Mollie Hemingway: Rigged

  

In a post written in March 2021 I wrote: 

“President Trump did not lose the election, the Democrats won it. How they won it, with the most lackluster candidate in memory, is a story that remains to be told.”

Molly Hemingway’s “Rigged” a well-documented and carefully researched book on the 2020 Presidential election goes a long way toward telling the story. Early in the book she states her thesis by referring to a Time magazine article published on 2/4/2021 shortly after the inauguration of President Joe Biden.

 “Without irony or shame, the magazine reported that “[t]here was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes” creating an extraordinary shadow effort” by a “well-funded cabal of powerful people” to oppose Trump. Corporate CEOs, organized labor, left-wing activists, and Democrats all worked together in secret to secure a Biden victory. For Trump, these groups represented a powerful Washington and Democratic establishment that saw an unremarkable career politician like Biden as merely a vessel for protecting their self-interests.” [36]

I recall that shortly after the election some news sources admitted that there had been fraud but claimed that it wasn’t enough to change the results.  Then, we were told that there was no evidence of “widespread” fraud. This latter claim soon became a kind of mantra even in respected newspapers like the Wall Street Journal.

But Mollie Hemingway’s book demonstrates that the fraud did not have to be widespread to steal the election. On the contrary, the efforts were targeted at a handful of key swing states with pinpoint accuracy. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona, key states that Trump had won in 2016, were the prime targets.

Hemingway describes the efforts of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to pour millions of dollars into these key states to generate votes in targeted Democratic districts under the guise of supporting increased voter participation.  Private organizations were set up to embed their operatives into the election process and even take charge of the processing and counting.

In Wisconsin, Hemingway notes that “After the Wisconsin legislature passed a bill banning private funding of election operations by a 60-36 margin in the state assembly and by an 18-14 margin in the state senate, Governor Tony Evers vetoed the ban. Without tech oligarchs buying the administration of the state’s elections, Democrats stand to lose.“ [222]

In Georgia, despite a Republican governor and secretary of state, the voting and counting in Fulton county with 1 million voters was controlled by Democrats. In chapter 10, entitled “The Trouble with Fulton County, “ Hemingway describes  the goings on in Atlanta’s State Farm Arena where hundreds of thousands of  absentee ballots were to be counted. She quotes a tweet from David Shafer, the chairman of the  Georgia Republican party.

“Fulton County elections officials told the media and our observer that they were shutting down the tabulation center at State Farm Arena at 10:30 p.m. on election night only to continue counting ballots in secret until 1:00 a.m. No one disputes that Fulton County elections officials falsely announced that the counting would stop at 10:30 p.m. No one disputes that Fulton County elections officials unlawfully resumed the counting of ballots after our observers left the center.” [290]

Here are some quotes from Hemingway’s account of  the election in Pennsylvania, a state with a rabidly anti-Trump governor, and a history of election fraud.

“In 2020, South Philadelphia judge of elections Dominick DeMuro pleaded guilty to taking bribes to stuff the ballot box in multiple elections.“ [252]

“Nearly $35 million in Zuckerberg funds flowed into government offices in Democratic strongholds of Pennsylvania to assist Democrats with their mail-in-voting push.” [256]

“The Democrats in Philadelphia did not have to allow the Trump campaign any observation of the vote counting. “ [260]

“That court’s ruling was overturned by the liberal Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which admitted that the ballots were violations of the election code but said that they should be counted in any case. “ [263]

According to Hemingway, Pennsylvania was crucial not only in the election but in the aftermath. She blames the Trump team for concentrating on minor issues like the thousands of dead voters on the registration rolls when it should have concentrated on the way in which voters and votes were treated differently in different parts of the state. This failure had great significance.

“By wasting time on less relevant claims, an important lawsuit failed. It had catastrophic effects for the remaining legal battles. Pennsylvania could have been the first domino to fall for the Trump campaign in a sequence of tightly contested courtroom victories. Instead, it was the beginning of the end for the campaign’s effort to hold Democrats accountable for foul play. It also had a ripple effect throughout the legal community. The media were soon dismissing all legal challenges as baseless attempts to prove widespread fraud ignoring more substantive claims. The avalanche of bad publicity scared off credible lawyers from participating in further election challenges on behalf of the Trump campaign, and it made judges inclined to view any such challenges, no matter how merited, with suspicion. [275]

Even the influential Wall Street Journal, my favorite newspaper, showed a reluctance to investigate claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Its news department, which has been leaning left in recent years, never did an independent investigation of the charges. The more conservative editorial page now just continually refers to charges of fraud as dubious. 

