The Origins of Voter Fraud in America

Ever since Mayor Daley of Chicago “found” tens of thousands of dead people to “vote” for John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, many Americans have suspected the Democratic Party’s urban political machines to be awash in voter fraud. That suspicion has not been diminished by the actions of the mayor’s son William, Al Gore’s campaign chairman and the man in charge of the vote “recount” taking place in Florida.

As notorious as the Democrat political machines are, the origins of vote fraud in America lie in the party of Lincoln. The massive vote fraud that took place during the War between the States and for the ensuing twelve years of “Reconstruction” provides an abject lesson in tyranny that has ominous implications for American taxpayers.

There are news reports that during the 2000 presidential election cycle many absentee ballots never made it to military personnel overseas, while 40 percent of those that were returned to the state of Florida were thrown out because of minor technicalities (like absence of a postage stamp). During the War between the States Lincoln was known to instruct his military commanders to furlough registered Republicans while keeping Democrats (and any others) in the field, where they could not vote. In border states like Maryland, where there was powerful opposition to the war, federal soldiers flooded the cities on election days and were instructed to vote, even though they were not residents of those states.

Federal soldiers also intimidated voters into voting Republican by menacing them at the polls. As Lincoln biographer David Donald has written, “Under the protection of Federal bayonets, New York went Republican by seven thousand votes” in 1864.

The Republican Congress even created three new states—Kansas, West Virginia, and Nevada—to help rig the 1864 election in favor of Lincoln, so concerned were they over pervasive antiwar sentiment and massive desertions from the federal army.

During “Reconstruction” (1865–1877) the Republican Party held a monopoly of power that was so complete, historian Richard Bensel observed in Yankee Leviathan, that the closest parallels to that situation are “the PRI in Mexico, the Congress Party in India, and the Bolsheviks in the early years of the Soviet Union.”

One reason the Republican Party was able to hold on to this monopolistic power is that it blackmailed the ten Southern states that opposed the Fourteenth Amendment (Tennessee voted in favor of it) into passing the amendment by denying them congressional representation until they acquiesced. In doing so the Northern states effectively seceded from the Union, a union which Lincoln never recognized as having been broken.

Almost all Southern males were disenfranchised, while virtually all of the male ex-slaves were registered to vote (Republican). No Southern male could vote who participated in the war effort in any way, including contributing food or clothing to the Confederate army. Voter registration required one to publicly proclaim that one was on the side of the federal armies during the war, something that no sane Southerner who valued his life would do.

The result was that by 1868, ten of the fourteen Southern US senators, twenty of the thirty-five representatives, and four of the seven elected governors were Northern Republicans who had never met any of their constituents until after the war. Any local officials who did not strictly obey Republican Party dictates were purged from office by the military and replaced with Republican Party hacks who were supported by the occupation forces of the US military.

With a political monopoly gained through voter fraud and military force, the Republican Party plundered the South for over a decade. Since property owners were disenfranchised, the puppet governments were able to enact tax increase after tax increase, ostensibly to build railroads, canals, and roads, very few of which were actually built. Most of the money was simply stolen by Republican Party hacks and the scheming businessmen who supported them. The Republican Party began as the party of corporate welfare and has changed very little in the past 150 years.

Even though the South was economically devastated, the Republican Party imposed onerous property taxes that allowed party “officials” to step in and confiscate the property for unpaid taxes. At one point 20 percent of the entire state of Mississippi was for sale. By 1872 property taxes in the South were four times higher than they were in 1860. They were thirty times higher in South Carolina, where the secession movement began. Much of this money was stolen by tax collectors and never made it into state treasuries.

A punitive five cents-per-pound federal tax was also placed on cotton, which forced many Southern farmers to sell out to government tax authorities. Treasury agents confiscated most of this revenue for their own bank accounts according to a report by Sherrard Clemens, an investigator hired by President Andrew Johnson, as described in The Documentary History of Reconstruction.

Henry Clay Warmoth, the Reconstruction governor of Louisiana, “accumulated” over $1 million in wealth in just four years on his $8,000-per-year salary, a financial feat comparable to Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures trading prowess.

