Author: Dan Newman

From time to time we at TruthNewsNetwork publish editorials penned by others. Why do we do that? To give all our partners a glimpse at what other conservative Americans think about our issues of the day. And, believe it or not, sometimes these other conservatives have differing thoughts from those of us here at TruthNewsNetwork.

Such is the case today. An Op-Ed writer who many see published at FOX News online from time to time weighed-in with a look at the uproar surrounding our lives today at the hands of a really nasty and possibly disastrous 2020 presidential election. Liz Peek joins us today to give her version of this important chapter in our nation’s history that might possibly be the darkest chapter yet in election corruption.

Please know that what you see in this Op-Ed does not necessarily express the views of TruthNewsNetwork. This is Ms. Peek’s Op-Ed, and we respect her opinion.

Enjoy!

Liz Peek

According to a new Rasmussen Poll, 61% of Republicans think it is “very likely” that Democrats stole the election.

For four years, Democrats and their handmaidens in the liberal media have lied their heads off, spinning false narratives aimed at undermining President Trump. Why would Trump supporters trust them now?

The Russian collusion story, which the president rightfully deemed a “hoax,” was the granddaddy of misinformation campaigns. It led to the appointment of a special counsel and an exhausting investigation that ensnared and ruined the lives of entirely blameless people like retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his son.  As Rep. Gary Palmer, (R-AL) said, after the release of transcripts showed that Obama officials and Democrats knew they were peddling falsehoods, “It is now clear that Adam Schiff lied to his colleagues, that he lied to the media, and that he lied to the American public.” Congressman Schiff, (D-CA) wasn’t alone.

Democrats in the House impeached President Trump for pushing officials in Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s activities while he was our government’s point person in that nation. Little did we know how appropriate Trump’s request was. In recent weeks it has become clear that Joe’s son Hunter Biden did indeed participate in questionable activities in that corrupt country and that his father may have protected his interests.

Democrats and their media partners denigrated the president from day one, telling tall tales of nefarious self-dealing and portraying the Trump White House as dangerously unstable.

In 2018 the New York Times published to great fanfare the op-ed by “Anonymous,” in which the author claimed he was one of “many” high-level employees in the Trump “administration who are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” The Times claimed its author was a “senior official,” and implied that President Trump posed such a threat to the country that it simply had to break its long-standing rule against running anonymous pieces. Turned out, the author was Miles Taylor, who at the time served as deputy chief of staff to the secretary of DHS – in effect, a nobody.

Never once did the mainstream media applaud Trump’s many victories, like the return of hostages from abroad or trade concessions made by Beijing. His breakthrough diplomacy in the Middle East was greeted with a polite yawn.

The left-wing media joined Democrats like Michelle Obama in lying about Trump’s immigration program, claiming it was his White House that initiated the policy of separating children from their parents at the border. Oh, the lamentations over “children in cages,” until it turned out the worrisome photos were from 2014 and that it actually was the Obama administration that began the maligned practice.

So many lies, so much nastiness. But nothing – nothing – prepared Trump supporters for how powerfully the mainstream media, Twitter, and Facebook were to jump on the scale to ensure Biden’s victory.

No one could have imagined that a documented story about Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in Ukraine and China during the years that Joe Biden served as vice president would be banned – literally banned – on social media. It was impossible to foresee how all dissenting voices on COVID policy and practices, including from senior health experts, would be silenced in order to hurt Trump. Nobody expected that an unelected media magnate – Twitter’s Jack Dorsey – would control what President Trump could say to the public.

Trump supporters, cheered that 56% of the nation claimed they were better off than four years before, could not and do not believe that he could fail to win reelection. Unlike the Left, those folks understand why he was elected in 2016. They know it was because people were fed up with the elitist globalism of Barack Obama and liked the unabashedly pro-US message from an outsider candidate. They were sickened by the treacly excesses of political correctness and hungry for a president determined to protect them from terrorists, tighten our borders, and take on China.

