Inside the FirstNet Reveal: Battlefield Examples in Florida, Wisconsin, and Texas

Topic: Elections

On Monday, just two days before the “Lindell Event” tipped off in Springfield, Missouri, The Gateway Pundit ran a guest post authored by David and Erin Clements that outlined the research of Sophie Anderson and Charles Bernardin proposing a nationwide emergency network called FirstNet is the tool used to preempt existing cellular networks and alter election results, with access all the way to precinct level election infrastructure.

It is not surprising the FirstNet coverage map, particularly in the areas where the is no coverage, aligns with my much-circulated map highlighting counties with clearly disparate 2020 election results, and identifying which ones had normal election trends or outcomes, suggesting a lack of manipulation at the county, and therefore, precinct levels.  Notice how the FirstNet network is present on interstate and state highway systems, and the counties away from those highways are most likely to reflect “clear” election trends (visible on the second graphic below).

This reveal explains exactly why some counties have a seemingly random and incredibly high spike in votes that defies all previously known growth patterns seen by other Democrat candidates, even extremely popular ones like Barack Obama in his 2008 campaign.  Counties, of course, receive their votes from precincts (even in counties with large voting centers, voters are organized by precinct), and when an analyst like yours truly identifies a county that is clearly bloated by thousands, or even tens of thousands, of votes, I begin looking at the precinct level data to find exactly where those votes are.

One type of election or voter fraud occurs by traditional ballot stuffing.  With expanded mail-in voting and the promotion of ballot harvesting, the Democrat vote snatchers build their foundation of votes by using the early voting window to pile up as many ballots as possible before resorting to any drastic measures, like electronic vote manipulation.  Some states don’t have enough mail-in ballots recorded to justify the number of clearly fraudulent votes tallied in 2020, such as Texas.

It is clear that those behind the 2020 election grab planned to elaborate detail in an attempt to peg trends, shifts, and margins in various key counties, excepting perhaps the smallest counties, to determine what numbers must be obtained, and then the various mechanisms of election interference are decided.  For instance, if you need to sell the electorate on the fraudulent claim that Pennsylvania was a left-drifting state in the 2020 election, despite a 21:1 registration ratio favoring the Republican Party during Trump’s term, it would be most believable if Ohio and West Virginia also swung left from 2016, which they did, albeit fraudulently.  If correct, this FirstNet reveal connects dots as to where 5, 10, or 20 thousand extra votes in the losing column come from to negate Trump’s massive vote gains to give the impression that interior Pennsylvania was less “Trumpy” than when he first won it.

I believe Trump won three states targeted for a steal in 2020.  They are North Carolina, Texas, and Florida.  Trump winning North Carolina and Florida required Georgia and Arizona as replacements.  My methodology suggests Florida was targeted in the Space Coast, Gulf Coast, and throughout the interior of the state, and that Miami-Dade County was left to run as close to organic as a large county could be in that corrupt quasi-election.

Here is what the planners missed:

Above, my precinct choropleth of Miami-Dade County shows clean trends throughout nearly the entirety of the county, which swung to within 7.3% of going to Donald Trump in 2020, with Biden losing votes from Clinton.  Miami-Dade is the cleanest county in the U.S. with more than 100,000 votes cast in the presidential election.