“There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”
How many times have you heard this phrase parroted by pundits and partisans in media and politics? They say it and repeat it for one purpose—to convince Americans that the 2020 election was free and fair.
By using the word “widespread,” they create an artificial bar to imply that, absent of widespread voter fraud, our 2020 election is legit and Joe Biden is our president-elect.
In contrast, I have a better, fair and responsible statement:
“There is alleged evidence of strategic voter fraud in the 2020 election. The question is whether it exists and, if so, does it rise to the legal level necessary to affect the outcome of the 2020 election.”
That media members are tripping over themselves to quash all mention of voter fraud is DEEPLY disturbing. This is not how truth-seeking objective journalists pursue their vocation. Instead of acting as our watchdog over people in power, they’re acting like one party’s attack dog.
Additionally, there is no constitutional office or designation of “president-elect.” This term is a media creation. In the 2000 election, apparent winner George W. Bush became the president-elect only when all results in all states were verified and electors had cast their votes.
Joe Biden is the apparent winner of the 2020 election. He is not the president-elect. The votes have not been certified and electors have not cast their votes.
Finally, if our government does not overhaul our election system to restore trust in future elections, we’ll forever lose faith in our most essential freedom.
Just like in 2016, we’re faced with two flawed candidates. One’s a fool and the other’s a tool. One runs his mouth and indulges his itchy Twitter finger. The other seems barely sentient. One steamrolled his way to infamy in the first “debate.” The other was interrupted so many times he had little chance to gaffe the night away.
One lashes out at hordes of media and political enemies. By doing so, he stokes their hatred and our division. The other is coddled by the same hordes who ask him hard-hitting questions like, “What flavor is your milkshake, Mr. Vice President?”
One makes unscientific assertions about COVID and takes the low road of name calling and ridicule at his MAGA rallies. The other weaponizes a pandemic and uses a mask as a badge of belief in science.
One respects power over character when dealing with dictators. The other blames Russia for his son’s incriminating and damaging emails while insisting he’s the epitome of a decent and honest guy.
Can we agree that neither candidate is a paragon of virtue? That both are flawed sinners—like you and me? Perhaps it’s time we look past their personalities and peccadilloes and focus like laser beams on their policies.
Policy 1: Taxes and your finances
Let’s talk taxes. Trump cut taxes and regulation in 2016, and the economy took off like a rocket. And even in the midst of blue-state lockdowns and COVID-driven partial restrictions in red states, our “new normal” economy is surprisingly better than expected.
Biden says he’ll raise our taxes. He also says he won’t raise taxes on income earners under $400k. But here’s the catch: Biden plans to eliminate Trump’s 2016 tax cuts. This means that earners below $400K will be required to begin paying the taxes cut by Trump. And this means that by cutting Trump’s tax cuts, Biden will raise our taxes. Get it? A tax cut cut is actually a tax increase.
The Wall Street Journal says Biden’s plan to tax “the rich” (over $400K earners) will increase their tax rate from 40 percent to 55 percent. This make-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share move will please socialist democrats like Bernie and AOC, but will drive wealthy businesses and taxpayers to outsource American jobs and shield personal income in order to lower tax burdens that will be too burdensome and vastly unfair.
Driving away job creators and investors is never a good plan for a free market economy. It is, however, an effective way to begin transitioning to a democratic socialist model. And any smidgen of socialism—democratic or no—paves the way for higher taxes, lower wages, and reduced access to quality goods and services.
Conclusion: If you want to pay less in taxes and enjoy a stronger post-COVID free market economy, vote for Trump.
Policy 2: Public safety and police
Trump says he’s all for police, the military and the rule of law in cities and towns like riot-riddled Minneapolis, Portland and Seattle. He’s said time and again that he’s ready to deploy the National Guard—and even the military—to restore order.
Biden and Harris express support for protestors, rioters and looters in these cities and elsewhere. They routinely parrot the media when replacing violence and looting with “mostly peaceful” protests. In doing so, they embrace a narrative that asks us to disbelieve what we see with our own eyes—fire, thievery and mayhem.
Trump wants to help police officers get a better at protecting us. Biden wants to defund them. Granted, defund is a scary word for reducing their budgets—and presence—in crime-ridden communities in which residents want and need adequate police support. Defunding the police is like removing locks from your doors and replacing them with signs that read: “Please, do not enter.”
Defunding the police is bad policy. Its proponents want to replace police with community leaders and social workers. This seems good from a Utopian point of view, but it flies in the face of human nature. Criminals follow their worst natural inclinations. Rather than curbing their impulses and desires when confronted by social workers and community leaders, they’ll rob them—or worse.
Conclusion: If you want to keep or make your community safe, vote for Trump.
Policy #3: Healthcare
Let’s face it: The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, costs us much more and gives us much less than promised. Speaking of promises, the primary promise pitched to us by Obama and Biden was that if we liked our health insurance, we could keep it. This was never true, and Obama and Biden knew it all along.
Many of us pay double or triple our pre-Obamacare premiums and weren’t able to keep our healthcare plan or doctor. Question: How is paying more for less coverage and care options good healthcare policy? It’s not. The Affordable Care Act was not designed to be good policy—it’s a stepping stone to single-payer healthcare.
