Close window | View original article
On Dec. 7, the anniversary of a "day that will live in infamy," the New York Times daily email subject mentioned "Democrats' No. 1 problem." Without intending to, the Times confirmed what rightist web sites have been telling us about massive vote fraud, the "Big Steal" which stole the 2020 Presidential election for Mr. Biden.
The Times' description of Democrats' problems attracting legitimate votes makes a good case for massive vote fraud:
The Democratic Party's biggest problem today is its struggle to win over working-class voters.
After President Trump's 2016 victory, some political analysts argued that this problem was really all about racism. ...
But it's also clear that the Democrats' weakness ... is not only about race. Many Trump voters, after all, voted for Barack Obama in 2012, which suggests they're not incorrigible racists.
Perhaps even more telling is the shape of this year's results. Not only did Trump again win by huge margins among working-class whites, but he also fared better among Hispanic voters than he did in 2016. Black voters strongly backed Democrats again, but their turnout appears to have risen less than turnout for other groups.
If the Democrats' struggles were really all about racism, several heavily Mexican-American counties in South Texas would not have swung to the Republicans this year. Nor would Trump have increased his vote share in the New York boroughs of Queens and the Bronx by about 10 percentage points versus 2016. He appears to have won a higher share of the vote in the Bronx, which is only 9 percent non-Hispanic white, than in affluent Manhattan, which is 47 percent white ... [emphasis added]
Having described facts which suggest that Mr. Trump won a solid victory among many voter groups, the Times made an excellent circumstantial case for voter fraud in Georgia:
Joe Biden was the only Democrat to win statewide [in Georgia] this year, mostly because he made bigger gains in the Atlanta suburbs than other members of the party. Biden and other Democrats were crushed in heavily white rural areas, often winning less than 30 percent of the vote, and also fell short of their 2016 margins among Hispanic voters. [emphasis added]
The Times tells us that Mr Biden won less than 30% of the vote among whites and Hispanics and was the only Democrat to win statewide, but won big in the Atlanta area where the Democrat political machine rules supreme. Other articles tell us that Republicans gained House seats even in California and held off challenges to their Senate seats everywhere.
The Times implicitly suggests how Democrats lost down-ticket races while Mr. Biden "won" the swing states: Mr. Trump won so big that they had to cheat a lot more than they'd expected.
The cheaters had to work so fast that most of the extra ballots they printed were marked only for Mr. Biden and no other offices - which is why he's the only Democrat who won statewide in Georgia. This is not common for real ballots. Most people who bother to actually get out and vote generally vote for every office on the ballot, even the dogcatcher candidates they've never heard of.
Other sources tell us that many late-arriving "mail-in" ballots hadn't been folded, which is physically impossible: the law requires such ballots to be returned in an official envelope provided, which is letter-sized and can't fit an unfolded ballot.
We won't go into the many, many other indications of vote fraud all across the fruited plain, and Google buries all such links far, far down in search results, so you'll find them more readily on duckduckgo.com. Suffice it to say that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have shut down discussion of vote fraud as thoroughly as they blocked discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop.
The lefty "fact check" sites claim that running stacks of ballots through multiple machines is "normal procedure," and utterly deny that the claims that Mr. Trump's lawyers are making have any merit at all.
Facebook shut down the fast-growing page "Stop the Steal." Unless people follow rightist sites whose search rankings in Google are being systematically reduced, they won't know about any of this.
It is in this light that we must consider the decisions to be made by the Supreme Court, or indeed any other court.
When a prosecutor wants to prove that a defendant committed a crime, juries want to know why the defendant would commit the crime. Few defendants are as articulate in describing their motives as Willy Sutton who said "That's where the money is" when a judge asked him why he robbed banks, but juries still want to know why a criminal chose to perform his evil deeds.
Juries also expect the prosecutor to show how the crime was committed, that is, the jury wants to be sure that the defendant had the means and ability to do the crime.
The final requirement is opportunity. Suppose a gun owner hated someone who was found shot to death. The gun owner had the means and the motive, but if travel records show that the defendant was thousands of miles away at the time, the jury isn't likely to convict.
We know the Democrats' motive to commit voter fraud - they've made their hatred of all things Trump evident for the past 4 1/2 years to the point of advocating violence. Opportunity is inherent because Democrats were in charge of counting votes and certifying the outcomes in the swing states. There are also credible charges that Republican poll watchers were systematically excluded from the counting areas, which Democrats are vehemently denying as expected.