The lesson to be learned from these historical incidents is that any political party that is brazen enough to steal a presidential election through voter fraud is also likely to be brazen (and powerful) enough to plunder the citizens under its rule, endanger their lives, and treat them like serfs.

[Originally published November 2000.]Author:

Contact Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of The Real Lincoln; How Capitalism Saved America; Lincoln Unmasked; Hamilton’s Curse; Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; and The Problem with Socialism.

Creative Commons Licence

News Flash: Most Republicans are Socialists, too

Many people ask how we got to this point in our country, where everything now hangs in the balance, and the socialist takeover is quite real.  The answer to this question is twofold.

First, neither ordinary people nor public opinion leaders understand what socialism is, although there is a lot of literature on this topic.  However, there are very few academics whose works correctly describe the essence of socialism.  Their lonely voices drown in the stream of misconceptions about the subject.

The first misapprehension is that socialism is solely equated with Marxism and Marx’s materialist philosophical concepts.  The materialist definition of socialism posits communal ownership of the means of production, collective management, and distribution of wealth.  However, socialism is a generic notion, and Marxism is a theory of communism, the particular and extreme current of socialism.  Therefore, Marxism is undoubtedly socialistic, but it does not encompass the whole of socialism.  The materialist understanding of socialism missed a significant subject of collectivization: the individual himself.  Since the time of Plato, it has been known that socialism presupposes the subordination of the individual to the collective, which means the construction of a hierarchical society in which the elites rule the state and the commoners obey meekly.

History shows that the collectivization of consciousness is even more critical than the socialization of property.  It is no wonder that such socialist trends as fascism, national socialism, and reformism used the collectivization of consciousness as the main path to socialism.  But even the theory of communism proposed the dictatorship of the proletariat, first for the violent expropriation of private property into the collective and then for the subordination of the entire population to communist ideology.  Therefore, the definition of socialism must surpass the boundary of its materialist understanding and include ideas and practices of anti-materialist, anti-positivist flavors of collectivist ideology.  Socialism must be understood as a set of artificial socioeconomic systems characterized by varying degrees of socialization of property, the subjugation of individual consciousness, and a scale of wealth redistribution imposed on society by revolutionary or ruling elites without majority consent.

This definition united the collectivist ideology into one, identifying three main paths to socialism and pointing out its unnatural essence and cunning way of implementation.  If we apply this formulation to the United States, it becomes clear that socialist traits have long and firm roots in our society.  The United States successfully fought world communism but overlooked evolutionary socialism at home because it focused on features similar to communism and ignored other socialism qualities.

Evolutionary socialism, AKA reformism, AKA social democracy, AKA democratic socialism, used the same main paths to socialism as fascism and national socialism: the collectivization of consciousness and wealth redistribution.  Note that neither of these doctrines called for outright expropriation of private property on the means of production.  The only difference is that fascism and national socialism used bold revolutionary steps in the societal transformation.  In contrast, evolutionary socialism, as the name implies, chose the gradual evolutionary path.  Evolutionary socialism was designed to be invisible and gradually worked within the framework of democratic institutions.  Not surprisingly, the Fabian Society logo, which organization, together with Bernstein, was the founder of evolutionary socialism, featured a turtle, symbolizing the slow transition to socialism.  Their original coat of arms was the wolf in sheep’s clothing, representing the preferred method of achieving a goal.

The poison of socialism has been injected continuously into the healthy body of American capitalism since the first part of the 20th century.  You may be surprised, but the obligatory minimum wage rate is socialism; the proportional taxation system is socialism; rampant unionization including law enforcement and government employees is socialism; even mandatory car insurance is socialism.  The list can go on for several pages.  Evolutionary socialism has been overlooked and has now penetrated all spheres of life.  Now we vividly see the dramatic changes in the educational system, which became the indoctrination machine; in media, which became a socialist propaganda wing; and in Hollywood, which became an adherent of Soviet socialist realism.