Liberals have a very different idea about why President Trump was elected in 2016. Writing in Foreign Policy recently, Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes argued that “Trump built his political brand … by encouraging many Republican voters to see themselves as belonging to a shrinking white majority that can only maintain control of the commanding heights by undemocratic means.” These nitwits and others in the smug intelligentsia who so despise Trump and the people who voted for him do not understand that millions of Americans love their country, and want a president who shares that enthusiasm.

Tens of millions of Americans have lost faith in our institutions, our media, and now in our elections. After months of Democrats rewriting the voting rules, extending deadlines, and pushing mail-in voting, only 44% of Republicans, a month before the election, thought the ballots would be “accurately cast and counted nationwide,” a record low. Those doubts are now fueling uncertainty about the election outcome – uncertainty encouraged by President Trump. Unhappily, there appear to be enough instances of vote irregularities to feed suspicions, but not enough to overturn the results.

Trump supporters will want the president to be their voice going forward. Whether he chooses to run again in 2024, or whether he is content to be a senior party influencer, Trump is not going away. But now, to maintain his powerful voice and leadership, he needs to concede. The Left is using his refusal to admit defeat as more proof that he is undermining our democracy. He cannot allow this to be his legacy; his presidency has been so much bigger than that.

Trump should confound the Left, as he has done on so many occasions, by calling off the shaky legal battles and by stepping aside. If only for now.

Let’s just imagine all of the challenges to the election turn up nothing that would justify an overturn of the results. That would mean on January 20th we’d be watching the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President. What will the Republicans do?

I’m not talking about what they might do on that day. Let’s think for a bit about what the next four years might look like. The 2020 election has provided fertile ground upon which Republicans can spend the next four years doing to Joe Biden what the Democrats did to Donald Trump and George W. Bush.

For four years, Democrats and their media allies trumpeted every claim, no matter how baseless or crazy, that Trump’s 2016 election win was illegitimate and fraudulent. Despite zero evidence that so much as a single vote was interfered with, Democrats peddled the hoax that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to elect Trump. Even after the Mueller investigation exonerated Trump and his campaign from the collusion scenario, Democrats, led by the shameless Adam Schiff, continued to allege collusion. Their simple goal was to undermine and delegitimize the Trump presidency. It clearly worked to the degree it appears that some voters turned their backs on Trump even as they voted Republican down-ballot.

As Biden’s razor-thin win in a handful of states that pushed him past the 270-electoral vote threshold needed to win the presidency, Trump and his allies claimed that voter fraud and other Democrat-led schemes stole the election. Unlike the bogus Russia bunk, however, there are documented voter fraud issues and other unexplained results that call into question the election. For example, one analysis found that Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major city except, conveniently, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Because of this and other election oddities, a significant chunk of voters don’t believe Biden actually won the election. He’ll now spend four years governing an America in which just under half of its citizens believe he wouldn’t have won had everything been done fairly and squarely.

Though he managed to get far more done than people give his team credit for, Trump governed under a dark cloud for most of his presidency. His team had to waste precious time and energy defending him against the Mueller investigation with its plethora of Democratic hitman lawyers and corrupt FBI personnel. The media aided this assault by running stories over the last four years based on anonymous sources, most of which ended up being false. That in itself did serve a purpose: it revealed that the current crop of journalists are not journalists at all. No president has had to undergo so thorough an investigation on such thinly-sourced claims. Trump may be lots of things, but he is as patriotic and faithful to America as any man who ever occupied the Oval Office.

Let’s be totally honest: implementing mail-in balloting in the U.S. is akin to asking a six-time convicted pyromaniac to run a fireworks stand by himself during the July 4th holiday period. Each invites wrongdoing that often result in illegal activities that can reap deadly results.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the inherent cautious moving about towns and cities was the perfect facilitator for those who saw an opportunity to find voting opportunities with which to impact election results. After all, Americans have known for years just how dangerous mail-in voting can be.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.

Even with this dire warning, Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democrat Party raced toward massive mail-in voting for the 2020 election using the COVID-19 pandemic and its inherent threats to those who vote in person as an excuse. Numerous states (mostly Democrat led) fell in line with Pelosi’s call for vote-by-mail, all the while ignoring the warnings from her Democrat Party buddy Jimmy Carter  about potential voter fraud.

