Is Election 2020 the most unusual presidential election in history?

If nothing else, the election saga is certainly interesting. It has created great misery and hand-wringing across the political spectrum. 

Based on the projections of news outlets relying on state voting totals, former Vice President Joe Biden, D-Pa., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Cal., were declared the winners. That, however, does not make them the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect.

The process has not yet reached the stage where any candidates are officially declared to have won.

Every election has problems, like human error and fraud. The question always is, how much of an effect do the errors and fraud really have?

This election was doomed to be controversial from the beginning, with the potential for more problems than usual due to the fear of the coronavirus pandemic and the restrictions it created. More people wanted to vote early or by absentee or mail-in ballot than usual to avoid the crowds at polling places. 

And then there were potential problems from the tens of millions of universal mail-in ballots sent out, many/most from states that were ill-prepared to handle that situation.

The dangers of mail-in voting are well known. We were warned about problems by such important voices as former President Jimmy Carter and The Carter Center, Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and The New York Times.

And now that the voting is done, there are claims that confirm those warnings: Lost ballots, ballots found in trash cans, more votes in some precincts than registered voters, vote count observers prevented from observing the process, among them.

The Constitution gives the sole power to establish election procedures to the state legislatures. Yet in several states these procedures were recently changed by judges, secretaries of state and others who do not have that authority. 

Since changes were made by unauthorized persons, how many ballots were counted that were received after the previous -- legal -- deadline, or under previous requirements for signatures and such? Those ballots are not valid!

There are many charges of mistakes and fraud being looked into. President Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed multiple lawsuits challenging various aspects of the election process in several states. 

This has greatly angered Trump’s enemies; lots of people are urging Trump to concede, severely chastising him for not having already done so. This, despite that what he is doing is both legal and not uncommon. In the 2000 race, for example, Democrat candidate Al Gore challenged things for more than a month; Trump has done so for only three weeks, as of today.

And, given the array of false charges and hoaxes Trump was tortured with for the last four years, starting when he first declared himself a candidate, perhaps he has good reason to hold off conceding until challenges are resolved. Note: his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, still has not acknowledged Trump won, and she advised candidate Biden not to concede “under any circumstances.”

Democrats felt confident that a blue wave was coming, expecting that they would win the presidency, expand their House majority and perhaps win control of the Senate.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, Republicans increased their numbers in the House, flipping possibly a dozen seats from blue to red, and leaving the Democrats with a very slim majority. 

While the Democrats gained a seat in the Senate, Republicans may possibly retain their majority, depending upon the run-off elections for two Georgia seats.

Despite the losses in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., claimed victory, touting the popular vote tally showing House Democrats collected more votes than Republicans. Apparently, the number of votes for Democrats is more important than the number of Democrats that will be in the House.

Perhaps the most interesting, or the strangest, issue is the alleged massive fraud by voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems based in Canada. The Dominion machines are alleged to have actually thrown the election to Biden/Harris through manipulative software.

It is a complicated scenario that many people have discounted because of a lack of evidence having been revealed to support it. However, supporters say there is plenty of evidence, adding that evidence is critical and necessary for legal proceedings, but is not needed merely to assuage doubting reporters and Trump opponents. The Trump legal team cites dozens of sworn affidavits, filed under the threat of perjury, alleging vote fraud in some states.

Dominion has denied all charges, and its officials had agreed to testify before a Pennsylvania legislative committee. Then, Dominion strangely cancelled out the night before the hearing. 

These days computers are capable of doing fantastic things. But can they control the votes of tens of millions of voters in hundreds of different voting locations?

Georgia’s experience with Dominion computers used in the state’s primary raised questions and concerns over the company’s voting system. But Georgia stuck with them.

And the head of another computer voting system, Smartmatic, admitted in 2017 that his company’s computers and software created at least one million additional votes in the Venezuelan election.

Most view Trump’s efforts to prove he won as improbable. But with the vast array of problems and potential fraud, taking a few weeks to investigate them is not asking too much.

Is the trashing of Donald Trump becoming the new national pastime?

One of Donald Trump’s most disliked traits is how he responds to criticism, and how he fires back at his critics. You cross Trump, and you become a target.

Whether Trump’s penchant for name-calling is the main cause, or just a complicating factor, the people he has offended directly and indirectly have called him virtually every bad thing that anyone can think of. 

Bigot, racist, clown, bully, Hitler. These are among the insults hurled at President 45. About the only thing he hasn’t been labeled as equal to, so far, is the Devil. This could be due to the fact that many or most of Trump’s critics simply don’t believe in the Devil, and calling him a non-entity, would be silly.

Most recently Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international anchor, pushed back the boundaries of good judgement and common sense, comparing Trump’s four years as President to the Nazis' Kristallnacht attacks in Germany and Austria in 1938. 