Evolutionary socialism eventually became the prevailing trend among the American left, as anarchism and communism are relatively marginal forces.  Democrats used them as a paramilitary wing to promote socialist ideas on their behalf using intimidation, protests, and riots.  Thus, Antifa bases its violent actions on the myth that fascism and Nazism are right-wing political philosophies closely associated with capitalism.  Black Lives Matter (BLM) uses a narrative of state racism and targeted police brutality against blacks as the moral justification for its frantic protests.

At a specific moment, the evolutionary socialist transformations, both in people’s minds and in the economy, can no longer be hidden behind beautiful phrases about empathy, equality, brotherhood, and internationalism, and the wolf will throw off the sheepskin before taking its decisive leap.  The leftists feel they have enough support in society to make a last-ditch effort to seize power forever.  They no longer hesitate to commit voter fraud, introduce censorship, conceal information, and physically attack dissidents.

The hidden evolutionary path is coming to an end, and Democrats have shown their real intentions.  Either the left is establishing socialism, or the American people will finally defeat them.  But here is the problem that brings us to the second explanation of the current struggle.  Socialists were able to bring in pieces of socialism and reform the country’s laws because the U.S. has lacked a robust right-wing party.  It could be argued that the Republican Party is the right, but their position on the right is simply relative to that of the Democrats.  Across the political spectrum, Republicans are center-left at best.  They could neither recognize nor roll back the socialist transformation in American society.  If they were genuinely right, we would not be fighting socialism in the early 21st century.

The actual right party is a party that advocates for individual and economic freedom, supports the American constitution, and recognizes American exceptionalism.  Perhaps the American people still hold to these ideas, but the Republican Party does not reflect them in their deeds.  Moreover, leaders’ recent statements are astonishing.  Rubio said to Fox News’s Hannity, “I think the future of the Republican Party is as a multiethnic, multiracial, working-class party.”  Did he mean that the Republicans are racist, as the left claims?  Where does he get this leftist terminology: the working class, the proletariat?  It was Marx who divided society according to the place that people occupy in production.  His classification is meaningless outside his erroneous theory.  Yet GOP officials continue to use left-wing jargon instead of opposing the Democratic position and firmly defending individual and economic freedoms.

Thus, we have come to this point in American history because evolutionary socialism was overlooked, and there was no strong right-wing party that could recognize and reject socialist tendencies.  Since most Republican elites are not trustworthy right, but center-left, even if the Democrats lose this time, they will eventually get their way, as our bipartisan system has a predominantly left-wing gradient.  To stop socialist inclinations, the Republican Party must be transformed into at least a center-right party, or there should be a brand-new right-wing party.

Everyone should understand that if the socialist current of any flavor is given sufficient run time, all means of production will inevitably be socialized, and the individual will be coercively subjugated to the collective.  That is why democratic socialism is as dangerous as fascism or communism.

Allen Gindler, American Thinker

America: Now Run by Savages in Suits

Much of the country is locking down again.

I told you: COVID fascism continues after the election. Tyrants will NEVER let go of power. They will only expand it. So long as the sheep majority keeps letting them.

In my state, Delaware — totally run by far-left Democrats — we have new rules that include wearing a mask while in a restaurant, at virtually all times, putting it back on in between bites, or whenever a server or staff member approaches you. That’s how sick this is. To make matters worse, Delaware’s Governor Carney — people call him Governor Carnage — wants the restaurants to enforce the rule. He wants them to make out like it’s THEIR requirement, and he has told restaurant owners of this in “secret” meetings.

Did you ever read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged? It’s all in there. Not the masks and the exaggerated pandemic. No Ayn Rand or George Orwell could have dreamed up THESE specifics. But the basic idea of government telling people they want “voluntary” compliance — that’s part of any dictatorship, in its early stages. There’s nothing voluntary about tyranny. Imagine if a kidnapper showed up at your house with a gun, held the gun to your head and told you, “I want you to obey my orders voluntarily. I want you to make it look like I’m not even here, and cheerfully tell people you WANT to be doing these things.” That’s Governor Carnage. Or Governor Newsom, or Governor Cuomo, or Governor wherever-you-live. Increasingly, it’s bipartisan.

