts, using the argument that punishing voter fraud, disenfranchises voters. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to put an end to this, by sending a message that voter fraud, particularly as big as we have seen in this election, will not be tolerated.

Patmore Douglas 12/10/2020 8:47:00 PM


On the one hand, some people would argue that the Left are segregationists, advancing safe spaces, cultural appropriation edicts, etc. But the Left aren't that sophisticated. The Left are little more than impetuous children, who make up rules to justify them doing things they want to do. Often times these rules are contradictory, because they are not based on principled positions.

When the Left want something, they go after it, and eliminate the competition by spouting reasonings against them, that often time contradict reasonings they made in their past. For example, if the Left want to displace white males from certain positions of power, they advance their doctrine of diversity, which frames non-white males as victims of past discrimination. This gives the Left “moral superiority” on the subject, and political capital to advance their cause. The Left then just ram down their agenda through society, with very little opposition. When people challenge the merits of their actions, they simply advance reasonings that they are racists or white supremacists.

What the Left are doing in the way of their doctrine of diversity, is actually discriminatory, because any advancement of an individual in society that is not based on merit, is inherently discriminatory. The Left however don’t care: as long as they get their way. So you have the situation where the Left push for discrimination against a certain section of the population, giving justifications (like White Democrats gave justifications for discriminating against Blacks in the South during the periods of Democrat White Supremacy, and Democrat Jim Crow laws), yet they state repeatedly that they are against bigotry.

Patmore Douglas 11/27/2020 10:58:00 PM


I like this video, it brings to mind the following:

“Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.” – James Wilson, Of the Study of the Law in the United States, 1790

licentiousness:

noun

a throwing off of sexual restraint; lewd character or behavior:

wanton disregard or transgression of laws, rules, or moral norms:

The above is the mission of the LGBT community in America and the West, in the name tolerance. The Left are evil, seen not by their words, but by their deeds – the true test of the righteousness of an individual or entity. Christians should be adhering to God’s standard of morality, not the Left’s. The Left are not more evolved than God, just deceitful. Do not allow the Left to teach society what is right from wrong, because doing so, is leading us to situations like this. We need to kick the Left out of control of our schools, as it is leading to not only political indoctrination, but also moral subversion.

Matthew 5:14-16

14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

Christians must argue the moral stance of God, in ways that make sense to the rational mind. Adhering to the natural order of our world, seen in natural law, as well as God’s Bible, leads to richer and more fulfilling lives. The more we deviate from natural / God’s law, the more individuals suffer from physical and psychological disease. Also, the more we suffer from societal decay. Cite the studies that prove this, and counter the destructive message by the Left, which pose as liberty and freedom, but which in fact ensnares people into self-destructive behavior, and despair.

Patmore Douglas 11/26/2020 5:45:00 PM


Part of what I would do if I was on the Trump legal team, is for each county or state voter roll, I would call up a random sampling of voters, and ask them:

1) Did they have unusual experiences voting?

2) How did you vote? 

3) Etc. 

I would then look for patterns of disenfranchisement; discrepancies between the postmortem evaluation I’m now conducting, and the actual outcome of the election; as well as other patterns of voter fraud. As part of my analysis of the data, I would consider raising questions like the following:

a) Was a significant amount of people called, no longer living in the state, even though there are ballots on record for them?

b) Was a disproportionately high number of Republicans who mailed in ballots, not recorded as having sent in their ballots, even though they claimed they did?

c) Etc.

I would also create a tool that allows the Trump team to create affidavits online. I would create affidavits for those willing to sign them physically or online – the latter in the presence of notary publics who can verify the signers, and witness their signatures, also online.

I would then take all the above statistical data showing significant anomalies in a range of areas, backed up by affidavits, and try to make my cases in court.

One other thing: patterns that are seen across counties and states, point to highly probable systemic fraud, as well as central planning.

Patmore Douglas 11/21/2020 7:18:00 PM


What is a strong proof of widespread voter fraud? A confluence of high improbabilities, all favoring a single candidate. If you had a handful of improbable events, (roughly) evenly distributed between presidential candidates Trump and Biden, you could dismiss these events as happening according to chance: however, a pile of high improbability events, all favoring a particular candidate, shows with very little doubt, voter fraud has taken place, in a deliberate, coordinated way.

Patmore Douglas 11/21/2020 7:17:00 PM


It is rubbish to say that the founding fathers rated life above liberty. If the founding fathers thought the preservation of life was more important than liberty, the US would have never laid down its men's lives in wars, for the sake of preserving its citizens' liberty. Also the founding fathers' philosophy came from Christianity, where humanity's savior, Jesus Christ, laid down his life, so that all may be free.

Freedom is a greater virtue than life, because when we pursue freedom, we get the greatest quality of life. Only people who are ignorant and are tyrants, push the idea that life is more important than liberty: because doing so, sooner or later, leads to tyranny.

Patmore Douglas 11/19/2020 7:42:00 AM


If a person is protected from a disease via a vaccination, it should be sufficient to have the person who is afraid of the disease, voluntarily take the vaccination for his protection. It should not be regarded as being necessary for others to take the vaccination, particularly when they are from a demographic, that has a 99%+ survival rate. The idea that the government can suspend people’s rights and liberties, under circumstances in which they have done nothing indisputably wrong, should be found repugnant and unconstitutional to the courts. Freedom is the highest virtue in the American constitution – not life. (Certainly not a life without liberty).

The following is taken from this article:

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” – John Adams, 1765

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.” – James Wilson, Of the Study of the Law in the United States, 1790

“In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example … of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.” – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792

The courts should rule, that unless the state establishes that a particular person is indisputably a risk to the general public (not a small subset of the public) his actions and rights cannot be abridged (for more than the limited time the government needs to determine the person’s risk.) No room should be given for the government to use a health emergency, to suspend individual rights on a broad scale, and establish tyrannical control. States must manage health emergencies, where preserving individual liberties on a broad scale, is preeminent, as it does its best to save lives.

Patmore Douglas 11/16/2020 4:37:00 AM


I think the Democrats have been using polls as a cover for voter fraud. In Democrat districts, Democrats use polls to have people expect a certain candidate will win by a certain amount, and voter fraud delivers on what the polls predict. I believe this is what happened in 2018, and is why the polls seemed largely correct.

I believe if the opposing candidate wins in a blowout fashion, it takes the Democrats' voter fraud operations by surprise, and Democrats desperately have to come up with an unanticipated amount of fake votes from a slew of places, to compensate. I believe Democrats knew that President Trump would win by huge margins, so they came up with mass mail-ins, as an important means to provide cover for the huge amount of voter fraud they would have to do. I believe in the case of President Trump, the Left's rules changed a bit, and they used polls to suppress Trump voters, and to provide cover to them having Biden winning by massive voter fraud. President Trump caused such a disruption, Democrats could not use polls in the fashion they normally did, and you had the poll inaccuracies and chaos we have seen.

I think fraud investigators should be able to do a post-mortem exam, and see what their models predict the outcome of what the elections in districts should be, by calling up random samples of people; then compare the actual results for those districts, to get a sense of just how bad voter fraud may have been from district to district, in various states. I believe this could be used as a tool to gauge possible voter fraud, and to provide evidence in court.

Patmore Douglas 11/10/2020 3:52:00 PM

<>