Referred to as the “Night of Broken Glass,” Kristallnacht saw the Nazis attack Jewish individuals and communities. This time of terror, considered one of the darkest periods in history, reportedly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, and many more being put in concentration camps. Some 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were attacked, and more than 1,400 synagogues were set on fire during the attacks.

Who remembers such atrocities during the Trump administration? Did Trump actually terrorize Jews? Or any group?

Of course not. In fact, he has supported Israel by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, as some past presidents also promised, but did not do. He also has negotiated an historic peace agreement between Israel and countries in the Middle East. And his daughter is married to a Jewish man.

Amanpour effectively demonstrates the dramatic failure of today’s news and information media, diving head-first into the trash pile to find material she believes is necessary to convince her audience — which expects responsible, thoughtful commentary that will help them understand the world around them — that Trump is evil incarnate.

Is Amanpour saying this idiotic stuff because she actually does not know better? Or is she just playing on the tendency of her viewers to automatically believe her, and not look into her silly accusations to find the truth? Do they — Amanpour and the other main stream media folks that are constantly bad-mouthing Trump — really believe what they are saying and accusing him of? 

Due to Trump haters in the media, academia and elsewhere, and Trump himself, a substantial number of voters did not support his re-election. 

Trump has done some very good things, in addition to moving the embassy in Israel, in his four years. The economy strengthened during his tenure with tax cuts and deregulation, until the China virus came along. 

He has improved employment figures for the nation, and especially for blacks and Hispanics. He has appointed justices and judges who believe in changing laws and the Constitution through existing lawful procedures, not improperly doing so while on the bench.

He has strengthened the military, and opposed the magnificently foolish idea of defunding and reimagining the police. NATO countries have started to pay their fair share of defense costs, thanks to Trump, and some NATO countries have responded by increasing their defense budgets.

New trade deals have been made with Mexico, Canada, and China to the benefit of the United States. And Trump has caused the construction of hundreds of miles of border wall to lessen illegal alien entry into the country, and make trafficking of children and drugs more difficult.

He has taken a much firmer approach to Russia and China than any president in recent memory, or perhaps ever, increasing the U.S. Naval presence in the South China Sea, closing the Chinese consulate in Houston and several Russian consulates in the U.S. He also issued sanctions against several Russian agents who were up to no good.

Trump withdrew the U.S from the Iran nuclear deal that would have allowed Iran to build a nuclear bomb within the next few years.

And then there’s COVID-19, a topic rife with political posturing and point-gathering against Trump’s response to it. This novel coronavirus has even baffled the experts. But Trump quickly imposed restrictions on travel from China, mobilized military solutions due to the fear of too few hospital beds in New York and California, got American industries to fast-track the production of ventilators, as well as developing a vaccine, which is almost ready for distribution well ahead of normal vaccine production schedules. He wisely left decisions on closing down activities to local officials.

Demonstrating that the experts still don’t have all the answers months into the pandemic, comes this from Elon Musk. He took a test four times in one day and got two different results.

“Something extremely bogus is going on,” Musk tweeted. “Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse. Rapid antigen test from BD.”

Is Trump really the “existential threat” that we are repeatedly told that he is? It would be a shame, and somewhat of a national embarrassment if he is not re-elected because so many voted against his personality instead of for his policies.

Election 2020: another crazy event in a year full of crazy events

 

As the end of 2020 blessedly draws nearer, the text of a meme gives hope: “This too shall pass. It might pass like a kidney stone, but it will pass.” 

Adding to the suffering was the campaign for president. The election is now over, but the decision is not yet final. When news organizations call a victor in a state, or project the winner of a race, that is not an official decision. It means little. Last weekend votes were still being counted.

The president and vice president will be officially selected when the electors of the Electoral College vote on December 14.

Remember 2000? That’s when Democrat candidate Al Gore was thought to be president-elect for more than a month before the process proved otherwise. 

To make matters worse, sometimes recounts are in order, for various reasons. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced on Friday that because of the closeness of the vote, there will be a recount. He pledged to maintain election integrity.

And as is common, there are questions about various aspects of the election that need to be looked into. There are issues cited and questions raised in every presidential election, and every candidate has the right to question them. 

And with the fear from the coronavirus pandemic, the issues and questions this year have been multiplied. Some are, in reality, not going to be significant. Some, perhaps most, are merely mistakes, or just “normal” sorts of problems. 

Other things, however, may well be significant. Sometimes things just happen. Other times, things are made to happen.

There are legitimate questions about the way universal/mass mail-in ballots — not absentee ballots, which are fairly secure — have been handled, and about the concept itself. 

