Tag Archives: U.S. Elections

Who DID America Vote For?

The United States of America Elections are over and Americans believe they know who they voted for and that their vote counted. But do they really?

I have voted in 10 US Presidential elections. I remember the previous 3 US Presidents prior to my first vote. And while there have certainly been jokes and allegations and even some embarrassing moments concerning US voter fraud in the past, I do not ever recall an election with this level of unanswered allegations or this level of divisiveness.

To be clear, there have almost always been anomalies. The old joke that ‘dead people can vote in Chicago‘ is not just some comedian being funny. People that have been proven to be deceased have been found to have cast votes on multiple occasions (across multiple election cycles) in Chicago, Illinois. And this Presidential election certainly did not break that cycle. I suspect that some form of this has occurred back to our earliest elections. People are, after all, people. And human beings are prone to sin. And humans will get away with whatever they can get away with. Which reminds me of J.C. Watts, a former Congressman from Oklahoma who said that his grandmother told him that ‘character was doing the right thing when you were alone in the woods‘ (I loosely paraphrase). The point is that people are prone to get away with anything and everything they can, especially when they are unseen, and our election process is not immune from that.

But while dead people voting does, and has, swayed elections locally, no one has been able to prove that it has made that great an impact on a National scale. Not that I’m in favor of just ignoring dead people voting, I’m not. I believe we should have enforceable laws with very strict penalties to compel States and local jurisdictions to accurately scrub their voting rosters and to rigorously protect voter integrity.

And this extends to legal voters as well. Non citizens of the United States of America do not get to vote here. Whether here legally or illegally. When I’m allowed to vote or have a significant say in the political process of whatever country people come from, then perhaps the United States could consider having people of those countries vote here. But that does not happen today. So whether you came here seeking asylum, a better way of life, to go to school, or just to be with family that already lives here, apply for citizenship, obtain it, and then you can vote. The same thing applies to underage voting. As far as I’m concerned, if you are old enough to legally be out from under your parents care you are old enough to vote. I believe we’ve established this age as 18 years old in this country. I’m also good with establishing the voter age as the legal drinking (alcohol) age. Which in some jurisdictions is still 21 years of age. But the important thing here is protecting the integrity of the legal voter against all of the voting criteria. Citizenship, age, legal residence, etc. should all be held to the highest level of verification during all National level elections.

However, unverified voters was only a fraction of the problem during this election. The integrity of a vote cast is also greatly in doubt.

First of all, mail-in ballots are about the worst idea anyone could ever possibly come up with. There is no (none, nada, zero) chain-of-custody with a mail-in ballot. If you want to vote in this country, you should be required to show up in person and to physically cast your vote on premise after having duly shown that you are a citizen who meets all the criteria to vote. Mail-in ballots are an easy mark for fraud and have been shown to meet that low bar in this past election. And we need go no further than the tens of thousands of mail-in ballots that were just suddenly found either hours, or in some cases a day or more, after the polls closed. I don’t need to even get to the counting methods of these ballots, whether or not their signatures were verified (by an expert), whether any of them were ‘lost in the mail‘, thrown away, forged, or whether or not the person who signed actually cast the vote. The mere fact that mail-in ballots in the tens of thousands were mishandled, discovered after the fact, or even if they were just delivered late, is unequivocally and undeniably reason for every single American voter to be disenfranchised.

But secondly, in some cases, even those voters who were legal, who met the criteria, and who showed up in person, cannot ascertain with complete certainty that their vote counted as cast. This is because some jurisdictions used voting machines that were digitally based with loadable software. By that I mean that the machines operate off of some sort of integrated circuits designed to run program instructions that can be updated within the machine. This is a complete recipe for disaster and should tell all of us that we are disenfranchised voters. In my opinion any voting machine should not have loadable or alterable software of any type. And if a voting machine is used that has programmed instructions in it, those machines should have the code published and made available free of charge to the general public and the machine code should be open to examination prior to each and every election by any citizen eligible to vote. But the mere fact that some jurisdictions used voting machines of a highly questionable nature is all we need to know that American voters cannot be assured that their vote counted as cast during this election.

Lastly we have the news media. And by news media I mean MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and just about any other outlet out there ‘telling us what is going on‘. Reporting these days almost borders on treason. When we shape elections through early and constant reporting, through ‘calling states‘ for one candidate or another before all due process, voters are disenfranchised. In my opinion, all reporting during an election should be suspended until after the election and the process has run its course. Hyping a candidate into office by crowd manipulation, while possible, is not exactly free and open elections.

So who won the US Presidential Election? Most likely President Donald J. Trump legally acquired the most actual citizen votes to secure the Electoral College. However when all the dust settles and the air is clear, Joe Biden will most likely be sworn in as the next President of the United States.

But before you lament the loss of your candidate, or celebrate the victory of your candidate, just remember that while we are certainly allowed to participate in the process, it is God who controls the process: Daniel 2:20-22 states that God removes kings and sets up kings. And he does this from the Throne of the King of Kings. And He is still in control.