Now, charges that the election was rigged or stolen are regarded as unpatriotic or even treasonous. Former President Trump is routinely blamed  for continuing to dispute the legitimacy of the election, despite the fact that subsequent disclosures have backed him up. A court had ordered Pennsylvania  to remove over 200000 deceased persons from its voter rolls before the election, but the state only did so months after the election. Only after the Biden inauguration did the Washington Post admit that it had mis-quoted President Trump’s now famous phone conversation where he supposedly insisted an election official in Georgia find thousands of votes.

In a brief epilogue entitled, “Consent of the Losers,” Hemingway points out that consent of the losers to the result of an election is important in a democracy. However, she details have over the past few decades Democrats have repeatedly claimed that Republican presidential victories were illegitimate. The 2000 Bush-Gore contest is a case in point, but how can anyone seriously blame President Trump when Democrats from Hillary Clinton on down still refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2016 election even after multiple investigations have shown that the Russia collusion charge was a hoax inspired by the Democratic party itself.*

###

*Hemingway's sources and notes take up almost 100 pages. 

Faulty Election Analysis

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Daniel Henninger, editor and regular columnist, repeated the 2020 election analysis that has now become generally accepted. To paraphrase Jane Austen, If President Trump had only behaved in "a more gentleman like manner," he would not have turned off so many voters and lost the election.

To put it in the words of a friend of mine, President Trump was a “turn-off, a narcissistic, demeaning bully,” as well as an egotistical BS artist. To give my friend credit, he voted for Trump, because he believed the alternative was even worse.

Other acquaintances went even further and regarded Trump with dislike bordering on overt hatred. I know devout Catholics, who like millions of others, disliked him so much that they voted for Joe Biden despite his avowed intention to repeal the ban on taxpayer funded abortions. For them, it was not a question of policy. Trump was evil incarnate.

However, if President Trump’s personality turned off so many voters in 2020, how did he manage to get over 10 Million more votes than he did in 2016? In 2020 his 74 Million votes set a record for an incumbent President.

How did he win easy victories in Florida and Ohio, states that were very close in 2016? Polls (who can believe them anymore?) showed those states in play in 2020 but President Trump won easily. In Ohio he gained over 300000 more votes, a 10% increase over 2016. In Florida his vote total was a Million more than it was in 2016, a gain of over 18%. Polls showed even Texas close in 2020 but Trump won going away. He increased his 2016 vote total there by 1.2 million votes, a whopping 20% gain. Are suburban housewives different in Ohio, Florida, and Texas?

Even in blue state bastions like California and New York, President Trump increased his vote count over 2016. Although he was overwhelmed in California, his vote total increased by 1.5 Million votes, a 25% increase over 2016. In New York over 300000 more voters turned out for him in 2020, a 13% increase.

Even in the battleground states that ultimately decided the election, President Trump had double digit increases in vote count from 2016. In Pennsylvania, where he lost by less than 12000 votes, his total was up by 12%. In Georgia he was up by 15% and in Wisconsin by 13%. In Arizona, which he lost by only 10000 votes, his vote total increased by over 400000, an incredible 25% over 2016.Those four key states cast over 18 Million votes, and Trump lost by a total of only 123000 votes.

Ultimately, I believe that President Trump lost the election not because he was nasty but because he was too nice to be an American politician. He did not understand just how ruthless and unprincipled you have to be to play the game.

During his term he named three Justices to the Supreme Court, but none were relatives, friends, cronies, or political operatives, a departure from the normal practice, especially among blue state Governors.

When it came to an Attorney General, he did not choose a relative as JFK did, or a political attack dog as President Obama did. He chose Judge Sessions who blindsided him by recusing himself from the Russia collusion affair. Then, he chose the highly respected William Barr whose vaunted integrity kept him from investigating the Biden family financial dealings in the Ukraine and China during an election year. After the election, Barr regretted that he would not have four more years to continue cleaning up the Justice department.

Speaking about the Justice department, things are getting back to normal. One of the first things President Biden did in office was to fire every assistant attorney general no matter what they were working on, or how qualified they were. Jobs had to be found for Democratic supporters who will never cross the President, or plot against him like officials did in the early days of the Trump administration. There will be no Rod Rosenstein in the Biden administration who will call for an independent council to investigate anything.

In his famous political treatise, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli claimed that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. Among his opponents, who actually feared President Trump? Certainly, Democrats from Nancy Pelosi on down never did. They could say and do the most outrageous things with no repercussions.

For example, the Trump administration granted a multi-billion-dollar contract to Connecticut’s Electric Boat company despite incessant criticism of the President by the state’s two Senators. Actually, local politicians took credit for the huge boost to the state’s economy, but neither they nor the Connecticut media gave the President any credit.