The fact that today we are hearing of documented cases in the thousands of voter fraud November 3 and in the days that followed seems to bear out those 2005 warnings from the Commission for Election Reform. This rush to throw the entire election process into mass chaos in just a few short months hint that there just may have been surreptitious purposes for the Democrat Party push.

Thursday’s press conference with the Trump legal team and the one hour plus trove of information documenting massive voter fraud and ballot manipulation appears to confirm former President Carter’s concerns with mail-in voting.

But seldom is anything in politics brand new — even massive voter fraud and vote manipulation. So we looked back at the history of U.S. voter fraud. Boy, were we surprised at what we found! We thought we’d share a few cases with you to put what we are now facing in context. And, believe it or not, courts have actually tossed elections out the window over voter fraud in elections.

Plenty of Historical Voter Fraud for Everyone

Here are 15 instances in which courts threw out an election result based in whole or in part on absentee voting fraud, from The Heritage Foundation’s database and other sources.

• In one of the most high profile cases, the North Carolina Board of Elections decertified the outcome of the 2018 race in the 9th Congressional District and ordered a new election after evidence of absentee ballot fraud emerged. About 61% of all mailed votes were cast for Republican candidate Mark Harris over Democrat Dan McReady, although only 16% of those requesting a ballot were Republicans. In the new election, Republican Dan Bishop stepped in as the party nominee and won.

• In 2018, Dennis Jones beat Tracy Gray by one vote in a Republican primary in Texas for a seat on the Kaufman County Commissioners Court. Gray challenged the outcome, alleging a vote harvester submitted illegal mail-in ballots, while eligible provisional ballots went uncounted. After a hearing, a state judge invalidated the results and ordered a new election, which Gray won by 404 votes.

• In another 2018 Texas case, Armando O’Cana seemingly won a run-off race for mayor in Mission, Texas, beating incumbent Norberto “Beto” Salinas. But after strong evidence emerged that O’Cana’s campaign had bribed voters, tampered with absentee ballots, and improperly “assisted” voters at the polls, state Judge J. Bonner Dorsey invalidated the result, saying: “I hold or find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the number of illegal votes was in excess of 158.”

• In 2017, Eatonville, Florida Mayor Anthony Grant was convicted of a felony charge of voting fraud and misdemeanor absentee voting violations. Prosecutors said that as a candidate in 2015, Grant coerced absentee voters to cast ballots for him. In at least one case, prosecutors said, Grant personally solicited an absentee vote from a nonresident. Grant, a former mayor, lost the in-person vote but won the election with more than twice the number of absentee ballots that incumbent Bruce Mount got. After Grant’s indictment, then-Gov. Rick Scott suspended the mayor. After his conviction, he was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and four years’ probation.

This case was more than a decade after the Florida Department of Law Enforcement concluded: “The absentee ballot is the ‘tool of choice’ for those who are engaging in election fraud.”

This 1998 report came after the department concluded an investigation of Miami’s mayoral election the year before. A judge had thrown out the result after prosecutors brought  a massive fraud case that involved more than 5,000 absentee ballots.

• In 2017, an Alabama state judge reversed the result of a race for Wetumpka City Council in which incumbent Percy Gill appeared to have won by three votes. Gill’s opponent, Lewis Washington, contested the outcome. A trial showed eight absentee ballots cast for Gill either had a forged signature or weren’t notarized or signed in front of the requisite number of witnesses.

• In the 2016 race for mayor of Gordon, Alabama, Elbert Melton won by just 16 votes. Melton later was convicted on two counts of absentee ballot fraud and removed from office. He was sentenced to a year in prison and two years’ probation.

• In 2016, Missouri state Rep. Penny Hubbard won the 2016 Democratic primary in the state’s 78th House District by just 90 votes. Her opponent, Bruce Franks Jr., contested the outcome over a lopsided absentee vote tally. Judge Rex Burlison ruled that enough improper absentee ballots were cast to change the results and ordered a new election. Franks won by 1,533 votes.