I heard Alex Marlow on Breitbart say this morning that you must understand: tyrants are hard-wired. I agree, in that it’s in their psychological programming. They are like sociopaths. They feel entitled to rule. The more people refuse to question them, the harder their wiring becomes. And the longer we put off resistance, the harsher their response when they’re finally challenged. Human history has seen it all before. Soviet Russia. Communist Cuba. Maoist China. Nazi Germany. Fascist Italy. It has all happened before. It still happens every day in China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and (we can expect) a growing number of countries; because as America abandons liberty and rationality, so will the entire world. The specifics change, but the themes are always the same: Irrational, tyrannical control at the expense of the individual’s sovereign rights.

Oh, they’re coming for you. Actually, they’re already here. And so long as you refuse to resist, even in small ways, they’re going to take more and more and more. How to resist? Massive civil disobedience, to start. People are still too afraid. By the time they’re no longer afraid, I fear it will be too late.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Freeloader U

Dear reader,

Please read today‘s article by my good friend John Stossel. It’s worth more than a degree from Yale (as John will explain).

I (P.J. O’Rourke) have known John for… so long that telling you how long I’ve known John would mean revealing our ages. (We’re both 73.)

He is one of the most insightful, logical, and consistent libertarian thinkers of this – and much of the previous – century.

And he came by his libertarianism via an interesting route… John started out as a “consumer” reporter, first at WCBS TV in New York and then for ABC’s Good Morning America. He was one of those journalists whose beat was to cover how producers (those evil capitalists) screw consumers (you, the innocent and helpless TV viewers).

Then John began to realize that it isn’t producers who are doing the screwing… Capitalism is a self-correcting mechanism. Companies that lose the public’s trust then lose the public’s business.

And it isn’t the consumers who are screwed. Consumers are rational individuals who are perfectly able to tell screws from bolts. That is to say, when consumers get screwed, they bolt…

The bad actors in the producer/consumer relationship are the government regulators, endlessly expanding their power and trying to screw us all.

The regulators want to tell the producers what to make, how to make it, and what to charge for their product. The regulators want to tell the consumers what to consume and how to consume it and what price to pay for their consumption.

The government wants to control everybody – producers and consumers, buyers and sellers – and everything they produce and consume. This has been tried before… It worked so well in the old Soviet Union.

The above is a gross oversimplification of John’s development as a libertarian intellectual. And I apologize, John. For a more thorough understanding of John’s philosophy, I suggest consulting his web site: johnstossel.com.

Freeloader U
By John Stossel

Yale University has fancy dining halls. They pay no property tax.

Local restaurants struggle to compete, but their tax burden makes that hard.

“We basically pay one-third of our rent in taxes!” complains Matt West, manager of Koon Thai Restaurant. “Yale is a money-making machine.”

It is. Many colleges are.

Yale has a $31 billion endowment. Harvard’s is $40 billion. My alma mater, Princeton, has $26 billion.

Yet, these schools also get government handouts and tax breaks. How government rips-off taxpayers and students by subsidizing colleges is the subject of my video this week.

Yale owns about a quarter of the town of New Haven, Connecticut, but the school pays little property tax. It even has a golf course that’s half tax-exempt.

Politicians tried to tax the school, but they cannot.

“It’s written into the constitution,” complains New Haven Board of Alders President Tyisha Walker-Myers. “They just don’t have to pay.”

Now the city is ticketing more cars to try to cover its budget shortfall.

Everyone else pays more because colleges get tax breaks, government grants, and government loans.

“De-fund universities!” says Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum. “Their entire business model is dependent on the taxpayer.”

I push back: “You make it sound like it’s all government money. But people pay their own way.”

John Stossel

They Want to Shut You Up

This week, Abigail Shrier, author of the new book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” found herself at the center of a firestorm. Her great crime: writing an assessment of the psychological phenomenon known as rapid onset gender dysphoria, where groups of psychologically vulnerable young girls begin to self-diagnose as transgender after one member of a peer group does so. The book is sober and evenhanded. Nonetheless, all hell broke loose after one person on Twitter — one! — tweeted at Target, prompting the retailer to pledge not to make Shrier’s book available (a decision it later reversed).