Throughout his tenure, the media incessantly criticized the President and even disrespected him to his face in his many press conferences, both formal and informal. People did not like the way President Trump behaved in his press conferences when he fought back against what appeared to be a pack of raging hounds. But now, things are back to normal. In two months President Biden has not held one press conference. Despite a fawning press, we are back to the canned teleprompter days of President Obama. If there ever is a press conference, the Biden administration has instructed reporters to submit questions in advance, a normal way for those in authority to ensure they look good.

I disagree with columnists like those at the Wall Street Journal whose personal dislike of President Trump obscured their judgment. One even admitted that she voted for a dead man rather than vote for either candidate. President Trump did not lose the election, the Democrats won it. How they won it, with the most lackluster candidate in memory, is a story that remains to be told.

###

Capitol Riot

  

After the violent storming of the halls of Congress this week, I decided to go to You Tube and watch President Trump’s speech to the huge crowd of protestors before the violence erupted. I may be politically naïve, but I saw no incitement to riot in the President’s remarks. He even made it a point to insist that the huge protest be peaceful. My opinion was supported by an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a former assistant attorney general of the District of Columbia, who had been involved in the prosecution of a number of riot cases in the Capitol.

 

It is true that the President repeated the charges that he had made at previous rallies that fraudulent activity in key battleground states had stolen the election. He read from a teleprompter a whole litany of charges that detailed this activity. 

 

At the top of his list was the charge that a judge in Pennsylvania had unconstitutionally violated the state’s own law in allowing late ballots to be counted. His list included thousands of ballots mailed to dead voters, and thousands of ballots cast by people living out of state. There were so many more items on his list that the President feared that he would bore the crowd with the recitation. He even referred to a poll that appeared in Wisconsin on the day before the election showing him losing by 17 points, an obvious attempt at voter suppression.

 

At the end of his speech the President calmly asked the crowd to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol where Congress was about to count the votes of the Electoral College. It was his hope that at this late date Congress would send the votes back to the states for re-certification. He even called on Vice-President Pence to show courage and stand up for what is right. * 

 

As we all know a small minority of the protestors got out of hand, stormed the Capitol, got through police lines, and even entered the inner chambers of Congress. Inevitably, the President was blamed for inciting the riot and now members of Congress are preparing articles of Impeachment even though there are less than two weeks to go in his term. 

 

For years we have repeatedly been told that rather than blame protestors, we should try to understand the reasons for their anger and actions even when they turn violent.

 

As recently as the riots last summer in major American cities, we have been told that most of the rioters were just peaceful protestors and that the causes of their discontent were in social and economic inequality. Democratic politicians in these cities even praised and encouraged the protestors when they attacked federal and state buildings. One author even published a book entitled, “In Defense of Looting.”

 Anyway, what is the underlying reason behind the huge demonstration in Washington that unfortunately turned into violence? Thousands of people marched on Washington from all over the country. Even though the TV cameras refused to show the crowd, the President claimed it was the largest he had ever seen. Why did they come? I believe that most felt that not only had President Trump been robbed in the November election, but also that they had been robbed.

 

They had turned out in record numbers to vote for the President only to discover that their votes did not count and that they probably would never count in the future. The President had gotten 63 Million votes in 2016 and his advisors had told him that if he could get 66 Million in 2020, he would win in a landslide. He got 74 Million votes but lost because of narrow defeats in key battleground states. 

 

How could this have happened without fraud in those states? Pre-election polls showed that states like Ohio, Texas, and Florida were in 

play, but the President won easily. Ohio had been close in 2016 but the President gained an easy victory in 2020. Are suburban housewives different in Ohio than in other states? Are Blacks and Hispanics different in Cleveland than in Detroit or Milwaukee?

 

Election data analysts have noted significant irregularities and anomalies in the tabulation of votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada. There were, for example, vote spikes “where a numerical amount of votes are processed in a time period that is not feasible or mechanically possible under normal circumstances.” There were massive dumps of votes in the wee hours of the morning all overwhelmingly for Joe Biden. Here is a link to a brief video on irregularities in Pennsylvania.

 

Another vote anomaly occurred in Georgia where 100000 votes could not be read by the computer and so had to be interpreted by an adjudicator to determine the intent of the voter. The process of adjudication took only one day, a physical impossibility. In other states, mail in ballots were counted as received even before they were mailed out. Democrats admit clerical errors in reporting votes, but all the clerical errors seemed to work out for Biden.

