RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/11/11/joe-biden-candidate-of-lies/

Joe Biden launched his entire campaign on the back of the most pernicious lie in American public life—the “very fine people” hoax, the myth that President Trump praised violent bigots in Charlottesville three years ago. Even a cursory examination of the actual transcripts and unedited video clips of that infamous August 2017 Trump Tower press conference reveals that the president explicitly and clearly excluded hateful actors from his “both sides” designation. 

On that occasion, and on many others subsequently, Trump declared: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.” 

Even though “condemned totally” leaves zero room for interpretation, Joe Biden launched his presidential campaign on the baseless foundation of this corrosive calumny. Biden claimed that the Charlottesville controversy compelled his candidacy. Biden continued with this lie throughout the campaign, meeting no protest from the Democrats’ compliant media. 

In the final weeks of the campaign, after Vice-President Mike Pence admirably assailed the hoax in a powerful and concise prosecution at the vice-presidential debate against Kamala Harris, Biden finally seemed to drop that chestnut from his repertoire. Let’s hope the lie remains in the political grave, where it belongs. 

Certainly, we know that minority Americans increasingly wholly reject the conclusions of those peddling the lie. After all, Trump’s Election Day totals reveal the largest minority vote for any Republican president in 60 years. 

Trump’s surge among Hispanics was especially notable, with the president capturing 47 percent of the Hispanic vote in Florida, per CBS News, a key pillar of Trump’s massive 373,000-vote victory in the Sunshine State. So the very people the Left would have us believe Trump wishes to target, resoundingly rejected Buden’s slanders.

Unfortunately, Biden’s willingness to use race as a cudgel to achieve political power has a long history. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/11/time-fighting-not-healing-bruce-thornton/

As part of his pretense that the presidential race is over, Joe Biden indulged the banal “time for healing” and “we’re all Americans” rhetoric. But we shouldn’t be fooled. Even before Barack Obama’s dishonest “no red state, no blue state” campaign lies were followed by a hyper-partisan, divisive administration, we’ve known that the increasingly left-leaning Democrats will endorse  “any means necessary” tactics to work their political will.

And we also know that too many Republicans will fall for the Dems’ rhetorical bait-and-switch. We shouldn’t let them get away with it this time, for we’re facing a hard fight ahead to minimize the damage that the “woke” Democrats will try to inflict on our Constitution. It’s time to fight, not “heal.”

First, anyone paying attention for the last few decades knows that every time a Democrat starts talking about “reaching across the aisle” and “bipartisanship,” he’s getting ready to pick your pocket. Such bromides are really euphemisms for serving their policy preferences rather than conservative ones, after which they’ll pat you on the head as a “good Republican” or a “maverick” for betraying your conservative principles.

Meanwhile, few Democrats reciprocate. They never cringe preemptively before Republicans lest the Donks call them bad names. Outright racialist behavior such as consorting with a race-hack like Al Sharpton or an avowed anti-Semite like Louis Farrakhan is indulged, and any complaint contemptuously dismissed by Democrat Senators and House Representatives, even as they endlessly chant “racist” or “white supremacist” at Republicans.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/when_computers_cheat_they_inevitably_leave_evidence_behind.html

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, a multi-credentialed MIT grad, ran the numbers, and the computer data generated in Michigan scream out “fraud!”

You should learn three main things from this post: (1) The Supreme Court can consider statistical evidence of fraud and can order a new election. (2) Most of the computers used for voting in America have a built-in mechanism that allows votes to be weighted in favor of a candidate. (3) If someone does tell a computer to mess with the election outcome, the computer’s processes will inevitably create unnatural data trails that prove human intervention in vote counts – and that’s what happened in three Michigan counties.

The Supreme Court

Alexander Macris found Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York, 435 F.Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), a case with close parallels to 2020’s election. After President Ford lost in 1976, Republican voters sued New York, alleging that systematic fraud deprived them of their voting rights. The district court allowed the suit and stated the following legal test: (1) Plaintiffs had to prove specific acts of misconduct that (2) involved ‘willful or knowing’ ballot fraud (3) by state officials or private persons acting jointly with state officials that (4) changed the outcome of the election.

The court held that the plaintiffs could introduce expert opinions and statistical analyses showing that voting patterns markedly deviated from the predictable uniformity to be found in random samples from elections counts that were honest. If the plaintiffs, won, said the court, they could get an order requiring a new presidential election. Any other outcome would fail to protect election integrity (especially in presidential elections) that is “essential to a free and democratic society.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/trumps_pennsylvania_complaint_is_brilliant.html

The complaint filed in Pennsylvania by the Trump campaign is a superb piece of legal craftsmanship.

It was filed in federal court, not state.  The gist is that some of the state’s actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.

The point is obvious enough once one thinks of it, but it’s brilliant all the same.  It shifts the focus from state law, where a politicized Pennsylvania court has the last word, to federal law, where the U.S. Supreme Court rules.

As for the obviousness of the point, consider as a thought experiment a state law requiring that all votes be counted in secret by an unelected board named by the party in power.  Could it survive a constitutional challenge?

As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, “to ask the question is to answer it.”  It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities.  Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions.