Wordplay: Dismissing voter fraud with a phrase

“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.

Trump acts like a fool. Biden seems like a tool. Who to vote for and why.

fool or tool
Photo by Jonathan Simcoe

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?

Fool or tool? Let’s vote.

Killing Soleimani: The end of the world or the beginning of a bolder, better one?

Killing Soleimani
Fars News Agency [CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)]

By killing Iranian General Soleimani, America just kicked Iran in the teeth.

Many say his fiery demise was long overdue and will save lives. Not sure about this metric, but one thing’s certain—there’s one less terrorist doing his dastardly worst in the world.

Best of all, Soleimani’s death may trigger the end of an evil Iranian regime and the beginning of real freedom for Iranians.

Worth the risk? It is to them. Risk and reward aside, we’re living in dangerous days.

Is America’s playing with fire and inviting more bloodshed? Absolutely. A leading presidential candidate says we just “threw a stick of dynamite into a tinder box” and he may be right this time.

To be fair, the president has an age-old Iran problem on his hands. It’s a situation he claims was exacerbated by the policies of his predecessor in the form of clandestine cash payoffs, hostage ransoms and flat-out appeasement.

All true. But I would argue that the supreme monument to Barack Obama’s misunderstanding of the Iranian regime (and other truly Islamic nations) is his signing of a worthless and enabling nuclear agreement.

It’s a testament to self-deception or narcissism or naiveté or a blend of all three. No matter. What’s done is done.

Soleimani is dead.

And now leaders of the regime see blood red. Depending on whom you read or watch, Iranians are either enraged and ready for revenge or are secretly overjoyed and itching to rebel.

I’m no foreign policy expert, but based on actionable evidence and word of mouth, I must conclude that Iranians who chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” likely mean us harm.

Here’s my advice to the administration:

Keep punching them in the mouth. Meet force with overwhelming force. Violent people respect violence; give them more to respect. Draw a real red line in the sand and send this message. Hit us and we’ll hit you back—harder.

This approach will hearten Israel, our only real ally in the region. They daily face Iranian haters with missiles and nuclear dreams. All they hear from their Arab enemies is that the Jews and their Zionist friends deserve death. Israel’s annihilation is the will of Allah, you infidel.

Tough choice, only choice

How does America deal with a regime that refuses to recognize, let alone value, Israel’s right to exist and our right to help them do so?

Refuse to give an inch. Deploy the diplomacy of power. Respond disproportionately. Proportionate responses are for proportionate adversaries. We’re the superpower and they’re not. And their regime may be weaker than we know.

Iran’s leaders are clinging to power by subjugating their people and engaging in tired propaganda and incessant chest beating. The sanctions are squeezing them. The killing of Soleimani has unnerved them.

This strategy seems extreme because it is. It could mean war. But let’s be honest with ourselves for once about Islam and Iran—it’s not a religion of peace, and they’ve been at war with the West for centuries.

Gasp. Truth.

And to those ripping Trump and going all Chicken Little over the killing of Soleimani and its repercussions, what is your strategy? How would you deal with a regime that seeks regional dominance and the destruction of Israel?

End of Part One. Part Two coming soon.