 

It is true that courts have thrown out the President’s charges of voter fraud and that media sources, even the esteemed Wall Street Journal, routinely claim there is no evidence for these charges. But do they ever investigate these charges themselves? A few years ago the Houston Astros won the World Series and sports writers were lavish in praise of the Houston system. Only later did we discover that they had cheated.

 

Efforts to suppress or ignore these stories will only lead to greater suspicion and anger. Just the other day, President Trump’s Twitter account, practically the only way, given a hostile media, that the President could communicate with the American people, was banned. Is that any way to make people less suspicious or angry?

 

It is true that the web is full of conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, suppression or censorship of unfavorable ideas has become so prevalent that it is no wonder that people are suspicions, and even angry. 

 

Democratic politicians and their allies in the media have incessantly attacked the President even before his inauguration in 2016. They have even refused to call him President and still claim that his victory was fraudulent and that his presidency was illegitimate. Many of them still believe the conspiracy theories about Russian collusion for which the Mueller and other investigations could find no evidence.

 

The opposition to President Trump, often bordering on hysteria and hatred, bears much of the responsibility for last week’s riot.

### 

 

 *Note: I do fault the President for calling our Vice-President Pence in his remarks. It is inconceivable that he had not discussed the matter with the VP privately, and so he must have known what he intended to do. The Vice-President’s opinion of his role in the counting of Electoral College vote count was also featured in the op-ed section of the WSJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m shocked! Shocked. Claude Rains in Casablanca.

President Trump: Concession Speech

 

     

 

Now that the Electoral College has voted, I suspect that President Trump will soon concede. Below is my suggestion of what should be in that concession speech. It is a brief statement that admits defeat in the election battle, while vigorously claiming to carry on the war for America in the next four years.

I am announcing today that I will acknowledge and accept the results of the recent Electoral College vote. Even though I continue to believe that there was massive fraud in the election, I am conceding in the interests of national tranquility, 

However, I intend to be very active as President in my few remaining weeks in office. I will continue to discharge the duties of the office until my successor is inaugurated. I will also remain fully committed in politics, especially in working to elect the two Republican candidates for Senate in the upcoming Georgia run-off election. 

Moreover, when I leave office, I intend to be part of the resistance to the new Democratic regime because I believe that their opposition over the past four years has been offensive, unprincipled, and not in the true interests of our country. Not only have the Democrats failed to learn from their mistakes in the past, but also, they now are preparing to double down on them.

I will also work to continue the efforts to expose what I believe to be massive fraud in the past election. Even Democrats and their allies in the media admit that there was fraud, but just say that there was not enough to change the outcome. Despite innumerable signed affidavits, they continually claim that there is no evidence. 

Fraud in our elections cannot be tolerated for it strikes at the very root of our democracy. I will do all I can as a private citizen in the next four years to expose the fraudulent activities in the past election, and to work to ensure that they can never happen again.

There is precedent for such resistance which, after all, is the right of every American citizen. For the past four years Democrats have complained that my election was stolen by collusion with Russia and that my Presidency was illegitimate. For four years I have been subjected to the most vicious attacks from the Democratic opposition, the governing class in Washington, and their allies in the media. 

The attacks began even before my inauguration and continued even after the Mueller and other investigations turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. My opponents even resorted to a bogus impeachment with virtually no evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Senate rightly exonerated me. 

Despite an unprecedented level of political opposition and obstruction on the part of the Democrats and their allies, my administration achieved more in the past four years than the previous two administrations did in sixteen.

At home we supported tax reform that brought jobs back to America, and stimulated the economy to new heights. During my tenure we achieved record high employment and earnings in all levels of society, including record employment and job gains for minorities. 

We threw out foreign trade deals that everyone knew were flawed and outmoded, and replaced them with trade deals in which America would no longer play the sucker. Moreover, we discarded treaties that played into the hands of our enemies. We withdrew from the Paris Climate accord when it was clear that China, the world’s greatest polluter, would not comply. We withdrew from the foolish and dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran. During my administration no planeloads of cash were sent to promoters of terrorism. 

Today, we are closer to peace in the Middle East than we have been in the past century. We have eliminated ISIS, the terrorist force that occupied most of Iraq during the Obama Biden administration. During my administration we entered no new wars and have begun to bring our troops home from all parts of the world. We also brokered peace deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, something my opponents thought could never be done.

Finally, I believe that history will record that the greatest achievement of the Trump administration was the development of a vaccine for the coronavirus in record time through an incredible joint effort on the part of government and our private industry. We have suffered a tragic number of deaths during the pandemic, but because of our joint efforts, our successor will have the tools to overcome Covid. 

The true test of the Trump administration will not be about whether people liked or disliked me personally, but on how much my administration and the American people have accomplished in the past four years. In the next four years I plan to work to ensure that those gains are not lost or frittered away by self-serving politicians, and foolish ideologues.