• In 2016 in Texas, former Weslaco city commissioner Guadalupe Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of providing illegal “assistance” to a voter in a 2013 race he won by 16 votes. Rivera admitted filling out an absentee ballot “in a way other than the way the voter directed or without direction from the voter.” A judge determined that 30 ballots were cast illegally and ordered a new election, which Rivera lost. He initially faced 16 related charges, but 15 were dropped as part of a plea deal. He was sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine.

• In 2015, Fernando Gonzalez clinched a win by 10 votes over Sergio Dias for a seat on the city council of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. After a determination that at least 13 absentee ballots were cast illegally, a state Superior Court overturned the results and ordered a new election. The second time, Gonzalez won by nine votes.

• New York State Assembly candidate Hector Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument during his 2014 campaign. Prosecutors charged Ramirez with deceiving voters into giving their absentee ballots to his campaign on the false premise that it would submit them. Instead, Ramirez’s campaign inserted his name on at least 35 absentee ballots, prosecutors said. Ramirez initially won, but a recount determined that he lost by two votes. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Steven Barrett ruled that Ramirez could not run for office again for three years.

• In 2014 in Pennsylvania, Richard Allen Toney, the former police chief of Harmar Township, pleaded guilty to illegally soliciting absentee ballots to benefit his wife and her running mate in the 2009 Democratic primary for town council. Prosecutors said Toney applied for the ballots, then had them filled out illegally by individuals who were not expected to be absent on Election Day. The absentee ballot count flipped the primary results, securing a victory for his wife’s running mate. During a subsequent FBI investigation, prosecutors said, Toney attempted to prevent two grand jury witnesses and others from testifying. He was sentenced to three years’ probation.

• After a 2012 federal investigation of a voter fraud conspiracy in West Virginia, Lincoln County Sheriff Jerry Bowman and County Clerk Donald Whitten pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes and falsifying absentee ballots to try to steal a Democratic primary election in 2010. Lincoln County Commissioner Thomas Ramey pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. Bowman and Ramey were involved in helping Whitten get re-elected. He won the primary but a judge overturned the election, tossing out 300 fraudulent ballots.

• One of the more complex cases arose in a rural jurisdiction when the Justice Department brought a civil suit against Noxubee County, Mississippi over a massive absentee voter fraud operation run by the local Democratic Party machine. Prosecutors said notaries paid by the machine took ballots from mail boxes and voted the ballots in place of the intended voters.

On June 29, 2007, U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee issued an opinion finding that county Democratic Party Chairman Ike Brown worked with the county’s Democratic Executive Committee to manipulate the process. Lee determined that Brown violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act through racially motivated manipulation of ballots, obtained and improperly counted defective absentee ballots, and allowed improper “assistance” of voters to ensure that his favored candidates won.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Justice Department entered into a consent decree with Noxubee County’s superintendent of general elections, administrator of absentee ballots, registrar, and county government to prohibit discriminatory and illegal voting practices and require officials to report such incidents.

“Dozens of contests were overturned there by the state courts,” said Adams, who was involved in the case as a Justice Department civil rights lawyer at the time.

• In 2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned the results of a mayor’s race in Guntersville after finding that absentee ballots were cast without proper identification and should have been discarded.

• In the 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, challenger George Pabey defeated eight-term incumbent Robert Patrick on Election Day, but lost by 278 votes after about 2,000 absentee ballots poured in.

Evidence of voter intimidation and vote buying emerged and the Indiana Supreme Court ordered a new election. Pabey won with 65% of the vote, as detailed in the 2008 book “Stealing Elections” by journalist John Fund. The fraud led to at least seven convictions or guilty pleas in 2008, according to the Heritage database.

Summary

I know, these cases primarily dealt with local and state elections and not federal cases. That makes NO difference in this conversation. Federal elections are conducted as part of and managed within local election systems and by local election personnel. This certainly makes it easier for federal voter fraud because it occurs simultaneously as the local elections are proceeding. That makes it much easier to hide.

The Rudy Guiliana press conference on Thursday was shocking. It is chilling to think that if even 10% of the alleged voter fraud and manipulation is found to be true, this will certainly be the greatest theft of votes and voting criminality in any election in United States history.