Because of the fear of people being exposed to the virus at polling places, both early voting and universal mail-in ballot voting were very popular this year. As a consequence, tens of millions of ballots were mailed out to people on state voter rolls. Not all state voter rolls are up to date, meaning thousands of ballots were sent to people who were deceased or no longer lived at the address on the voter roll.

Every ballot mailed to a person who is not living, or is living elsewhere offers the potential for vote fraud.

After cross-referencing Nevada voter rolls with the National Change of Address database, more than 3,000 mail-in ballots in Nevada were found to have been improperly cast. Attorneys for the state GOP have sent a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney General, seeking an investigation.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which focuses on election integrity, filed a lawsuit last week that charges Pennsylvania with failing to maintain voter registration records. This is a violation of both federal and state law, the suit alleges.

There are tens of thousands of deceased people on the state’s voter rolls, PILF alleges, and there is evidence of ballots submitted in the names of deceased persons. The organization further alleges that an October analysis found at least 21,000 apparently deceased citizens on the state’s voter rolls.

There are allegations that local officials in some states arbitrarily changed election laws improperly. There are other allegations of election laws not being followed. 

Former judge and Whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr had some strong criticisms of the way Pennsylvania has behaved, post-election. Starr noted that state officials made changes to election rules and regulations that only the legislature can make. He also said that election observers, or poll watchers, who are present by law to help insure the integrity of the election system, were illegally excluded from observing ballot counting.

Starr also noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has allowed ballots to be counted that arrived after Election Day, even if they were not postmarked by Nov. 3. The U.S. Supreme Court in October split 4-4 on the question, allowing the state Supreme Court decision to stand, for now.

  

On Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered that ballots that were received after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 in Pennsylvania are to be “segregated and secured,” pending potential action by the U.S. Supreme Court.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley thinks questions of irregularities or ballot issues should be investigated to determine whether they are episodic or systemic. “What is the harm in allowing courts to review such claims,” he asked, particularly when witnesses have submitted sworn affidavits concerning such incidents?

Maybe, when all is said and done, and all the errors, technical glitches and any actual election fraud that is found will not change the projected outcome, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will take office on January 20, 2021.

But while the Democrats may have won the White House, the American people have been handed an election process that is horribly in need of repair.

The people need and deserve the most secure election process possible, and making voting easy must not be a prime consideration. If, in order to have a secure system of electing public servants, people have to endure some inconvenience and spend some time going to the polls, it will be an investment well made.

It’s Election Day. And it’s true: elections have consequences

 

The idea that America is dead, or dying, has been on my mind for quite a while. It is a steadily emerging reality.

And recently, that same idea was expressed by none other than Joe Biden. The former vice president and current Democrat presidential nominee announced last Friday in Iowa that the country is dying, at one of his few, and brief, campaign appearances.

“More than 200 [thousand] -- and now I think it’s up to 30,000 -- people have died. America’s dead! Because of COVID-19,” he railed.

No, America isn’t dead because of the virus. It’s just another desperate attempt by Biden to try to build on negative sentiment against President Donald Trump, whose early moves against the virus Biden criticized. And now his “plan” to control the virus is a rehash of what the administration has already done. More plagiarism by Biden.

Yes, millions have been affected by it: millions of positive tests; many getting sick and many dying; others not being able to work or go to school, or to open their businesses in a reasonable way. 

But the virus is just one factor in America’s downfall. The death rattle is mostly from other things. Things that Americans themselves have wrought. 

We have allowed our education system to fail to properly assist the younger generations in learning about their country, and explaining why it was designed as it was. And why it was so much better than other designs.

Those in control of our schools, especially at the college level, have allowed teaching to devolve into indoctrination in many instances, teaching “what you should think” instead of teaching “how to think.” Political correctness is now the reigning philosophy, rather than education.

Likewise, the solemn duty of journalists to report the news -- all the news -- objectively and fairly has been abandoned by many news organizations at the highest levels. 

One political party has some members that want to reverse recent tax cuts to raise trillions of dollars to make government even larger. But Biden says he will increase taxes only on those making $400,000 or more a year. A fairy tale. Everyone’s taxes will have to rise to reach that goal.

They want to do away with fossil fuels in only a few years. These fuels account for 84 percent of the world’s energy, and 80 percent of US energy. And they intend to go ahead with this plan without reliable replacement fuels or storage capabilities that can furnish energy when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. This will affect jobs and the US economy substantially, without making any significant reduction in world-wide CO2 emissions.

They want to open borders to make it easier for illegals to enter the country, and also to give them taxpayer money in welfare payments and for free college.

The list goes on.