 

### 

Election 2020: Post-Mortem

 

The Democrats were caught napping in 2016 when they went down to a stunning defeat at the hands of the upstart outsider, Donald Trump. They apparently relied on their own polls that were way off the mark in predicting an easy win for Hillary Clinton.  

They did not make the same mistake in 2020 even though the polls were again predicting a Democratic landslide. They pulled out all the stops in the campaign. After complaining for years about the influence of money in elections, they threw record amounts of cash into battleground states where they far outspent the Trump campaign.

In addition, they could count on the continuation of the media assault on the President that began four years ago. By 2020 a large portion of the population has been turned into rabid Trump haters by the media, a phenomenon witnessed in the recent urban riots and protests. 

Finally, it would not surprise me if the President’s claims of ballot fraud in Blue state cities turn out to be true. You would have to be incredibly politically naïve not to at least suspect that urban Democratic political machines are capable of fraud. 

I cast my first Presidential ballot at the age of 21 when I voted for John F. Kennedy in 1960. I was a young college student in New York City, and Kennedy seemed like a breath of fresh air, especially compared to Richard Nixon. Now, most historians agree that the Democrats “stole” the election by winning Illinois through the ballot stuffing tactics of Chicago’s corrupt Mayor Richard Daley of “Vote Early and Often” fame.

Since then, years of experience have shown that if an election is close, urban Democrat politicians will find ways to produce enough ballots to turn the tide. Nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut has been a one party city for years. Nevertheless, although the state of Connecticut is heavily Democratic, recent tight races for Governor have been decided by a Bridgeport Democratic machine noted for its corruption. The mayor is an ex-felon and the Police Chief, the mayor’s former driver, was recently forced to quit for irregularities in his appointment process.

Although newspapers are giving the election to Joe Biden, there will be recounts in key battleground states. Georgia has been given to Biden but he only has a 10000 vote lead out of 5 Million votes cast. In Wisconsin Biden leads by 20000 votes with over 3 Million votes cast. It is the same story in Arizona where Biden only leads by 20000 votes with over 3 Million votes cast. Finally, there is Pennsylvania where Biden holds a 40000 lead with over 6 Million votes cast.

As I said before, you would have to be incredibly politically naïve to believe that the Democratic machines in Atlanta, Milwaukee, Tucson, and Philadelphia would not be capable of voter suppression, and intimidation? Is it a coincidence that riots broke out in the streets of Philadelphia only days before the election?

Pennsylvania went even further and stacked the deck before election day when a state law prohibiting the counting of ballots received after election day, was overthrown by a judge who ruled that even ballots without postmarks should be counted. What an opportunity for fraud. 

If recounts tip the balance for President Trump in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, he will be re-elected.  In that event Democratic politicians, commentators, and fanatical Progressive who are now calling for calm and unity will tear the nation apart. Let me repeat for emphasis. If recounts discover fraud and give the election to President Trump, there will be rioting in the streets spurred on by those who are now calling for peace, calm, and unity.

However, if the recounts confirm the election of Joe Biden, I believe that President Trump will emerge as the real winner in this election. Although he trailed in the popular vote, he received more than 70 Million votes, a tremendous outpouring of popular favor. It is hard to imagine that all of those voters were right-wing extremists. 

In Florida, rated a toss-up in the pre-election polls, the President won by half a million votes despite massive spending by his opponents. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg reportedly spent $100 Million of his own money to gain the state for Biden. It was the same in Texas where the polls indicated that the traditional red state was in play. The President won by over 600,000 votes. 

Actually, the President, despite four years of unrelenting attacks that included bogus Russian collusion claims, a partisan impeachment with no high crimes or misdemeanors, rioting and looting in major cities, and the coronavirus, markedly increased his vote count in the battleground states. Ohio, for example, was a squeaker in 2016 but this year, Trump won easily. The Trump phenomenon worked just as well in Florida.

Almost half of his votes came from women, something liberal female columnists cannot understand. The President also dramatically increased his vote count among blacks and Hispanics. 

In the final weeks of the campaign the President emerged as a true charismatic leader. He foundered in the first debate and then was stricken with the coronavirus himself. Incredibly for a 74-year-old man, he bounced back with a vengeance like the Energizer Bunny. He demolished Biden in the second debate, and then proceeded to take his message to the people in huge rallies all over the country. It was amazing to see him on stage dancing to YMCA while the crowds cheered. Despite the polls he did not quit like Republicans Romney and McCain in prior elections.