The saddest part? I anxiously awaited to see how the media members at that press conference would respond in their news reports. Scarcely a whiff of the overwhelming allegations have been mentioned as of this writing. That serves to confirm exactly what this Mainstream Media have allowed themselves to morph into — nothing more than press spokespeople for the radical left.

Think about this: this alleged wrongdoing was uncovered the night of the election. Real journalists would never standby totally ignoring the thousands of claims and just benignly wait for someone to hand them evidence. True journalists would have rushed to polling offices, demanded interviews with voting officials, and would have harassed poll workers to get facts to either prove or disprove the allegations of rampant illegalities. But not this media. We’ve heard instead numerous on-air dismissals stating over and over “They gave us no evidence — no facts.” That in the wake of this fact: numerous lawsuits have already been filed that each contain reams of evidence and sworn affidavits and are part of the public record that any REAL journalist can access! Not one of these so-called journalists has done so.

What will happen if anything? I have no idea. But even if the court cases complete with depositions, affidavits, and personal testimonies fall short of achieving any real measure of election integrity, one can rest assured this election fiasco will be fully investigated after the fact. There will be numerous stories, documentaries, and books published that will evidence this as the most corrupt election in U.S. history.

Who knows what the outcome will be in the wake of the revelations of voter fraud, vote irregularities, obstruction of legal poll observers at numerous locations and the obvious war to put Joe Biden in office with little regard for the integrity of this presidential election. Let’s just say this: regardless of the outcome there will be at least 70+ million American voters incensed at the results!

What happens if, for some reason, the courts find it is virtually impossible to puzzle through the dozens, hundreds, even thousands of vote issues and deduce a reasonable and constitutional solution?

Is an election “Do-Over” possibly in the cards?

Set The Stage

For all the headlines about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, no hard evidence evidence showed up, at least publicly, showing that President Trump or his team were involved. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), though proclaiming dozens of times on national television that he had “uncontroverted evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to change votes and give him the victory in 2020, never provided Americans a shred of proof there even was such evidence.

But suppose that such evidence did come to light — what would happen if it became clear that Trump or his advisers colluded with the Russians?  This isn’t the only type of wrongdoing the investigations could uncover, but it’s among the most serious because it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 result. So, is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?

When it comes to presidential elections, the answer is: not really. The laws and processes around national elections have grown up in a piecemeal fashion over time, with state and local laws governing the administration of presidential elections. And the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. As a result, there aren’t clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency.

Breaking this down requires taking a step back to think about the origins of the Constitution and the problems it was designed to solve. First off, the American presidency is kind of a strange office. It combines the duties of a head of state with duties of a head of government. (Many countries divide those duties — for example, by having both a president and a prime minister.) The Constitution gives the president the power to lead the executive branch — the responsibility to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed — and places that person in charge of the military(although Congress retains the power to declare war).

After some rocky years under the Articles of Confederation, many (though not all) political leaders were ready to make tradeoffs, allowing a more powerful central government that could ensure stability. That was one of the reasons for having a national executive under the new system — the Articles of Confederation didn’t have a president, which made it harder to enforce laws, deal with rebellions and forge national policy out of the demands of different states. There were a lot of considerations when figuring out how to select the right person for that new role, however. The substantial power of the office meant that the president needed to be a person of competence and character; to be independent from Congress; and to be able to represent the nation and not just a few states or population centers. Selecting such a person through a direct election was out of the question; it was difficult for many of the founders even to imagine a national election, or that attempting one would achieve the intended goals. Furthermore, disputed elections are, by definition, destabilizing, so the Constitution is designed to maximize the chances of a conclusive outcome, particularly for the nation’s most powerful office, the presidency.

The framers gave the Electoral College broad discretion to resolve disputes as it saw fit: The text of the Constitution pretty much says an election is legitimate when the Electoral College says it is. It doesn’t lay out a process for do-overs. Occasionally, courts have ordered new elections for offices other than the presidency after a proven case of fraud or error. (Or gerrymandering — a court in North Carolina ordered new state legislative elections, though this order has been put on hold.) And a Senate election was once redone in New Hampshire because it was too close to determine even with multiple recounts.