I Attended The President Clinton Impeachment Trial

I opened this can of worms, and now I’m stuck with seeing it through to the end.

When I started this blog site, I looked at areas of discussion that would interest people and keep them engaged.  These are generally the areas we are most passionate about.  Politics is one of those areas.  However, when I originally added politics, I was not necessarily thinking of political races for office.  I was considering discussions that were political in nature.  That is, discussions that revolved around the governance of society.  Our laws, our freedoms, our methods of meeting needs as a society.  This is the broader and, in my view, more important discussion.  We all live in a society in one form or another.  There are very few, if any, people on Earth today that are a society of one.  And societies, by necessity, must have rules and regulations, and governance of those rules and regulations.  And that is the important discussion.

However, given my previous post, I Am No Saint, and given the latest news reports, it would be disingenuous of me to leave things hanging as they are.  So I will continue on down this path no matter how ugly it gets.

First of all, I actually did attend the portion of the President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton impeachment trial that was open to the general public, for the period of time I was allotted (and that was allotted to each person seeking to attend).  I attended the trial for several reasons.  First of all it was historical.  President Bill Clinton is only the second U.S. President in history to be impeached.  Neither of the two were removed from office (both were acquitted after Congress failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote).  Secondly, I was interested in the proceedings.  It is not often in one’s lifetime that the opportunity affords itself to see government in motion in real-time.  I was fascinated with the process and wanted a glimpse into the inner workings of the congressional process.  And, as a bonus (if you can call it that), there were a lot of celebrities in the audience.  We got to sit on the same row, about five or six people down from where Whoopi Goldberg sat (I’m pretty sure her views on the trial were the exact opposite of mine).  Funny side story about that:  We watched Whoopi come in and sit down.  The person she sat next to greeted her when she arrived and they shook hands.  After a couple of minutes she got up and left the chamber for a few minutes.  While she was gone, the young man sitting next to the person that had shaken Whoopi Goldberg’s hand leaned over and whispered something to them.  The person chuckled, nodded, and then shook the young man’s hand.  I pointed it out to my wife at the time, commenting that obviously the young man wanted the opportunity to say that he had shaken the hand that shook Whoopi Goldberg’s hand (right after Whoopi had shook that hand).

So I was at the Bill Clinton impeachment trial (for a few minutes of it anyway) and know first hand, how seriously (or not so seriously) those proceedings play out.  And it was serious.  President Clinton was charged with perjury concerning his testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.  And while he was acquitted of both charges (and thus not removed from office), the dividing vote (50 – 50 in the Senate on the Obstruction of Justice charge) speaks to the highly political nature of the proceedings.

It is a simple question.  Did he willfully give false testimony while duly sworn before an appointed body concerning his relationship with a White House intern?  I’ve come to the conclusion that yes, he did.  And you can either agree or disagree with that, but the legal system spoke and we have our justice (or lack thereof) today.

The interesting thing to me is the political rhetoric at the time.  The feminists who supported President Bill Clinton came out of the woodwork to decry the proceedings.  They claimed that the President’s personal sex life was private, and of no concern to the people.  They claimed it was consensual and that what two adults do is none of the business of the rest of us.

Today, Republican Presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is getting his own impeachment for perjury trial in the general media and free press of the United States of America.  This stems from an answer he gave in the second Presidential debate with Former Secretary Hillary Clinton.  When pressed by moderator Anderson Cooper about whether or not he had actually done the things referred to in his comments to Billy Bush, he replied “No, I have not.

And, obviously in response to those words, several recent claims have been leveled against Mr. Trump that would seem to suggest that he was being somewhat less than honest (one such story here).

In effect, Mr. Trump is being tried in the media for perjury (interestingly enough, just like President Bill Clinton was tried before Congress for the same charge).

Now I personally find these charges to be ludicrous and comical in nature, but I will do my best to treat them as seriously as they possibly can be given the circumstances.

To begin with, I am actually shocked at the outrage over Donald Trump’s comments.  I thought what a couple of guys talked about in private was between themselves and not any of the business of the rest of us, correct?  Why is it that Mr. Trump’s talk concerning women is so far out of line as to be considered grounds for public persecution and Former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s words are not?  And yes, I know, if it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

We allow flag burning in the United States of America.  Protected by the courts (some of the highest in the land), as a right of free speech and expression.  And flag burning means, the flag of the United States of America.  The National Flag.  Try that in North Korea, without getting shot.

And before the language police go to far, consider the fact that the inevitable outcome of limiting free speech, is to eventually restrict your own freedoms and liberties in the future.

And with that controversial thought, I’ve reached my self-imposed limit for a blog post.  I purposefully set out to make my blog posts, readable, digestible, posts that one can read and contemplate in about five-minute sittings.

So ….. TO BE CONTINUED ……. In another post this afternoon.