Nevertheless, as noted above, the Democrats were ready and threw everything they had at him. I almost hope that President Trump does not prevail in the recounts. He has started a movement and might be able to lead it better outside the White House. He is 74 and he and his family deserve a rest. 

###

Election Issues 2020: Who Can You Trust?

 

                                                 

A neighbor recently told me that he could not trust President Trump. He raised a legitimate issue. Trustworthiness is important in a President. It is part of the “character” issue that Joe Biden has raised in the current campaign. Let’s examine the trustworthiness of the two candidates.

I can certainly understand why people could believe that Donald Trump could not be trusted back in 2016 when he pulled off his stunning upset of front-runner Hillary Clinton. Trump had never held political office before, and his words and deeds as a private citizen were often out of line. Nevertheless, if the President is judged on his actual performance in office, something the media has purposely refused to do, you can see that he has largely been true to his word, even if you disagree with his policies.

He claimed from the start that he was for peace and against the interminable wars that the country has been involved in during the last two administrations. Under his leadership our military defeated ISIS and then the President proceeded to bring back troops from the Middle East. Moreover, he brokered unprecedented deals between Israel and its Arab neighbors, something that was not even discussed in the recent debates. He followed up on his pledge to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel, and the world did not come to an end.

From the beginning the President argued that previous trade deals were bad and not in the Nation’s best interests. Despite much opposition, he scrapped NAFTA, a trade deal that everyone agreed was flawed and his administration negotiated a new one that seems much better. He imposed tariffs and sanctions on foreign countries like China that were not playing by the rules. 

He claimed that other foreign deals were flawed and followed through by withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, and the Iranian nuclear deal. There would be no more planeloads of cash shipped to supporters of terrorism. He also claimed that NATO allies and South Korea were not paying their fair share for their own defense, and got them to pony up billions.

From the first, he argued that the tax code was unfair and overly complicated. He followed through with the tax reform act of 2017. By 2019 Federal tax revenue increased 4% over the pre-reform level and figures indicate that the average taxpayer paid less.

Before his election Donald Trump produced a list of 20 names from which he would fill any Supreme Court vacancies. He followed through on his pledge and so far has chosen three extremely qualified justices, none of whom were party hacks or personal friends.

On the other hand, I have to admit that I find it hard to trust Democratic candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden. Even before the recent documents appeared I wondered how a man who could work 47 years as a “public servant” could amass a huge fortune, well in excess of most of the people he was supposed to serve. 

I also wondered how his son Hunter, with no qualifications whatsoever, could be on the board of directors of a Ukrainian energy company at a salary in excess of $600,000 per year. Moreover, I wondered how Vice-President Biden, who was in charge of overseeing billions in aid to Ukraine and bragged that he forced the government of Ukraine to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating that company, could not be aware of his son's position. Subsequently, Biden claimed that not only was he  unaware of his son’s activities in the Ukraine, he also knew nothing of his dealings with China even after flying there together on Air Force II.

In the last two weeks my suspicions were confirmed when the NY Post broke the story about the emails on a computer that Hunter Biden dropped off at a repair store but never bothered to retrieve. The emails indicated that the former Vice President not only knew of his son’s activities but that they were part of a whole Biden family enterprise designed to capitalize on the Biden name.

 Incredibly, the story was spiked or censored on most news outlets. Even when a former business partner of Hunter Biden went public with corroborating testimony and evidence, his story was only reported on Fox News. Even the Wall Street Journal, which featured editorials on the subject, did not mention it on its news pages. 

Nevertheless, the story stinks and the silence of the Biden campaign has been deafening.

I also find it difficult to trust Joe Biden because I suspect that he and his campaign are hiding something else. At age 78 Biden is obviously suffering the effects of old age. I won’t speculate on his medical or psychological history but his garbled and confused statements are troubling. Even his handlers keep him away from stressful situations or interviews. 

He won’t, for example, say whether he is for or against his party’s idea of packing the Supreme Court with more judges in order to get favorable outcomes. He claimed that he is the Democratic party but he will not say. Unlike the President, he will not publish names of potential Supreme Court nominees. On other questions, he just says he has plans or will appoint blue-ribbon commissions to investigate and come up with solutions, a typical evasive tactic. 

It seems clear to me that rather than being the Democratic Party, he is just a front man, an old war horse brought out of retirement as the party’s only hope to regain power. The other Democratic candidates looked dangerous or lackluster. There is no enthusiasm for Biden even among Democrats. 

The President was correct in the last debate when he branded Biden as just “a politician.”

### 

Election Issues 2020: Supreme Court

  

      

 

It would appear that the Senate will confirm President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court this week. She has flown through the hearing process with ease and no one seriously questioned her qualifications, experience, or knowledge of the law. 

