Pope calls for sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic of Iran after receiving a request from an ayatollah

The Pope has decided to do Iran’s bidding, after Ayatollah Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad “wrote to Pope Francis in mid-March appealing to him help end U.S. sanctions on Iran.” In response, “Pope Francis called for relaxed international sanctions during his Easter message.” Yet more money flowing into Iran means more murder, more threats to the region, and more jihad terror internationally. Like others of similar mind who have called for the U.S. to ease sanctions, the Pope believes that Iran will prioritize funds for domestic purposes during the coronavirus pandemic. Not so. It should be well known by now that the Iranian regime cannot be trusted to act for the benefit of its own people. The country used $1,700,000,000 Obama gave it to finance jihad terrorists, and was lying all along about its nuclear weapons cache in order to secure and maintain the Iran deal. It was also recently found to be diverting funds away from helping its citizens to fund its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. There is no shortage on trickery from Iran and no shortage of complicity from infidels in aiding this jihadist regime.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/04/pope-calls-for-sanctions-relief-for-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-after-receiving-a-request-from-an-ayatollah

>>8910389

Not fair to complain unless you are part of the solution. So with that in mind perhaps you should give baking a go, using the method you just prescribed. Otherwise everyone has their own way of doing things. Unless there are things up there that are not sauced, not sure what your problem is.. Those things up there allow anons to do further research if they are so inclined to do so.

Pa. removes more than 200 deaths from official coronavirus count as questions mount about reporting process, data accuracy

HARRISBURG — Twice in the last week, Pennsylvania’s official COVID-19 death count spiked. Then, on Thursday, the number plummeted. Officials from the state Department of Health provided several justifications for the fluctuations, citing technical issues, lengthy investigations, and the addition of “probable” deaths — those considered to be caused by the coronavirus but without confirmation from a test. But facing mounting questions about the accuracy of the count, officials on Thursday removed more than 200 probable deaths from the tally, further complicating the state’s accounting of the pandemic. Health Secretary Rachel Levine said the change was made in an effort to be transparent. “We realize that this category can be confusing, since it does change over time,” Levine said. “At times, there are things we need to review, and potentially revisit the way the data is being analyzed,” she said. “And this is one of those times.”

The coronavirus surge in Pennsylvania has posed major technical challenges for the Health Department, the clearinghouse for the data critical to make decisions about what policies to implement to keep people safe. In addition to inconsistencies around death counts, the department has struggled to attain complete and accurate demographic data for positive patients, as well as those who have been tested. At the same time, the state’s coroners — tasked with investigating suspicious deaths — have grown increasingly frustrated by the Health Department’s reluctance to seek their help. Some have said the department’s numbers did not match what coroners were seeing. Those concerns caught the attention of State Sen. Judy Ward (R., Blair), who is advocating for a bill that would give coroners a bigger role in the crisis. “There’s a discrepancy in the numbers,” Charles E. Kiessling Jr., president of the Pennsylvania Coroners Association and coroner in Lycoming County, said Thursday. “I’m not saying there’s something going on…. I’m not a conspiracy theory guy. But accuracy is important.” It’s a matter of public safety, Kiessling said.

The confusion began Sunday, when Pennsylvania raised its coronavirus death toll to 1,112 — an increase of 276 overnight. On Tuesday, the department reported another spike, from 1,204 to 1,564 deaths. In both cases, Levine said the surges reflected deaths that occurred days, even weeks, in the past. “These deaths did not happen overnight,” Levine said Sunday. The jump that day, first blamed on a computer glitch, was explained as a “reconciliation” of multiple reporting systems and the “culmination of that data-validating effort.” Levine also said the “significant increase” included “probable positive” COVID-19 deaths, as well as deaths confirmed with a test. On Tuesday, Levine reported 300 probable deaths in the day’s count but appeared to indicate the situation was new. “We will now be reporting probable deaths related to COVID-19 in addition to confirmed deaths,” she said. That same day, department spokesperson Nate Wardle told Spotlight PA some probable deaths had been included in the count for at least a week or maybe longer. Then, on Wednesday, Wardle backtracked, saying that although probable deaths had been added to the reporting systems as of April 13, the day before federal guidance changed, they weren’t included in the state’s official count until Tuesday. Wardle added that despite Levine’s public comments, none of the deaths reported Sunday were considered probable, meaning the first surge was due almost entirely to lags in reporting.

https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/spl/pennsylvania-death-count-changes-confusion-coroanvirus-20200423.html

>>8910590

Which is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt, by saying "you should bake using your prescribed method". Sometimes a theory sounds perfectly logical until you put in practice.

28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections

Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed – and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency’s survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. These questions are particularly relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing states across the country to rapidly expand vote-by-mail operations in an election year. Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Ron Wyden have proposed the Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act of 2020, a bill that would allow every eligible voter the opportunity to vote by mail, regardless of state laws governing mail-in ballots.

A significant increase in mail-in voting this fall could greatly incentivize “ballot harvesting,” where third parties collect mail-in ballots on behalf of voters and deliver them to election officials. There’s long been a consensus that such a practice incentivizes fraud, and ballot harvesting is illegal in most of the country. Public debate over the issue has intensified in recent years after a GOP operative in North Carolina was indicted for crimes related to ballot harvesting in 2018. That same election cycle California legalized ballot harvesting, and observers say the practice played a key role in ousting several Republican congressmen in Orange County in 2018, a longstanding GOP stronghold in a state that has become very liberal in recent decades. The fact that millions of unused mail-in ballots are floating around in every election cycle “is not a secret type data here – it's sitting there on the Internet, and you're paying for the server cost,” notes Logan Churchwell, a spokesman for PILF. “So what do people that really focus on the election process do about that? They go into ballot harvesting. If there's so many ballots out there in the wind unaccounted for by election officials, surely some manpower could be dedicated to go bring them in. And that's another part of the system where you have weaknesses and risk.”

To illustrate the risk, Churchwell notes that in 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by garnering over 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump. But nearly 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016, more than twice her margin in the popular vote. The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted – using methods that may or may not be legal – is great. There’s little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud. A 2012 report in The New York Times noted that voter fraud involving mail-in ballots “is vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention, election administrators say. In Florida, absentee-ballot scandals seem to arrive like clockwork around election time.” According to a Wall Street Journal report on voter exploitation in Hispanic communities in Texas, mail-in ballots have “spawned a mini-industry of consultants who get out the absentee vote, sometimes using questionable techniques.” Poor, elderly, and minority communities are most likely to be preyed upon by so-called ballot “brokers.” Concerns about fraud in mail-in ballots were serious enough that a 2008 report produced by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project recommended that states “restrict or abolish on-demand absentee voting in favor of in-person early voting.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/24/28_million_mail-in_ballots_went_missing_in_last_four_elections_143033.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20081120004337/http:/www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/july01/July01_VTP_Voting_Report_Entire.pdf