This wasn’t Shrier’s first turn in the barrel. When the book first came out some months back, Amazon quickly moved to prevent her from advertising it, although books openly stumping for hormone treatment for minors suffering from gender dysphoria have met no such ban. This time, however, the publicity began to rage out of control. A transgender Berkeley professor called for burning the book, arguing, “all you’re doing is removing a commodity from circulation — much as one might destroy a contaminated crop.” Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice at the American Civil Liberties Union, decided to abandon any pretense about defending civil liberties, tweeting, “stopping circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

Meanwhile, the email service Mailchimp, which handles mass emails on behalf of organizations, announced it would no longer work with the Northern Virginia Tea Party, stating that it was promoting “potential … misinformation” by holding a rally calling for a vote recount. Similarly, Facebook has reportedly been suppressing all information related to the possibility of voter fraud; so has Twitter.

Such niceties aren’t reserved for the political right. Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of Vox, left his own publication this week for Substack after explaining that there was a “damaging trend in the media” toward treating “disagreement as a source of harm or personal safety.” That trend, Yglesias stated, made it “very challenging to do good work.”

Those who refuse to abide by prevailing leftist norms often find alternative outlets. But such avenues of escape are then attacked as well. This week, the Columbia Journalism Review ran a piece targeting Substack for the great sin of hosting material that might be deemed unworthy among leftist thinkers. It questioned whether Substack would “replicate the patterns of marginalization found across the media industry,” condemning the company’s founders for their view that many viewpoints ought to be given access to the system. And CNN found time to attack Parler, a conservative answer to Twitter, with Brian Stelter lamenting that “people are going more and more into their own echo chambers.” Which is somewhat ironic, given the enormous echo chamber CNN represents.

The goal here isn’t a freer discussion. It’s precisely the reverse. Conservatives have known this for a long time, which is why they’ve had to operate using unconventional media such as talk radio and podcasting and startup websites. But the future of the country rests largely on a simple question: Will traditional liberals go along with the left, which seeks to silence, in order to achieve their favored policy prescriptions? Or will they walk away from the left and choose instead to engage in open conversation with conservatives, preserving freedom of thought and discussion but risking the possibility that their favorite policies will become more difficult to achieve?

That question remains unanswered for now. But time to answer it is running out. If we hope to have a country together moving forward, we’d better have an open conversation now.

Ben Shapiro

The True Battleground is Education

The key to conservatives reclaiming and rescuing any sense of America as we have known it for the last several decades is education.  Not just raising our children to know right from wrong and good from evil, though that’s a good start.  Regardless of your religious affiliation, it usually doesn’t hurt to throw a little God in for good measure.  It’s not necessary that they be devout followers but learning that there’s something bigger than them… than all of us… will be helpful. 

The way to start taking back this country is by getting conservatives and conservative ideas back into the classroom.  It would be helpful in K-12, but I mean specifically the university system.  That is our frontline battleground now and in the future. 

We’ve all heard the amusing adage something to the effect of how young people are liberal until they start getting a paycheck and paying taxes, i.e. they enter into the “real world.”  We trust that as people mature and start dealing with the harsh realities of life, they also reconcile the fact that modern liberalism and its core tenets are a proven disaster. Not one liberal ideal makes any practical sense in the real world.  

It used to be true that a good number of these young liberals outgrew their silly ideology once they learned about mortgages, FICA taxes, property taxes and the reality of crime and violence.  (Getting mugged or carjacked by some gangbanger or junkie that is likely on the receiving end of the taxes you just paid will change your mind just a smidge.).  Unfortunately, these young ideologues are no longer outgrowing their naive ways en masse.   

At one time, these naive ways came from a place of good faith.  Even twenty-five or so years ago things weren’t anywhere near as bad as they are now. Mind you, this was when the internet was still in its infancy and its narcissism pills had not yet been ingested.  Many of the liberals back then were liberal in the classic sense — they were open-minded, tolerant, and wanted to positively affect the world by doing good things.  Yes, there was a time when liberals were actually tolerant, but as the dodo is extinct, so is that rare species. 