 

Democratic complaints that her nomination came too close to the upcoming election can be dismissed with a simple observation. If the shoe had been on the other foot, and a Democratic President, with a Democratic controlled Senate at his disposal, had made the nomination, no Democrat would have argued that the process should be put off until after the people had decided. Just four years ago, President Obama did not hesitate to try and fill a vacancy in an election year. 

 

In our Constitution the President has a duty, not just a right, to appoint a judge to fill a vacancy. The Senate has a duty to advise and consent. It is neither a right nor a duty of the “people” to appoint judges. 

 

Trump haters who refuse to acknowledge that the President has done one good thing in his first term, must admit that the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett is of the highest quality, even if they dislike her conservative values. She has been on the Appeals Court for three years and no one questions her record there.

 

When she was confirmed for the Court of Appeals she was criticized for being an “orthodox” Catholic as if this meant that she was a kind of fanatic. I recall Senator Dick Durbin asking her if she was not just a Catholic but an "orthodox" one. 

 

 The implication of the question, aside from raising the issue of a religious test for office, was that Amy Coney Barrett would be rigid and doctrinaire as a judge. However, as a lifelong Catholic I can say that orthodoxy means just the opposite in the Catholic tradition.

The Latin root of the word orthodoxy is ortho which just means straight, or straighten. An orthodontist straightens our teeth and an orthopedist straightens our bones. For Catholics it should mean holding a middle position between the extremes of puritanism and legalism on one hand, and laissez-faire or anything goes-ism on the other hand.

Moreover, the orthodox Catholic while trying to steer a straight course will seek to trim sails when things are tending toward one extreme or another in order to bring things back into balance. It seems to me that a truly “orthodox” Catholic would be a perfect candidate for the Supreme Court.

The real danger facing the Supreme Court today is not the appointments of President Trump which have been remarkably free of political cronyism and favoritism, but the court packing scheme proposed by Democratic activists. Tampering with the Court is a major issue in the campaign.

 

The continued refusal of Democratic candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to address the court-packing scheme in recent debates is striking. President Trump and Vice-President Pence have been very forthright in opposing any idea of increasing the number of Supreme Court Judges, but their opponents have repeatedly declined to answer pointed questions. 

 

Even if Justice Coney Barrett would be the deciding vote in overturning Roe v. Wade, it would just mean that the issue would go back to the “people” and their representatives to decide. Roe v. Wade is not a law, but a judicial opinion that ruled that state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. 

Legislators like Biden and Harris have been reluctant to deal with the abortion issue for years but now shudder at the possibility of having to do their duty and legislate. They would much prefer to pack the Supreme Court with compliant judges who will do the legislating for them. 

 

###

Democratic Persona

We are now at last in the election year and it seems time to make some observations on the candidates remaining among the Democratic hopefuls for the Presidency. The field has been whittled down but as the Iowa primary draws neat here are my observations not so much on their respective ideas and position papers but on my impressions of their TV persona.

Joe Biden: I watched a little of the last debate and the 78-year-old former Vice-President looks remarkably fit for his age. He actually looks better than he ever has. His fitness coach has done a great job. Nevertheless, there is something in his voice that betrays his age. I detect a little hesitancy as if he is not as quick on the uptake as he used to be. 

He is also not as belligerent or pugnacious as he used to be in debate. Perhaps it’s age but I suspect it is hard for him to pull out all the stops in attacking fellow Democrats and he might also be leery of offending progressive sensibilities. If he attacks Senator Warren, he could be branded as a male chauvinist. Harsh words against Mayor Pete Buttigieg might brand him as a homophobe. Attacks against Senator Bernie Sanders could cause him to lose favor among the millennials partial to Socialism.

Senator Bernie Sanders: In the debates Senator Sanders reminds me of a cranky old man that you are likely to meet at your local Senior center who talks incessantly but rarely listens. Moreover, he says the same thing over and over again since his views have never changed with age or experience.

Like many seniors Senator Sanders complains about everything and leaves the impression that he has voted against everything in his long career. Now that his beloved Soviet Union, the place where he took his bride on their honeymoon, has collapsed, he even complains about Russia. Still, his greatest complaints are leveled against American corporations despite the fact that they have made it possible for millions of his young supporters to have enough surplus cash to contribute to his campaign.

Senator Elizabeth Warren:  Senator Warren leaves the impression of a schoolmarm in the same way that Hillary Clinton did. She knows everything and has a plan for everything. She knows what’s good for us and the country must take its medicine whether it likes it or not. Actually, of all the candidates she most resembles ex-President Obama. I can’t wait for her to say, “If you like your medical plan, you can keep it.”

