Spinning the First Draft of History to Fit The Narrative

Journalism is sometimes referred to as the first draft of history. This tweet from Time—links to an article that describe a covert operation to interfere in the 2020 election. Of course, Time portrays the whole thing as a white hat operation.

FWIW, here’s another blast from Time‘s past about election integrity—

But I Was Told There Was No Fraud

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced the arrest of Rachel Rodriguez for election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail, and unlawfully possessing an official ballot. Those are all felonies in Texas. Rodriguez was caught on video by Project Veritas engaging in ballot harvesting. She admits in the video that what she was doing was illegal and that she could go to jail for it.

BTW, this story broke before noon today, but as of 9:45 pm ET this evening, none of the major nation media are on it.

Math is Hard

According to Pennsylvania State Representative Frank Ryan (R-Lebanon), analysis of the November election show 6,962,607 total ballots were reported as being cast, but official system records indicated that only 6,760,230 total voters actually voted. The difference of 202,377 more votes cast than voters voting, together with the 31,547 over- and under-votes in the presidential race, is a discrepancy of 170,830 votes—more than twice the difference between Donald Trump’s and Joe Biden’s vote counts certified.

Nothing to See Here. Move Along.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that Alex Padilla, who Governor Hairgel says he will appoint to fill out the remainder of Kamala Harris’ senate term, fought to pay out a $35 million state contract to a Biden-linked consulting firm. The no-bid contract was part of a “voter outreach” program run by Padilla as California’s Secretary of State. The state’s chief fiscal officer has refused to approve the contract because Padilla lacked the authority to grant it. Padilla has spent months lobbying to pay the firm, unsuccessfully thus far.

BTW, Harris still hasn’t resigned from the Senate, even though allowing her replacement to be appointed during this session of Congress would give him seniority over the newly elected members joining in January.

We Live In Alternate Worlds

That headline is a quote from one of three pieces I’ve read over past few days that have set me to worrying about the next few weeks. It’s from a post at The Washington Times by Newt Gingrich. He was writing about the difficulty he had explaining to a liberal friend why he was not accepting Joe Xiden’s election as legitimate.

The challenge is that I — and other conservatives — are not disagreeing with the left within a commonly understood world. We live in alternative worlds.

Indeed. While not all conservatives are practicing Christians, the philosophical underpinning of mosts conservatives’ worldview is grounded in the Judeo-Christian belief in an absolute standard of Truth and the principles of logical reasoning handed down from Greece. As I wrote in an email to David French discussing his latest French Press essay which was titled Why They Hate Us:

I wonder if it’s not the case that the Christian worldview that holds that there is an objective standard of Truth and that each of us is personally accountable for our actions leads to some of the differences in the opinions shown in the data you reference. That’s not to say that Evangelical Christians always reason correctly from the teaching of the Bible, but that the place we start from is so disconnected from marxist/neomarxist/postmodern thought that we aren’t in the same conversation as those who hate us. We’re talking at each other rather than to each other, giving different answers because we understand the questions differently.

If we cannot engage with our political opponents logically—and if they insist on making everything a power contest—then we either must get up from the table and leave the game, or we must beat them at their own game. Neither choice appeals to me.

Which brings me to the third piece, a post by Carol Brown at American Thinker. It catalogs the misdeeds of the Left over the last few years and forecasts even worse behavior to come. It’s a call to active resistance.

Who is willing to put it all on the line to save this nation?

Who among us is willing to go to jail?  Who is willing to be injured, or killed, should we attend a protest or engage in civil disobedience and find ourselves attacked without police protection?

Who is willing to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6 to attend what could be a historic protest scheduled for the same day the joint session of Congress meets to make the Electoral College votes official?

Will the Million MAGA March on 6 January turn into something akin to the 2013/2014 EuroMaidan demonstrations in Kyiv? The incident at the Oregon State Capitol yesterday certainly shows that some on the Right are losing patience with a system they believe treats them unfairly.

I’m trying hard to be optimistic, but 2021 is starting to look even uglier than 2020.

Texas Replies

Texas has filed a reply to the oppositions filed by Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

UPDATE—The Texas reply concludes—

Although Defendant States dispute that the Court should hear this action in its discretion and dispute the laws and facts, Defendant States offer no reason against deciding this action summarily if the Court rules for Texas on the facts and law.

UPDATE 2—Texas has also filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction.

UPDATE 3—126 Congresscritters file in support of the Texas motion for a preliminary injunction.

Tomorrow is Pitching to Today

And just before bedtime on Thursday evening another brief was filed with the Supremes in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. case. This one is from the governor of Montana, and he’s supporting the defendant states—which is opposed to the position taken by the State of Montana.

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.

—Hunter S. Thompson

I note that Governor Bullock is Democrat. I also note that although he has filed in his official capacity as governor, he is represented by lawyers from New York rather than Montana.