Today’s liberal has been too finely crafted, not unlike the tailored look — waxed mustache, 20s-era hat and handmade leather boots — of the hipster “ironically” sipping Pabst Blue Ribbon in the local gastro pub, to be fooled into believing what their bespectacled eyes are seeing in the real world.  No, these are true believers who will not be swayed by anything as bourgeois and banal as facts.   

Young liberals today have been so heavily indoctrinated by hordes of leftist professors that there is almost no hope of them ever “maturing” into people capable of critical thought.  The cold splash of reality that is life after college not only isn’t enough to shock them out of liberalism, but in fact not much of real life ever actually reaches them.  They go from being coddled by mom and dad to being coddled and brainwashed by their college to then cloistering among enclaves of like-minded individuals such that their insane set of beliefs is almost never challenged.  Not only that, but they have an amazing, knee-jerk response to any challenge of their worldview: “Racism!”  

The challenge to conservatives is to not simply moan about how liberal our colleges are, but to start running the liberal playbook against them.  Are there no conservatives who go into teaching!?  It’s time for them to start.  Start building the ranks and especially focus on the colleges and universities.  Teach history.  Teach economics. Teach almost anything besides Gender Studies or Critical Race Theory and you’re going to be on the right track.  Teach facts not feelings.  You may have to lay low until you get tenure status, but after that, start pushing harder.  The only way to change the hearts and minds of any of these young people is to get down in the trenches and start fighting it out.  

When it comes to the battlefield of ideas, liberals simply can’t compete.  We all know that.  The problem is that these young minds are like radios set to only one station; they never hear any ideas opposing liberal viewpoints. Thus, they think Communism and Socialism have failed because, gosh darnit, they just didn’t do it right.  Thus, they think that higher taxes somehow lead to economic prosperity.  Thus, they think that all of our founding fathers were raging racists and that the Evil Straight White Man is to blame for all the ills of society.  We need to tune them in to a better station filled with facts and truth. 

We need to educate, not indoctrinate… and we will start winning. 

H. P. Smith, American Thinker

Liberty and Thanksgiving

The first Christmas tree on our block popped up the day after Halloween. Soon enough, garlands of white lights began to adorn neighborhood trees and doorways. It’s Christmas — except that it’s not. From what I can see, Thanksgiving has yet to be acknowledged, much less observed.

I have no particular observations to make concerning our new habit of compressing all our October-December commemorations into “The Holiday Season.” I’ll remark only on the eclipse of Thanksgiving, which could be due to a number of factors. Perhaps it’s the lack of compelling decorating themes, as contrasted with Halloween and Christmas. Another cause might be growing disdain for the Pilgrim Fathers, who were racist and sexist (by 2020 standards). Oh — and there were those guns they carried around on their shoulders for the sake of slaughtering helpless animals! What kind of an example would they be to socially concerned modern people?

Another explanation for Thanksgiving neglect could be the feeling there’s less and less for which to be thankful. An older America has disappeared, and, on right and left alike, emerges the general grouchiness of the times. And I might add that presidential campaign rhetoric doesn’t help a bit.

Our duty to be thankful every fourth Thursday in November, no matter what, has its unappealing side. At the same time, what’s wrong with regular appraisals of what’s working in life and what isn’t? The habit of thankfulness provides a framework for improvement, not despair.

Thanksgiving 2020 affords an occasion for rational assessment of the liberties Americans enjoy to an unparalleled degree — liberties that tempt some to steer too hard in one direction. And now free speech comes at the expense of rational conversation about disagreements; economic opportunity presents itself as brainless, soul-deadened materialism.

The nurturing of the whole person is the goal of a free society. You might not know it from the modern habit of battering and smashing up people with ideas different from one’s own.

The knowledge of threats to liberty in other societies should have two effects on Americans: It should make us appreciative of how much hard work has gone on throughout American history to broaden and defend the enjoyment of freedom; and it should give us a sense of how little resonance the American taste for freedom enjoys in venues where less-than-desirable people hold sway, people who imagine us as targets for reformation. Imagine being “reformed” by Vladimir Putin.

