What’s wrong with the American left

This is an example of what I really don’t like about radical left Democrats. They just aren’t happy letting local groups of people govern themselves. You see, only the far left are the rightful heirs of the truth – a truth that you are simply too stupid to understand. It is therefor their prerogative to force their truth on you – by any means necessary.

Liberal journalists call for Democrats to move to red states to manipulate elections

But at least when they do this at the state level people can move. What happens when they take this to a national level? When, having a 50.1% majority, they eliminate the filibuster and force their will on the other 49.9%? Where will you move then?

Stephen King should write about this… it is a horror story, after all.

PS: Don’t get me wrong – the right does the same thing (forcing their will on others); I just believe that they are a bit more restrained than the left. After all, it was the Democrat Harry Reid who started this mess with his “nuclear” option in 2013. In any case, it would be nice if the filibuster was fully restored in the Senate and we got back to seeking a 60% consensus on all legislation and appointments. I doubt that will happen any time soon, but it would be a welcome surprise.

How about we threaten riots to restore sanity in the Senate? Wouldn’t that be a better cause than looting?

Suspicious?

I was following the election carefully last night using the Fox News election results web site. I noticed something strange that I think would be worth investigating. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but these are just the facts as I saw them election night.

Wisconsin had reported 94% (2,970,236) of the precincts counted just before 2am on Wednesday, with 1,430,581 (45.3%) for Biden and 1,539,655 (48.7%) for Trump. If the reporting was accurate and the distribution of votes random among the precincts, then the total number of votes expected would be approximately 2,970,236/0.94 = 3,159,826 votes. This leaves 3,159,826 – 2970236 = 188,590 votes remaining.

At that time Biden would need to capture fully 78.8% of the remaining vote to overtake Trump – a high bar, even for a democrat-rich ballot harvesting session. Yet just after 2am, in one fell swoop, that’s exactly what happened. At that moment 188,202 more Wisconsin votes suddenly appeared (although the % of precincts counted only advanced 1%, from 94% to 95%). Of these 188,202 votes, fully 152,531 (81%) were for Biden, while only 35,671 (19%) were for Trump. This is an incredibly disproportionate distribution of votes. In addition, while the % of precincts counted only advanced 1%, this block of votes represented approximately 6% of all Wisconsin votes up until that time. This may be due to differences in reporting precinct sizes, or possibly the reporting of mail-in or harvested ballots from a particularly large precinct, but this is still a wildly unrealistic distribution of votes. The discrepancy in the percent of precincts counted  with respect to the large number of votes reported could also signify that the votes were  not expected, and were only recently received via mail or dropped off by “harvesters”. At best this block of votes appears extraordinary; at the worst, suspicious.

I suspect that these were “harvested” votes, which – in my humble opinion – are the most vulnerable to potential fraud.  Vote “harvesters”, who are third parties (and possibly political operatives), pick up ballots from voters for delivery to the post office, polling locations, or counting centers. In many cases these “harvesters” are not required to identify themselves to either the voter or the registrar/SoS (Secretary of State), resulting in no way to trace the ballots back to the harvester. In other words, the chain of custody is broken by the use of ballot harvesters – a chain that is important to preserve the validity of the ballots.

Without a chain of custody, how do we know that the ballots are genuine and/or completed by the actual voter? With many states mailing out ballots to everyone’s last known address, what are the odds that some are undeliverable or go to an address not associated with the voter? What’s to stop a ballot harvester from collecting these ballots for others to complete? The only method I have heard to prevent this form of ballot fraud is a simple signature check by election officials – none of whom I have ever understood as having advanced training (or any training…) in signature analysis. Without a chain of custody controlled by the registrar or the government (for example, voter -> USPS -> registrar/SoS (mail-in ballots), or voter -> polls -> registrar/SoS (in-person ballots), the ballot could be compromised. Think about it: After you voted at a polling location, how secure would you feel if the poll worker advised you to go outside and hand your ballot to anyone on the sidewalk for delivery to the registrar/SoS? Would you feel your vote was secure?

Other possible sources of ballot fraud that could result in a disproportionate distribution of votes in harvested ballots are selective discard or collection. If harvesters discard ballots likely to contain votes for the opposition, or only collect ballots expected to help their candidate, then such disproportionate distributions could result. In either case, as we’ve seen in Wisconsin it only takes a few hundred thousand votes to skew an election from a probable loss to an astounding victory.

The circumstances surrounding the vote count in Wisconsin – in particular with respect to the large block of disproportionately Biden-heavy votes that suddenly appeared just after 2am (PST) – should be investigated. These votes effectively altered the outcome of a presidential election, and their sudden appearance late in the count – without a commensurate increase in the % of precincts counted, and as a result of their heavily skewed voting pattern – should be viewed with skepticism.

“Government” money

Scammers commit unemployment fraud, stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the State of California Employment Development Department. But not to worry; it’s “state” money:

Financial losses were suffered by the state, not individuals, the Daily Breeze of Hermosa Beach reported.

Where the hell does the Daily Breeze think the state gets its money? Leprechauns? This is what’s wrong with Americans today: they forget that the government doesn’t actually have its own money. They get their money by picking our pockets via taxes.

Free college… Free housing… Free health care! We’ll just use GOVERNMENT money!

My response: “Bah! Humbug!”

Twitter the Bully

Check out this snippet from yesterday’s hearings in the Senate with respect to social media censorship of the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story:

During an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, while testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee Dorsey explained that the Post is not technically locked out, because it can go back and delete the original post from two weeks ago announcing the Hunter Biden laptop story, and re-post it today because the site’s “terms of service” have since changed.

