Good Dog

GOD🙏 LOVE ❤️ PEACE 🕊 America Land of the free because of the brave

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@DonTracyForIL

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@Unite4Freedom I love this exceptionally well done tribute ❤️🔥

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Exactly.

If America can verify who boards a plane, opens a bank account, crosses a border, or enters a federal building, then America can verify who is eligible to cast a ballot.

This is not complicated. It is political will.

Election security is national security. Without valid elections, every other issue becomes downstream of a broken system.

No excuses!

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@ToWhom444 @realJoeHoft Exactly

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@KingofSleaze6 @TheSCIF Yup!

We’ve documented it in over 35 states.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@JenLove1010 @TheSCIF In Illinois one is coming very soon…

https://t.co/5rPUGobpen

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@TheSCIF Great timing…this is a premier example of Vote Tampering.

Video was taken in May 2022 in Illinois.

If you want a deeper understanding, here you go.

Please like and follow!
More to come.

[Unite4Freedom @Unite4Freedom]

https://t.co/CULtVTQnro

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Illinois voters deserve answers.

The new Illinois Vote Tampering Report shows voter history records allegedly changing after certification — voters marked as voted, then not voted; voters marked as not voted, then voted; and entire voter records disappearing between official snapshots.

That is not a “clerical issue.”

That is the public record moving after the election is supposed to be final.

Every voter — left, right, or independent — should demand one thing:

Preserve the records. Release the audit logs. Prove the count.

Because confidence is not built by silence.

It is built by verification.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@Purpl_Squirrel @Unite4Freedom The level of professional negligence happening at the ILSBE, the management of these databases is shocking.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

I had a DNC operator confess to me that they spent over 20 years at the midterm and presidential elections getting paid to go around to all the local bars in Chicago and pick up alcoholics, drunks and take them to the polling places to vote and then bring them back to the bar and buy them drinks for the rest of the afternoon.

It’s not an uncommon practice.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@drabek370296 @Unite4Freedom How much longer will the gaslight continue?

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Illinois, we have a serious problem.

After the 2024 election was certified, U4F compared two official Illinois voter-history snapshots.

They found 254,027 post-certification changes to records tied to the 2024 federal election.

That includes:

109,976 voters who were listed as having voted — later changed to NOT voted.

15,119 voters who were listed as NOT voting — later changed to voted.

111,268 voters who existed in the first snapshot — missing from the second.

17,664 voters with voting history who appeared later — but did not exist in the first snapshot.

And this is not isolated.

2022 showed 288,447 changes.

2020 showed 465,108 changes.

So the question is simple:

If Illinois certified these elections as accurate, why did the records keep changing after certification?

Either the records were not accurate when certified, or they were changed afterward.

There is no third option.

Illinois voters deserve answers:

Who changed the records?

Who authorized it?

Where are the audit logs?

What exactly did Illinois certify?

Election records should not be moving targets.

Certification without proof is not trust.

Trust requires verification.

Real voters. Real votes. Real counts. Real proof.

Read the reports at https://t.co/jGcN9ZNduW.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

This is exactly why election transparency matters.

When turnout patterns move far outside historical norms, the answer cannot simply be, “nothing to see here.”

Maybe there is an explanation.

Maybe there were rule changes.
Maybe there was unusual voter mobilization.
Maybe there were ballot-access changes, contested races, demographic shifts, or reporting differences.

But that is the point:

The public should not have to guess.

If South Carolina’s mid-term primary turnout truly exceeded presidential primary benchmarks and dramatically outpaced prior mid-term baselines, then every part of that process should be fully explainable, fully documented, and fully auditable.

That means:

Where did the ballots come from?

How many were early votes, absentee ballots, election-day ballots, provisionals, and challenged ballots?

How many voters were credited with voting?

Do the ballots cast reconcile to voter history?

Do the precinct totals reconcile to county and state totals?

Were there late adjustments?

Were there duplicate records, missing voter IDs, inactive voters, registration anomalies, or unexplained ballot-count changes?

This is not about emotion.

This is not about assuming an outcome.

This is about whether the records can prove the election was valid.

When the numbers appear to defy normal political behavior, the burden should be on the system to produce records that resolve the anomaly — not on citizens to blindly accept the anomaly as “enthusiasm.”

Trust requires verification.

Verification requires records.

And records require transparency.

If the data is sound, the audit trail should prove it.

If the data is not sound, the public deserves to know exactly where the breakdown occurred.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Calling this an “echo chamber” is projection.

I am asking basic operational questions:

Who does the work?
Who has the authority?
Who preserves the records?
Who enforces compliance?
Who replaces the structure?
What is the actual plan?

An echo chamber is not someone asking questions.

An echo chamber is repeating the same slogan — “EAC has no enforcement authority” — while refusing to engage with the actual issue being raised.

