Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Sunday, December 20, 2020

The Institutionalization of Election Fraud

By Jon N. Hall December 18, 2020

Many Americans, including this writer, contend that the 2020 presidential election is being stolen. About 70 percent of Republicans and even some Democrats believe that such a theft is happening. But despite considerable evidence, they cannot prove their case and put a number on the full extent of this alleged fraud.

Other Americans contend that the 2020 presidential election is not being stolen, and they, too, cannot prove their case. This second camp doesn’t deny that election fraud occurred but alleges that the margins are too great for fraud to have changed the outcome. Even respected conservatives have taken the position that Biden’s margins of victory are too great to overcome. But that seems to beg the question, because unless one can demonstrate the legitimacy of each and every ballot, one can’t really say what the margins are.

To prove what the legitimate vote count is, one would need to establish the eligibility of all the voters. Essentially, one would need to reregister all the voters. And that effort would be just the first of the several tasks that would be needed to demonstrate what the true vote count is.

If election fraud occurs cycle after cycle and is even tolerated, it can’t be said that America has a real democracy. Recently, this writer urged that the U.S. Supreme Court vacate the presidential elections in several problem states and order new elections to be conducted. This would be an unprecedented event, of course, but the glaring irregularities, anomalies, and illegalities are also without precedent. However, an editorial at National Review asserts that “the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to order new elections in those states.”

Since when has not having authority stopped the federal courts from doing anything? Until we get the “tyranny of the courts” under control, questions of authority should be tabled. I found the editorial unconvincing, but it did prove to be prescient about what Scotus would do -- NR’s editorial ran at 6:30 AM on December 11, shortly before Scotus declined to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania..........To Read More....

No comments:

Post a Comment