But whether this kind of re-do is allowed for presidential elections is a more complicated matter. Some legal scholars maintain that the language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-vote, as they have occasionally done for other offices. Others suggest that there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.

If the 2000 election had taken some different twists and turns, the re-vote question might have come up in a serious way, and it’s not clear what the courts would have decided. At least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, a District Court in New York heard a case alleging voter fraud in several urban locations. The court’s opinion maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections, arguing: “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.” This assertion challenged the idea that presidential elections occupy a special category beyond such court remedies. However, in this case, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all. As a result, its claims about presidential elections were not evaluated by higher courts and have never really been tested.

So experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again. That’s not great news for angry people hoping for a do-over. And even if it is constitutionally permissible, there’s much broader agreement that the standard for invalidating an election result and holding another vote is quite high. University of Memphis law professor Steven Mulroy stated that courts will usually entertain this option only if they determine a violation of rules that would change the election outcome. In the case of the 2016 election, this would likely require proving tampering in several states where the vote was close — enough to change the result in the Electoral College. In that case, a few states would vote again, not the entire country, Mulroy said. But this is new territory, and no one knows for sure.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. has been through a number of challenging presidential elections. The 1800 election ended in an Electoral College tie, and some politicians mulled over the possibility of holding a new election. Critics alleged that the 1824 election was decided through a “corrupt bargain” among elites, allowing John Quincy Adams to become president even though he won neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote. The election of 1876 had irregularities (including alleged vote suppression) in several Southern states, and an imbalanced commission ended up handing the Electoral College vote to Rutherford B. Hayes even though he had lost the popular vote. People are still debating John F. Kennedy’s razor-thin margin in 1960, the honesty of the votes in Texas and Illinois that year, and even Richard Nixon’s decision not to challenge the results. And, of course, the 2000 election presented lots of problems — confusing ballots, hanging chads, questions about recounts. Each of these instances was different from the questions hanging over 2016, but they offer some context for how our system handles questions of electoral legitimacy.

Sometimes these questions seriously undermine a presidency, as it did with John Quincy Adams and to a lesser extent Hayes, who had already promised to serve only one term. Other times the noise fades from the public conversation and governing proceeds, fulfilling the constitutional goal of stability rather than months (or more) of electoral disputes.

In most of the historical cases, the main question was how the Electoral College votes would be allocated in each state. Once those have been cast, the case for questioning a presidential election or gauging which side really won becomes a lot more difficult. Of course, the Constitution does have one mechanism for undoing the results of an election: impeachment. That process, however, is focused on individual wrongdoing (or, through a separate process, inability), not electoral irregularities. In that sense, even if collusion revelations were THE reason for Trump’s impeachment (which were NOT the reasons), the process wouldn’t really address the question of whether his election had been legitimate in the first place.

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Summary

It’s simple: there is NO easy fix. In fact, there’s NO real fix at all other than proving (or disproving) the legal votes cast with any votes cast illegally and compute the results. No doubt that process is not going smoothly and clear and accurate results that show who really won may never be validated.

There’s one thing that IS a certainty though. It makes little difference, or maybe NO difference at all, who is declared the winner by whatever group or court. The loser’s followers along with millions of other Americans will be enraged. I can only imagine the actions that voter-consternation with the final results will ignite.

I expect there will be violence, and probably violence that is unimaginable. In that scenario, will anyone win?

Yes, but only the Mainstream Media.

That tells the real story of today’s United States. We’re so divided, so entrenched in political ideology, so diverse in opinion, the Media have pounced on this condition as an opportunity for THEM to enhance their acceptance among the electorate.

Sadly, their doing so only magnifies our differences that will exacerbate uproar that quickly will morph into violence.

Should that occur, we can be certain of one thing: the Media will never acknowledge their role in creating this Armageddon. They will blame the “Orange Man,” a reflex action they’ve used for five years to always deflect blame for everything that goes wrong.

Lesser men would have long ago thrown in the towel.

Trump has never been tagged as a “Lesser man.” And it’s doubtful he would have any problem “fading the heat” should that happen. He’ll just smile and keep on trucking during his second term.