Democrats are claiming that no crime occurred and that the 2020 election was "the most secure in US history", but not everyone agrees. The Spectator published a list of reasons why the 2020 election seems so suspicious and The Federalist discussed other statistical oddities.
So what about means? Just how secure are election procedures, and the Dominion voting machines used in swing states which went for Mr. Biden?
The Epoch Times published an infographic detailing many allegations of vote fraud having nothing to do with the machines. They also published an article about certifying voting machines:
authorities have pointed to certifications of the machines as a safeguard against potential systemic problems with the voting machines and their software.
A deeper look into the certification process used for the machines, however, reveals that the main certification agency in the United States - the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) - maintains an unexpectedly small staff, and one of its chief employees is a former executive of Dominion Voting Systems.
Furthermore, it appears the bulk - if not all - of the testing of the election equipment is conducted by only two companies, Pro V&V and SLI Compliance.
There are conflicts of interest at the agency:
... after enjoying a 10-year career at Dominion, Bowers [director of certification at Dominion] would find her way into a new career path at the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
It's not clear how an agency with only 23 staff members can certify voting machines all across the United States. Regardless of that, the main question is, just how easy is it to hack a Dominion machine?
Rumble hosts a video by a computer expert who showed that the Dominion machine were not at all secure. He logged on and dumped data periodically. He presents evidence that Mr. Trump's totals dropped during the hour and a half interval when counting stopped on election night.
Another video, that YouTube has already blocked, showed how easy it is to hack the Dominion machines and evidence that they were in fact hacked. Is this credible? YouTube certainly thought it was credible enough that you needed to be prevented from seeing it.
The bottom line is that the Democrats showed us their motive for getting rid of Mr. Trump during every news cycle from before he was sworn in. The lack of certification of the voting machines and the fact that Mr. Trump's totals went down suggest that his votes were miraculously moved to Mr. Biden's column. The oddities the New York Times described coupled with many others make it highly likely that a crime was committed.
The question is, what will our justice system do about it?
The MSM have been so successful in blocking any mention of vote fraud that many of our fervent Trump-supporting friends who don't follow politics closely didn't even know there were challenges to the vote. The problem for the Court is, if SCOTUS were to disqualify illegally-certified electors in states such as Pennsylvania, most ordinary citizens know so little about the "Big Steal" that they would question the court's legitimacy. On top of that, when has any court just plain thrown out an entire election anyway?
What's more, the Justices have made it clear that the Constitution puts it to state legislators to send electors to vote for President. Most state legislatures long since delegated this task to a "Secretary of State" who certifies the election results. They can, however, take over by a simple majority vote which the Governor can't override.
In spite of detailed presentations showing massive vote fraud, the Pennsylvania Republican majority has decided not to meet again this year. Without a meeting to either award their electoral votes to Mr. Trump or not certify them at all, the actions of the Democrat official who awarded the votes to Mr. Biden stands, and Mr. Biden has more than the 270 votes needed to "win."
The Stupid Party has once again allowed the Evil Party to get away with massive fraud. Don't they realize that now that Democrats know they can cheat this effectively on such a massive scale, there will be a gradual extermination of Republican office holders all across America as happened in California? Are they so wedded to stupidity that they can't hear the whisper of the ax?
Many millions of Trump supporters are counting on the Court to administer justice. But if none of our elected leaders who answer directly to the people are willing to put their necks out to save their own offices, what possible reason could there be for life-term justices to go against the entire force of propaganda of the mainstream media and do something no American court has ever done?
Let us imagine that at least the conservative justices on the court recognize the depth of the fraud and thus also its size and extent. They can't help but also notice the complete inability of the sitting President of the United States to get the message out to the people. How can a group of black-robed solons succeed where a reality TV impresario in command of the bully pulpit failed?In that case, the question becomes: can anything at all be salvaged from this situation? Possibly it can. The Court may not be able to declare Trump the winner of this election, or even invalidate the electoral votes thus throwing the Presidency to Congress to decide, but just maybe, they might be able to declare that the Constitution requires certain standards of probity and transparency in all future Federal elections for them to count. Here's a partial list:
This wouldn't help Donald Trump. It wouldn't help elections in California, New York, Massachusetts, or other places where every single officeholder and law enforcement official is a hardcore Democrat. But it might, just possibly, help Republican states remain so, and possibly even allow for swing states to hold honest elections the next time around.
And that may be the best we can hope for at this point - since the only other likely alternatives don't bear thinking about.