Ohio Asks the Supremes to Rule

Ohio has asked for leave to file a brief in support of neither party in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. suit. While Ohio does not support the remedies sought by Texas, it asks the court to take the case and settle the meaning of the Electors Clause so that future elections will not be plagued with similar issues.

Who’s On First

I told you that it would be interesting to see who files amicus briefs in support of which side of the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. lawsuit in the Supreme Court. The following states have filed a joint brief in support of the Texas motion for leave to file a Bill of Complaint: Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. In addition, Arizona has filed a motion for leave to file a brief asking the court to hear the case and to hear it quickly “to give the Nation certainty.” While Arizona argues that the court does not have discretion as to whether to hear the case or not, it does not necessarily support Texas’ position in the case.

A group of law professors along with Roy Moore (yes, that Roy Moore) have filed a motion to file an amicus brief in support of Texas.

Donald Trump, in his personal capacity, has filed a motion to intervene in the case.

A group of individuals (including “Carter Phillips, former Acting Attorney General Stuart Gerson, former Senator John Danforth, former Governor Christine Todd Whitman, former Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker, conservative legal scholars, and others who have worked in Republican federal administrations”) have filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief is support of the defendant states. They argue that the Texas case violates the principle of federalism and the separation of powers between the states and the federal government, a states’ rights argument.

Stay tuned.

Texas, et al.

Thus far, it’s reported that the Attorneys General of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee have announced support for Texas either as amici or possibly co-plaintiffs in the Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. lawsuit.

I am unaware of any state signing on in support of the defendant states in the case.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE—Missouri and 16 other states have filed an amicus brief in support of Texas.

One Analyst’s View

J. E. Dyer has a thought provoking post over at Liberty Unyielding examining President Trump’s response to the election irregularities in various states. She divides what she believes is happening into a main effort (exposing the fraud to the public), a visible supporting effort (the lawsuits), and a less visible but key supporting effort (uncovering evidence). It’s that third part that is interesting.

In January, 2017, the last month of the Obama administration, voting systems were added to the list of “critical national infrastructure” to be protected by the Department of Homeland Security. In 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 13848 designating foreign threats to voting systems as a national security concern.

And the effect of the E.O. was to articulate the national security justification for the means of surveillance to monitor and track what was being done with the implicated voting infrastructure.  In other words, whether the analysts were at Homeland Security (chartered with monitoring critical infrastructure), the FBI, Treasury, or even – for the foreign-power aspect of the problem – at CIA, they had presidential authority to pull trons and go to town.

If we know anything about Trump, we may reasonably guess that he’s had someone he trusts at the NSC level watching over the effort. The result could well be a devastating exposure of far more individuals in the U.S., as well as foreign operators, than anyone would imagine. It is by no means beyond the realm of possibility that many Democrats and even some Republicans, including elected officials, are on the list.

Yes, the next couple of months will be interesting. Read the whole thing.

Enforcing Baker v. Carr

Baker v. Carr is a Supreme Court case which dealt with the makeup of the Tennessee State Senate. The state constitution provided for a body with 33 member who represented fixed geographic districts in a similar manner to the fixed geographic boundaries of the states. That is, its structure was analogous to the that of the U. S. Senate. A voter from Shelby County, then the state’s most populous, sued because the senatorial districts hadn’t been adjusted for over 50 years, and some were much more populous than others. The State argued that the matter wasn’t justiciable and none of the judiciary’s business. The Supremes said, “Oh yes, it is,” and remanded the case for further proceedings. A bit later, the Supremes ruled in another pair of cases that such redistricting must be done on the principle of “one man, one vote.”

Thus, it seems that one could argue that each vote in the same district should weigh equally with every other, and this brings us to one of the claims being made with regard to fraud in last month’s election. It’s being reported that one investigator believes he has found evidence Democrat votes were more heavily weighted than Republican votes in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The scientist noted that there were only two things that could explain that improbable result.

He admitted that there could be a demographic within the Independent voters who voted for Biden that that he could not see in his model.

“Another possibility is that Mr. Biden’s votes were simply multiplied by 1.3, meaning each single vote Biden received became 1.3 reported votes,” Shiva explained. “And President Trump’s votes are reduced by that 0.3 or 30 percent gained by Mr. Biden. Simply put, you could call this vote swapping.”

Shiva testified that he believed Dominion voting machines have a weighted voting feature that would allow a Democrat candidate to receive 130 percent of the vote and for the Republican to receive 7/10ths of the vote.

“The more important thing to understand is our votes are stored not as whole integer numbers but as decimal fractions,” he explained.

It wouldn’t be that hard to audit the counting software and the databases. Why doesn’t Dominion want to prove to the world how trustworthy their voting systems are? Why don’t the Democrats want to prove they won the election fairly?

The Gentle Reader may form his own answers to those questions.

BTW, Charles Baker was a Republican.