Student caterwauling at various universities over past and present American “sins” (the latest is Woodrow Wilson’s views on race) more resembles a childhood tantrum than an invitation to idea-engagement at the rational level.

I suppose it could be said that all the anti-free-speech, anti-history blathering — even at Yale and Princeton — can serve to inspire gratitude. It reveals the always-lurking human capacity for disorder. For this knowledge of those who endanger our ordered liberties, we give thee thanks, O Lord. And we are thankful for the means afforded us, within a civil and rational framework of laws, to take essential actions. These begin with even-tempered assertions as to why responsible freedom makes us better people and why attempts to shut up and humiliate the differently minded make us worse people.

The Constitution and society as a whole, past and present, are no more perfect or final than any other human work. They might grow larger and deeper rather than smaller and paltrier. In honor of such a hope let’s gather around the table this week — in fellowship, in prayer, in true thanksgiving.

Bill Murchison

The Suicide of the Republican Party

If the Republican Party fails to use every possible stratagem to retain the Presidency in 2020, it will have signed its death certificate.  The majority of the 73 million people whose votes for Trump were properly counted may well turn away from the Republican Party in disgust. Why bother to vote if the Republican Party is too feckless and incompetent to mount a successful challenge to a stolen election? However, this act of suicide comes at a cost.

When they’re accused of fecklessness, establishment Republicans, in their defense, will point to gains in the House and, if we’re lucky, to their holding the Senate gain. However, much of this gain isn’t due to the Republican brand but, instead, to Trump’s coattails.

At the “Republican brand” level, we have the self-styled “Lincoln Project” Republicans who aggressively tried to intimidate Trump’s lawyers before they got shamed and deleted their tweet.

If the Republican Party wants to survive, it must impose discipline by pushing these aggressive Never-Trumpers out of the Party. Instead, the Republican Party lets it slide.

Republicans should not only back Trump fully but should be at his side demanding that the Department of Justice’s Elections unit become an independent, continuous-audit body like the IRS. Instead, the opposite has happened. A few days ago, the head of the unit resigned when it became clear that his unit was next to useless – and when it turned out that he’d written the rules so that he got to make all the calls about investigating claimed fraud. (Funnily enough, his answer was always no.) And again, the Republican Party was silent.

The quisling Republican Party is also reluctant even to discuss the “nuclear option” in the Constitution. This option would see state legislatures have the final word about appointing electors provided that the legislators believe the election in their state was hopelessly corrupt.

But that’s not what happens. Instead, the Democrats unhesitatingly to lie, cheat, and steal; falsify national elections; falsify impeachment; and succeed in advancing their one-party-standing tactics (open borders, no elections security, no audits, etc.) with only token Republican resistance.

Again, why do the Republicans even refuse to discuss the constitutional “nuclear option” in the face of Democratic illegality in service of reaching a one-party country (as has long been the case in California)?

In addition to the nuclear options, national and state Republicans have other courses of action. They could easily identify their party as the one committed to “saving democracy” by pushing to:

  • disallow unaudited mail-in ballots, or
  • disallow mail-in ballots received after polls close, or
  • disallow all mail-in ballots because most other democracies ban mail-in ballots, or
  • assert an accurate tally shows Trump won, allowing the legislature to mandate Trump electors directly.

Further, a Republican Senate could refuse to accept certification.

Finally, if swing-state Republican legislatures simply declare their elections unreliable and, therefore, null, the final say in the election would come from the new representatives in the House. They would choose Trump.

Too many Republicans are part of the Deep State’s monoparty. They make conservative noises when they talk but, just like Chief Justice John Roberts, when anything comes along that challenges the Deep State, they are entirely progressive in their actions.

As much as Trump supporters would like to say “good riddance” to the Republican Party, doing so comes at a cost. After all, the Republican Party has a robust and deep infrastructure that cannot easily be replicated. The same is true for the Democrat Party. That’s why Bernie and his socialists have worked on eating away at the old-fashioned party from within.