I already understand the EAC does not have enforcement authority. That was never the question.

The question is: if your position is to defund or dismantle the existing structure, what replaces it, how does it function, and how does it connect to the agencies that do have enforcement authority?

If you cannot answer that, then you are not exposing an echo chamber.

You are demonstrating one.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

I agree that the federal government, the states, and the people all have roles to play.

But those are categories — not a plan.

Saying “the federal government” does not answer which agency, under what authority, using what process, with what records, within what timeline, and with what enforcement mechanism.

Saying “the states” does not answer which state officials are responsible, how compliance will be verified, what standards they must follow, what happens when they refuse, or who audits the process.

Saying “the people” does not answer how citizens obtain lawful access to records, how they compel enforcement, how they preserve evidence, how they avoid chaos, or how they translate public pressure into actual legal remedies.

Those are legitimate ideas, but they need structure.

The people absolutely should demand that election laws be enforced. The states absolutely have constitutional and statutory responsibilities. The federal government absolutely has obligations where federal election law, civil rights, records retention, and compliance are involved.

But none of that works if it stays at the level of slogans.

A real plan has to answer basic operational questions:

Who preserves the records?

Who has lawful access?

Who enforces compliance?

Who audits the states?

Who supports counties?

Who maintains standards?

Who ensures continuity if an agency is defunded or dismantled?

Who prevents evidence from disappearing?

Who replaces the existing structure before it is removed?

That is the issue.

I am not defending broken infrastructure. I am saying you do not remove infrastructure before you have a replacement capable of doing the job.

If the current system is failing, then reform it, expose it, audit it, litigate it, and force compliance.

But simply saying “the federal government, the states, and the people” is not enough. That is a direction. It is not an operating model.

Without structure, authority, standards, documentation, enforcement, and accountability, “burn it down” does not produce lawful reform. It results in chaos thus anarchy then Civil War.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Why are you suggesting I am defending the existing infrastructure?

I am not.

I am saying the entire system needs serious reform.

But screaming “defund it” without a lawful, functional replacement plan is not reform.

It is chaos.

The fact that you still have not answered the basic questions proves the point.

There is no plan.

And “defund it first, figure it out later” is not a strategy.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

Answer these questions in your plan to defund it!

Who preserves the records?

Who enforces the law?

Who holds counties accountable?

Who maintains the standards?

Who makes sure the system remains auditable, traceable, and valid?

Election validity cannot be built on anger alone.

It requires structure.

It requires oversight.

It requires a lawful replacement plan before the existing framework is torn down.

Removing oversight before building something stronger does not restore elections to the people.

It creates more chaos.

And in election systems, such chaos would not be harmless.

It would be dangerous.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

@SDCanvass @Unite4Freedom Who preserves the records?

Who enforces compliance?

Who supports counties?

Who maintains standards?

Who ensures the process remains auditable?

Election validity requires more than anger. It requires a plan.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

There is a dangerous belief system taking hold that says: “Just defund it.”

That may sound strong, but without a real replacement plan, it is not reform. It is chaos.

The EAC may need serious restructuring. CISA may have overstepped. Federal election agencies may have failed to do their jobs properly. Those are valid concerns.

But screaming “defund it” without first answering what replaces the oversight, standards, infrastructure, records preservation, certification support, cybersecurity coordination, and compliance mechanisms is not a serious solution.

It creates a vacuum.

Election validity requires more than anger at broken institutions. It requires a lawful, functional, auditable system ready to replace what is being removed.

Before anyone celebrates defunding an agency involved in election infrastructure, they should be able to answer a basic question:

What is the replacement?

Who enforces compliance?

Who preserves the records?

Who supports counties when systems fail?

Who ensures standards are followed?

Who protects the process from becoming even more fragmented, vulnerable, and opaque?

If the current agencies are compromised or ineffective, then reform them, restructure them, restrict them, audit them, replace leadership, narrow their authority, or build a better lawful mechanism.

But defunding first and planning later is not returning elections to the people.

It is burning down a broken bridge before building the next one.

That is not accountability.

That is reckless.

Be careful who you follow.

[Good Dog @GoodDog84]

I understand the concern about federal agencies overstepping or failing in their duties. That concern is exactly why oversight, transparency, records access, and enforceable compliance matter.

But defunding infrastructure without a replacement plan is not the same thing as returning elections to the people.

The question is not whether the EAC or CISA have been perfect. They have not.

The question is: what system ensures lawful, valid, auditable elections if Congress removes funding for the very infrastructure states and counties rely on?

Election validity requires more than frustration with agencies. It requires records, standards, preservation, audits, enforcement, and accountability.

Replacing broken oversight with no oversight is not reform.

It is a vacuum without a solution which will result in chaos.