And then there are our courts. Our laws and the US Constitution should be interpreted to mean what they meant when they were written. If desired, they can be changed through appropriate legal processes. But this group prefers to make those changes using judges who think they can change these meanings at their whim, and make law from the bench.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del, wants to revamp the court system. “We’ve got to have a wide-open conversation about how do we rebalance our courts,” he said. 

He then made a completely foolish statement: “Yes, the two Supreme Court cases that have been stolen, where these processes that are just wildly hypocritical have been used to jam through partisan nominees.” 

Perhaps a lesson in the US Constitution is in order. Both Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett were confirmed as specified by the Constitution, despite the dreams of Democrats. And neither of them has been shown to be partisan. Both follow the laws and the Constitution, as written.

“But we’ve got to look at our federal courts as a whole,” he continued. “In many cases, [judges are] too young, too unqualified and too far right to be allowed to sit peaceably [emphasis added] without our reexamining the process, the results and the consequences.”

Another lesson is in order: A judge or justice that follows laws and the Constitution as written and understood when they were approved is not a partisan. It is the correct way to interpret the laws and the Constitution.

Some Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court with additional judges who are liberals, transforming the only non-political branch of our government into an un-elected political law-making body. 

They also want to eliminate the Senate’s 60-vote rule, perhaps make DC and Puerto Rico new states, and do away with the Electoral College system.

These acts are both dangerous and irrational.

They would transform the United States from a unique and superior form of government to just one more majority-rule country that tramples on the rights of the minority. The Electoral College and other Constitutional provisions were designed specifically to prevent that. 

If the Democrats sweep the election and control Congress and the administration, and implement the changes to which many of them subscribe, it will kill the United States of America.

Reining in social media censorship, and ending the debate commission

 

There is increasing evidence supporting the idea that certain social media platforms are getting too big for their already huge britches. Two of them, Twitter and Facebook, cannot seem to kick the habit of censoring some of their participants.

As the owners of a platform, Twitter and Facebook have complete control of it, of course. And both of them have millions of users, thereby putting them in a very small class with a lot of weight to sling around.

And because of their huge number of users and the influence that those big numbers carry with them, they should not arbitrarily restrict or block what some users post, while leaving others alone to post as they please. 

We also need to keep in mind that these platforms are under no legal obligation to monitor the postings of their users for accuracy, only for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, as are those sites classified as “publishers.”

In fact, social media are protected from legal action for what their users post by 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act (CDA), unlike media that are considered publishers, such as newspapers and broadcasters.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 

This means that online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. Twitter and Facebook are not responsible for the truth/accuracy of any posts made by users, beyond the criminal and intellectual property-based claims mentioned earlier.

Despite the protections the CDA provides to social media, both Twitter and Facebook routinely block user posts/comments that breach their nebulous “rules of the road,” often on the premise of inaccuracy.

So why are Twitter and Facebook so concerned with what their users have to say on their platform, when they are under no legal obligation to be concerned about accuracy and such?

And, as it turns out, most or all of those censored posts/comments are made by … wait for it … conservatives/Republicans.

Among users that have been, and perhaps still are, arbitrarily blocked or restricted are President of the United States Donald Trump, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the satire site The Babylon Bee, and the 219-year-old New York Post, the fourth largest newspaper in the country. The latter had all references to a story it published on the Hunter Biden email situation removed/blocked by Twitter, even when made by other users.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey last week called it “unacceptable” that his site blocked users from sharing links to the Post story without providing a clear message as to why it was taking the action. But is that all that Twitter did that was improper?

“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tweeted recently.

Pai recently announced that the FCC plans to “clarify the meaning” of Section 230 that protects these tech giants from being held responsible for content posted by their users.

“The Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning,” Pai added.

Perhaps, if social media platforms are going to act like publishers, they will be held to the same legal standards and eligible for the same potential penalties, as are newspapers and broadcasters. Most likely, arbitrarily censoring some users for certain infractions, but not all of them, will carry serious penalties.

These Left-leaning platforms are all too happy to cheat to help push their political agenda. They should not be allowed to use their platforms to affect the beneficial information that users see, and perhaps especially when that information has influence on election choices.

* * *

The Presidential Debate Commission has come under criticism, particularly from President Donald Trump’s campaign and his backers on the political right, for what those critics charge are politically motivated actions.

Without getting into the weeds of those charges, the Commission is the sole agent that organizes the presidential debates, with all details based upon what its members alone decide.

Instead of using an independent commission, that could conceivably be biased, why not allow the campaigns of the two, or perhaps three, candidates who have the most support to work together to establish the details of the debates, including the number of debates, their locations, who the moderators will be, what topics will be included, etc.

With campaign officials agreeing on these details, there would be much less for individual campaigns to disagree with, and it might even produce better debates.

The debate commission system has been around for a long time. Maybe it is time for a new approach to presidential debates.