Senator Bernie Sanders has, for decades, promoted Socialism as the alternative to U.S. Capitalism. He is just one political leader in America who has pushed for the U.S. to become more like our European counterparts by “leveling the playing field” economically, socially, healthcare, and politically. But today, Bernie Sanders is far from being alone in this field of younger Americans running for political office at every government level who promote Socialism to replace Capitalism. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is one of those, as are Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

For years Bernie Sanders has promoted single-payer healthcare, which is the socialist version. For confirmation of the efficacy of his opposed “Medicare-for-All” national health program, Sanders point to the success of such in Norweigan countries, which Sanders says are socialist nations. Denmark is one such example Sanders gives as a model. However, the Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a “market economy.”

But is what Bernie and AOC and “The Gang” really begging for socialism over an ideology even further left: Communism?

Do you know the Difference?

Many Americans believe communism is an abstract concept that only affects faraway nations, without realizing that it has already arrived at our doorstep. Communism has spread in America under names such as socialism, progressivism, liberalism, neo-Marxism, and so on, in a slow process over decades of systematic subversion by first the Soviet Union. Now, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  This battle for the future of America — and with it, the rest of the world — is now coming to a head in this U.S. presidential election.

This is a conflict that transcends partisanship and party affiliation.

Belief in God has always been fundamental to America. The early colonists fled to the United States so that they could practice their religion freely. The United States was founded on the belief that we are all created equal by God and endowed by the Creator with our rights. The U.S. motto is “In God we trust.” Belief in God and the principles derived from that belief are the fundamental reasons why the United States can enjoy freedom, democracy, and prosperity. That’s how the United States has become the nation it is today. In this great tradition, voting is a sacred duty in which each citizen may take responsibility for who governs. This year, a record number of Americans voted to choose their next leader.

We have since learned that this process has been subverted. Numerous credible allegations of voter fraud have emerged, pointing to a systematic effort to change the election outcome. The far-left and the communist devil behind it — the same force that Karl Marx once described as “haunting Europe” — are using lies, fraud, and manipulation in an attempt to deprive the people of their rights and freedoms. One of the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic Party, is no longer the political party it used to be. Over the decades, it has gradually been infiltrated by the same Marxist ideology that has created the most brutal and repressive communist regimes in history.

Communist ideology, including socialism and its associated ideas, is not a normal ideology. It is the ideology that has caused the unnatural deaths of at least 100 million people.

The communist ideology uses seemingly righteous concepts, such as “equality” and “political correctness,” to confuse people. Its ideology has infiltrated all fields in our society, including education, media, and art. It unscrupulously destroys everything traditional, including faith, religion, morality, culture, family, art, education, law, and so on, and leads people to fall into moral depravity. The foundation stones of the leftist group Black Lives Matter are from Marxism, and their leaders proudly espouse Marxism in their founding documents. (See their website http://www.blacklivesmatter.com)

This is the ideology of totalitarianism, one that drives once-thriving nations such as Venezuela into the abyss and that was able to destroy 5,000 years of culture in China, where people went from a belief in the divine to a devotion to the state. It is the systematic undoing of all that is good that humankind stands for. It is diametrically opposed to goodness, fairness, truth, and compassion.

This has not only undermined people’s spirits and their righteous faith in God but has dragged the American people and all of humankind to the brink of danger.

A Choice Between Good and Evil

This is a conflict that transcends party lines, a battle between whether we as Americans can stay true to our founding principles and follow God’s will or whether we will be subjected to forces that seek to control and destroy our most fundamental rights. America has now come to the brink of falling into a communist abyss.

At the center of this battle is now President Donald Trump, who has clearly said no to socialism and communism and ended decades of appeasement of the Chinese regime by enacting a nationwide effort to counter its influence and infiltration. Trump has confronted the CCP at this critical moment in history. To communist China, the trajectory has been clear: Trump is an American president who values tradition and opposes communism, and as long as he leads, the Chinese regime knows it won’t succeed in its decades-long objective to overthrow America and, with it, the rest of the free world.

We have communist China at our gates, ready to take over. The CCP has carefully studied the U.S. system over the decades and has now successfully taken advantage of our open society and has infiltrated our country.