Ok, so let’s if I can explain how this temper-tantrum by Twitter is playing out: Even though the New York Post’s original tweet is now acceptable under Twitter’s “terms of service”, the New York Post *MUST DELETE THEIR ORIGINAL POST* before Twitter will allow it to be re-posted? Twitter can’t simply un-do their lockout? Are you kidding???

Sounds like Twitter is a poor sport who was caught cheating and just wants to make life as difficult as possible for their accuser. Can you say “”bully”?

And you don’t think these people are willing to use their power to alter an election? Please don’t be so naive. They are a propaganda machine that will stop at nothing to see their vision for the country played out. I think the following quote best sums up the position of the media (social or other):

“… a new consensus has emerged … that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

Enough said.

Reader contribution

A “Letter to the Editor” contribution from a reader. This will probably not make their local paper, but I think it’s interesting enough for us:

********************
President Harris

Some are concerned that if Joe Biden wins the presidency he will be unable to complete his first term(1). Nancy Pelosi is already preparing 25th amendment legislation for this possibility(2), which would leave Kamala Harris as President of the United States. But do you really want a California politician as President?

California’s failed policies are well documented. For instance:

California’s poverty rate, at 18.2%, is the highest of any state(3)
California is ranked as 4th for greatest tax burden on residents(4)
California ranks in the top 5 worst states for income equality(5)
California ranks 37th for pre-K through 12 education(6)
California is home to 53% of the nation’s homeless population(7)

But, you might ask, aren’t these the very issues that California’s politicians claim their polices fight against? Why, then, have they been so unsuccessful? Could it be that their policies simply don’t work?

Yes, Virginia, it is true – their policies don’t work. But when failed policies doom Californians to a marginal education, poverty, income inequality and homelessness the people of California can simply leave – as they have been doing for the past seven years(8). But what will happen when these failed policies are exported to the nation? Where will you go then when taxes spike and services dwindle or disappear? When the school system fails to educate your children, but instead indoctrinates them in political dogma? Will you be one of those living in poverty, or one of the few left footing the bill?

California’s attempt at developing a socialist utopia has failed and we should not stand idly by as its methods are exported to the rest of the country. So I ask again: Do you really want a California politician as President?

 

1) Jacobs, Emily. “Over Half of Likely Voters Don’t Believe Joe Biden Will Finish First Term: Poll.” New York Post, August 11, 2020. https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/over-half-of-likely-voters-dont-believe-biden-will-finish- term-poll/.

2) Shabad, Rebecca. “Pelosi to Introduce Legislation Related to the 25th Amendment.” NBC News, August 8, 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosi-we-re-going-be-talking-about-25th-amendment- n1242629.

3) Finch II, Michael. “California’s Poverty Rate among Highest in Nation Once Again, New Census Figures Show.” The Sacramento Bee, September 10, 2019. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article234920662.html.

4) Murphy Jr, Bill. “50 U.S. States Ranked in Order of Tax Burden (Guess Which 1 Is Worst).” Inc., March 11, 2019. https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/all-50-states-ranked-by-tax-burden-there-are-some-real-surprises.html.

5) Picchi, Aimee. “Income Inequality in America Is at Its Highest Level in More than 50 Years.” CBS News, September 26, 2019. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/income-inequality-in-america-is-at-its-highest-level- in-more-than-50-years-census-report-today-shows/.

6) Morad, Renee. “States With The Best Public School Systems.” Forbes, July 31, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/reneemorad/2018/07/31/states-with-the-best-public-school-systems/.

7) McCarthy, Niall. “The American Cities With The Highest Homeless Populations In 2019 [Infographic].” Forbes, January 14, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/01/14/the-american-cities-with-the- highest-homeless-populations-in-2019-infographic/.

8) Martichoux, Alix. “691,000 People Moved out of California Last Year. Here’s Where They Went.” SFGate, November 5, 2019. https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-california-where-to-go- cheap-states-best-14811246.php.

Court packing justification?

Joe Biden has continued to pine regarding the supposed illegitimacy of Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, providing his reasoning as:

“…Never before, when the election has already begun and millions of votes already cast, has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward…”

This statement, while true in the strictest sense, is also irrelevant. The President is elected for a term of four years; his responsibilities do not stop once an election has started, or even when it is finished. The Presidency maintains all the powers and privileges of the office until such time as the next president is inaugurated the following January. There are no provisions in the Constitution limiting his powers before, during or after an election.

Biden’s failure to state whether he was for or against court packing has resulted in significant pressure for his campaign. As a result he has now stated:

“If elected, what I will do is I’ll put together a national commission, a bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives,” Biden said in a clip released on Thursday. “I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack.”

Such a “national commission” will conveniently allow Biden to side-step the blame for court packing by permitting him to pretend he is following the advise of a third party.  However, increasing the size of the Supreme Court will not solve the problem; in fact, it will make things much worse. Do they not realize that the Republicans will be forced to do the same when they again have control? Do they not remember Reid’s “nuclear” option, and how it has resulted in an ongoing escalation leading to their current predicament?

Expanding the Supreme Court is a short-sighted action that will backfire – just as did Reid’s nuclear option. Let’s not support a candidate willing to once again choose the “nuclear” option.

File in the “WTF?” bin

Sue the companies with the ability to censor your party and assist the opposition before the election? Bright move, bonehead….

Lawmakers hail DOJ antitrust lawsuit against Google as ‘long overdue’

I think it would have been better to sue after the election. If you lost, you could argue that illegal interference from the left-leaning social media and search companies was the cause. Then when the incoming administration dismissed the lawsuit you could argue payback/favoritism.