If the Republican Party doesn’t want to void itself, it will do well to embrace the positions advanced by those 73 million known Trump voters (and there are almost certainly millions more). Otherwise, why should Republican voters bother even to leave their homes to vote the next time around?

Henry Edwards is a pseudonym for an engineer with a background in international technical management.

Image: Republican suicide by Andrea Widburg, using public domain clipart.

 Parler| 36 Comments| Print|sponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

The Truth About Rush Limbaugh Is Out In The Open Now

The Tragedy Of Ashley Judd Just Gets Sadder And Sadder

Toronto Beachgoers Experience Scene From A Horror Film

Mary Kay Letourneau Passes Away at 58

The Truth About Sasha Obama Finally Revealed

Biden’s Transition Team Is Turning Heads For A Surprising Reasonsponsored content

RECOMMENDED

The Horrifying Truth About CBDPennsylvania Seniors on Medicare Are in for a Big SurpriseMeet the War-hawk 10,000 Meter Binoculars.Americans May Get Rid of Their Cell Phones for VoipMonroeville, Pennsylvania Drivers Are Fuming over New RuleHepatitis C Can Cause Itchy Skin Along with Other Symptoms – See Hep C SymptomsDoctors Stunned: “Do This Everyday to Snap Back Sagging Skin”Simple Method ”Ends” Tinnitus – Stops Ringing Ears (Watch)Jackie Kennedy Was a Style Icon – but Her Shoes Revealed What We Long SuspectedWhat Was Behind Him Caught Everyone’s Attention

RECOMMENDED

Diana’s Butler Reveals Why Harry Really Married MeghanMeet the War-hawk 10,000 Meter Binoculars.Monroeville, Pennsylvania Drivers Are Fuming over New RulePeople May Ditch Their Phones for Voip TechnologyA 5-Year-Old Girl Uttered Stomach-Churning Words Just Moments Before She DiedShe Dropped Jaws at the American Country Music AwardsPremium Kn95 5-ply CE Certified & Lab Tested Face Masks. Pack of 10 – $0.95/maskThe Horrifying Truth About CBDOne Detail in Cameron Bure’s Photo Left Some Fans FumingPennsylvania Seniors on Medicare Are Getting a Big Treathttps://168ae27a52c23476d931baad735c886d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Advertisement

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

sponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

Fox News Anchor Ed Henry Fired After Disturbing Investigation

Dr. Fauci Says These Are the Two Places He Won’t Go Right Now

Laura Ingraham Scolds Lindsey Graham On Live TV

Keith Richards Has Something to Say About Black Lives Matter

The Truth About Baron Trump Is Clear To See

Inside Tori Spelling’s Relationship With Tiffani ThiessenAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2020

The Spontaneous Emergence of Morality

Jean Piaget had some very interesting ideas. He wasn’t a developmental psychologist, he didn’t even regard himself as a psychologist. He wanted to reconcile science and religion. That’s what he was doing throughout his entire life, because it drove him crazy when he was an adolescent. And he didn’t think that he would be able to survive unless he could bring those two things together.

He also got very interested in the spontaneous emergence of morality in the play of children. The idea is that when kids come together and unify themselves towards a particular goal (in play) that a morality emerges. And further, each game that children play holds it’s own morality.  So, there’s a morality in game one, there’s a morality in game two, there’s a morality in game three. What’s common across all those moralities is a meta-morality.

The meta-morality emerges from the particular moralities that are embedded in particular cooperative situations.

Dr. Jordan Peterson

I would like add some comments to Dr. Peterson’s remarks based on my own observations of child behavior. Private property rights are inherent in all of us. We’re are all hard-wired for it, and begin asserting these rights as soon as we learn to speak.

What is one of the first words and concepts a small child expresses? It’s not OURS, it’s not YOURS, and it’s not THEIRS. It’s MINE. The child is expressing and asserting his or her private property rights. As the child gets older, hopefully he will learn that private property rights apply to everyone, and will later grasp words and concepts like ours, yours, and theirs.

The Artful Dilettante, Keeper of the Flame of The Enlightenment