Internally, we have far-left groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa organizing protests and riots. The movement is similar to the CCP’s Cultural Revolution, which destroyed the nation’s cultural heritage and traditions. It is an anti-American movement, just like the Cultural Revolution was anti-Chinese. The core of the movement’s ideology is no different from that of the communist movement in China, and it goes hand in hand with the CCP, ready to subvert America.

The impact of this election is far-reaching. It has made clear to people, governments, and organizations around the world that they must decide whether they stand with the communist devil or with tradition and universal values. More and more people realize that the 2020 U.S. election is not a two-party fight, not a dispute between Trump and Joe Biden, but a battle between tradition ​​and socialism, a battle between good and evil, a battle between the divine and the communist devil.

The Truth About Communism as Compared to Socialism

A Republican congresswoman-elect from Indiana, who originally came from Soviet Ukraine, provided a warning about the movement to bring about socialism or communism in the United States. Rep.-elect Victoria Spartz (R-IN) is the projected winner of Indiana’s 5th District, defeating Rep. Christiana Hale, a Democrat, during the Nov. 3 election, according to projections from numerous outlets. Hale has not conceded.

Spartz was asked, “What do you think led to so many Republican women winning these House seats?” She responded, saying, “If you think about it, my district is really a snapshot of America,” Spartz said. “We have urban, suburban voters, rural voters. We have a lot of women. And I’m a mother of two daughters. I’m a suburban woman, and I think if you look at that, I’m really hoping to see that the majority of people in our country don’t believe in socialist utopic ideas the Democrat party is now promoting.”

She said that “women believe in the future of their children,” adding that they also “care about the good economy, jobs, education, public safety, having good health care, and they trust that Republicans can deliver it. So I’m very honored to see that. That is a testament to that.”

Spartz, 42, said she grew up in the Socialist Republic of Ukraine, which was controlled by the Soviet Union. She eventually left Ukraine for the United States about 20 years ago, marrying an American.

“I grew up in a socialistic country. It actually was the Socialist Republic of Ukraine. I grew up in socialism,” she said.

Spartz then issued a stark warning to those who have embraced socialism.

“I saw what happens when it runs out of money,” she said. “And it’s not pretty. And now I came to America 20 years ago with a suitcase after meeting my husband on a train in Europe. He’s a born-and-raised Hoosier, and now we’re building socialism,” she said, referring to leftist U.S. politicians who have proposed socialist policies.

“I’m going full circle,” Spartz said, adding, “I can tell you what is going to be next. It’s unfortunate for me to see that. And that made, as the mother of two daughters, it made me get involved and do something about it because that’s not very good for our country.” Spartz noted that under socialist or communist systems, the government “forces us to be equal” and will use “suppression.” She added, “We have to value our freedoms because we’re the greatest republic that ever existed.”

“Suppression?”

• Do you mean like what we see playing out right now in our Media; our mainstream media outlets refuse to report to Americans ALL that is important for our citizens to know and understand?
• Do you mean like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter who now pick and choose who can express opinions, which opinions can be expressed at all, and determine who and censor those people chosen to be unworthy to be published?
• Do you mean a government that determines which citizens of which states are allowed to attend church services and which are not; which schools are to be open and which are not; which businesses can be open and which cannot?

All of these are forms of governmental suppression. The federal government, in part, is already controlling a huge majority of our media. Government-funded healthcare “experts” are telling us who should be wearing masks when and where, who should be allowed to exercise certain Constitutional rights and who are not, who can speak freely and what speech is allowed, and in what circumstances.

This already reeks of “suppression,” and nothing like socialism.

It appears we have skipped through the “Socialism Lite” model promoted for so long by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other leading Democrats. Just as Congressperson-elect Spartz stated with firsthand knowledge, under socialist or communist systems, the government “forces us to be equal” and will use “suppression.”

The forced-actions are bad enough if they stand alone. But in the totalitarian world in which people who live in socialist nations always find themselves, no one is ever equal, and no one ever receives equal justice under the law.

Sadly, that may be where we find ourselves shortly.