What is single payer mean? In a single-payer healthcare system, everyone’s covered regardless of their ability to pay. Our government would be the only entity paying for coverage, likely funded with our taxes. The “single payer” is the government.
What happens if government doesn’t have the funds to cover our coverage? What about government shutdowns? Will essential procedures be help up while politicians play chicken? Canada has single-payer healthcare, which is why those who can fly south to get better care without the long waits.
Single-payer healthcare is socialized medicine. I use it with the VA. Trust me: You don’t want single-payer healthcare. The doctors at the VA act like time-clock punchers. Why wouldn’t they? Their work is just a job. Their motivation is to get through the day, not to build a thriving private practice. It’s socialism versus private market.
Imagine our nation’s entire population in a massive and inferior single-payer healthcare system. It would be clunky, tenuous, incredibly expensive and fatally flawed. Government can barely do what it does right now. How would it fare trying to provide what democratic socialists contend is a human right?
Fool or tool?
As I say, Trump is a fool, but at least he’s his own fool. He says and tweets as he does because he’s honest about who he is. No one can say that with Trump what you see is not what you get in a president. He’s bombastic, bullying, in your face and combative. But ask yourself this: If you were the target of daily attacks from media, career bureaucrats and expats from your own political party, would you be rather touchy and defensive?
Biden is a tool because he’s governed by the whims and wishes of proud socialists like Bernie Sanders and heavy-on-passion-light-on-wisdom democratic socialists like AOC. Under pressure from them and their extreme wing of his party, he’s flipped on virtually every position he’s ever held while in office for four decades.
Can we agree that Biden’s not entirely there cognitively? If so, is it any wonder he’s a tool? In moments where Old Joe seems like the Joe of Old, he roars to life, but typically when someone hacks him off. When this happens, he lashes out at “reporters” and voters who ask him something more challenging than, “Why do you think Trump is so bad?”
Okay, let’s get to it. Vote.
All personality problems aside, if we focus on policy, do we vote for the fool or the tool? Keep in mind, that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Kamala Harris as president. This should be frightening. As unlikable as Hillary was and is, at least she’s honest in her beliefs. Hillary’s a true believer; Kamala’s a true pretender.
When it comes to political views and positions, Kamala is a chameleon and Machiavellian. She’s a Kameleon, a Kamachiaveleon. Virtually everything she says is strategically designed to help her gain power. Her full-frontal fakery is why she was booted so early in the democrat primaries and unable to garner even one percent of her party’s support.
Harris’ policies are frighteningly Californian. I know, I live in the Golden State. With high taxes, low-quality infrastructure, wildfires brought on by poor forest management, out-of-control homelessness, and tone-deaf leftist government policies, it’s not so golden anymore. If you vote for Biden, you’ll get President Harris.
In conclusion, if policy guides our vote—and it should—do we vote for the fool or the tool? Low taxes and proven economic growth and jobs or high taxes, slow growth, fewer jobs and less financial security?
Safer cities, neighborhoods and communities and respect for law enforcement or more anarchy, rioting, burning and looting and continued disdain for law and order?
Better healthcare with protection for those with preexisting conditions through repeal and replacement of Obamacare or expensive lower quality care and movement toward a gigantic and fatally flawed single-payer healthcare system?
Note to readers: I screwed up. I failed to get an adequate grip on the context of Elizabeth Warren’s words before basing my post on a shaky premise. I produced a piece of “fake news” and I hate that term ;-).
However, no need to delete a well-written post. In fact, after thinking about it, this an excellent example of how to write a somewhat accurate fake news piece. I say somewhat accurate because Warren did take a jab at men in her speech—and failed to throw a shout-out to George Washington.
Guys, Elizabeth Warren doesn’t need you or your vote. Why? Because you’re men.
“We’re not here today because of famous arches or famous men. In fact, we’re not here because of men at all.”
“I wanted to give this speech right here and not because of the arch behind me or the president that this square is named for — nope.”
The arch in (George) Washington Square Park is adorned with Fame, Valor, Wisdom and Justice, and the words, “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.”
The power of these words seems lost on Warren and most of our 2020 presidential candidates. They’re neither wise nor honest, and judging by the disdain of some for “thoughts and prayers,” they consider the hand of God impotent when compared to the actions of men … er … people.
Dear Elizabeth, did you not learn logic at Harvard Law school? Do you really think you’d be running for any office in a nation that wouldn’t exist if not for men like Washington? If you choose to ignore him and the reality of history, why bother to ugly up his arch with your campaign signage?
Here’s the truth, Liz: The office of president you deeply covet would not exist without men like Washington or men who fought and died in the Revolutionary War and in the World Wars. And you wouldn’t enjoy the right to alienate half of the voter pool you hope will deliver you into the house once inhabited by the man you choose to ignore.
Why give speeches in backdrops of famous irrelevant men who helped secure your right to give speeches at all?
Do you really want to go down the path of gender-based voter alienation? If so, you’ll be joining the last candidate hoping to break the glass ceiling on lonely and bitter walks in the woods.