I didn’t stay around at the debate to see her give the bird to Senator Sanders by refusing to shake his hand after their spat about the chance of a woman being President. Doesn’t Senator Sanders know that when a woman makes a charge, it must be believed?

I have to admit that I had only fleeting glimpses of the other three candidates on stage during the debate. Senator Amy Klobucher leaves little impression and that is probably her problem. She has no charisma, something so important in the age of American Idol. 

Billionaire Tom Steyer is completely lacking in face or name recognition. Even though his wealth exceeds that of a thousand millionaires, he doesn’t even wear a tie.  Does he want to leave the impression that he is a common, ordinary guy? He reminds me of the suburban women who wear tattered designer jeans as a sign of their solidarity with the working poor.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s persona as a combat veteran was severely damaged before the debate by an article in the Wall Street Journal that detailed the true nature of his service in Afghanistan. If he fails to win the nomination, it will not be because people dislike homosexuals, but because they do not like him, and perceive him as a lackluster mayor of a failing, crime-ridden city.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg was not on the stage but this latecomer to the race has so far spent more money on TV ads than all the other candidates combined. It will take a lot more of his money to make people forget that he went to a black church in Brooklyn recently and apologized for his continuation of Rudy Giuliani’s “stop and frisk” policy. Bloomberg argued in the past that the policy saved thousands of black lives but now he is sorry.  It will also take many more millions for him to overcome the “Little Mikey” label that President Trump has pinned on him.

Finally, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was not invited to the debate. She strikes me as the only real person running for the Democratic nomination but she needs more experience on the big stage. I would like to suggest that the Governor of Connecticut offer to trade Representative Rosa de Lauro to Hawaii for Representative Gabbard. The elderly De Lauro is more experienced and has more clout in the House of Representatives, but Gabbard would be a welcome addition to the Connecticut political scene.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

###

Democratic Aristocrats

Democratic Nobility

I could not bear to watch the Democratic party debates for more than a few minutes. It was a truly embarrassing spectacle for all involved. Nevertheless, I did come away with one impression. Although our Constitution does not allow “titles of nobility”, the candidates were all aristocrats of varying degrees of nobility. 

For example, when President Obama uttered his now famous line, “If you like your medical plan, you can keep it,” it was true as far as most of these candidates were concerned. Members of Congress were supposed to enroll in Obamacare, but they apparently found a way to stay in their old Federal “Cadillac” plan. They profess to be concerned about health care for the people, but they took care of themselves first.

Moreover, news reports indicate that leading candidates Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and even Socialist Bernie Sanders are millionaires. Biden has just reported that he and his wife had income of over $14 Million since leaving office after the 2016 election. They also used an S-corporation to minimize taxes.

Where is Shakespeare when we need him? It would take someone like him to tell about Kamala, Duchess of California, Elizabeth, Duchess of Massachusetts, Kristen, Duchess of New York, or Amy, Duchess of Minnesota. Their seats in the Senate are so safe that they might as well be considered hereditary. 

What about the men? Bernie Sanders, the aged Duke of Vermont, who will apparently hold his position for life, has somehow managed to become a millionaire despite his avowed Socialist and income re-distribution principles. His wife was President of the College of Burlington in Vermont where she pulled down a salary of about $150000 a year with generous retirement and severance benefits. How did her compensation compare with the pittance that colleges routinely pay to adjunct professors? 

Cory Booker, Duke of New Jersey, despite his privilege upbringing still portrays himself as an aggrieved black man. He is also a sacrosanct politician since any criticism of him or his ideas would be immediately portrayed as racist.

Even the lesser nobility have thrown their hats into the ring. There is Bill de Blasio, Earl of New York City, as well as Pete Buttigieg, the young Earl of South Bend, Indiana. Earl de Blasio presides over a city of great income inequality where homelessness goes hand in hand with astronomical housing costs. Buttigieg is well-loved in a South Bend suffering from urban blight, and where students at Notre Dame  are strongly advised not to go off campus.

Finally, Joe Biden, the Prince of Wilmington, is a truly Shakespearean character. For years, like Britain’s Prince Charles, he has waited to ascend to the Crown. He might have thought that once he became vice-President under King Barack Obama, his time had finally come. However, Queen Hillary, the wife of former King William, exerted her “divine right” and claimed the Democratic nomination in 2016. Little did she suspect, like Lady Macbeth, that an unforeseen opponent heading a mob of “deplorables” would storm the castle and seize the throne.

Now Prince Joe resembles Julius Caesar. The first debate showed that noble conspirators are planning his political assassination. 

Perhaps the candidates should brush up their Shakespeare.

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

###