Voter spread claims beg for the truth
Donald Trump and his supporters continue to claim that widespread voter fraud, rigged voting machines and other illegal methods stole the election, and that the truth has been repressed by courts which refused to review evidence or dismissed cases without a hearing or by media, which refused to present evidence of fraud.
This begs the question of why Donald Trump and supporters have not mentioned, and continue to remain silent about the several lawsuits filed by Smartmatic, a voting technology company, and Dominion Voting Systems for libel and defamation against Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and Fox News along with three of its hosts. These lawsuits present the ideal opportunity to present all the documented evidence of the fraud and manipulation that’s been claimed.
The best defense against libel and defamation is the truth. So, It makes sense that Donald Trump and supporters would be closely following the progress of these suits, eagerly awaiting the defendants’ day in court.
A court can’t suppress or dismiss the evidence in these suits because they are the heart of the defendants’ case, thus the defendants should be pressing for trial that gives them an opportunity to present their evidence, and not ask for the suits to be dismissed or try to seek settlement. Why would the defendants do that and miss the opportunity to place in official court records and in front of the country all their evidence of fraud?
Could the silence indicate that evidence is lacking? Could it indicate that Donald Trump made claims of fraud and a stolen election to maintain his self-image as someone who never loses? Could it be that even more suspicion and anger deepening the divide in America were generated by one man determined to protect his fragile ego?
Even if Donald Trump isn’t, I am eagerly awaiting the trials. I want the truth on the record.
Integrity demanded in elections
Hard to respond to all the well-informed educated knowledgeable people who voted for Joe Biden and defend the mystery election, but I refer to an article that appeared in the Richmond Times Dispatch on June 12, 2017, titled “New Report Shows Widespread Non-Citizen Voting in Virginia”.
Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote and have voted in our elections -- and the Heritage Foundation maintains a growing database of voter fraud.
Legislation to secure Virginia elections, including voter ID laws and rooting out illegal voters, was consistently vetoed by then Gov. McAuliffe who is making his comeback counting on all those illegal voters.
We need electoral integrity and many states are taking action, which is a high priority in a swing state like Virginia where an election decided by a few hundred votes can have a national impact but Virginia has not cleaned up its voting problems.
Per the Constitution, it is each state’s responsibility to ensure election integrity, but with the passage of H.R. 1-- 800 pages focused on the expansion of voting rights -- we are assured that Democrats will forever be in charge.
Trump did more for America in four years than they we will ever see again in history, but Trump was a hiccup that had to be eliminated -- it was essential that he was cut off, cut down, cut out, and every tool was used to do so -- now the task of dismantling America can continue without interference, as conservatives are bullied, sullied, shut down and up -- the end is close and even the Trump-haters are not going to like it.
We have a physically and cognitively impaired puppet in the White House who Is an embarrassment on the world stage -- while China and Russia are building up their military, we are offering soldiers transgender surgeries and pregnant flight suits and our colleges are providing crying rooms and hate white people classes -- so defend the Biden vote if that makes you proud but every legal voter should be confident their vote was not nullified by fraud and we are not.
A 2020 Gallop Poll reported 59% lack confidence in our elections and widespread voter fraud will continue as people dismiss it and defend a faulty system that is well documented.
Responding to letter about comments
(Editor’s note: The following was addressed to “Dear Nancy Patterson”.)
The nature of your remarks, along with flaws contained therein, regarding my op-ed “Nation should embrace systemic unity, not racism” demanded this response, submitted without malice to set the record straight.
Before launching into my rebuttal, I must first set the table. When publishing, (1) reproach is a double-edged sword through which authors and public critics are accountable for errors, oversights or bias and (2) research to establish fact is always necessary, a habit I acquired through years of publication, not only with op-eds but with major works and my weekly message, “Two Minutes with Christianity.”
Instead of criticizing the central theme of the op-ed, you concentrated mainly on systemic racism, particularly in law enforcement, using data that contradicts one of my statements, while questioning if I had read the data you cited.
Allow me to first address two of your comments, one inconsequential and the other unacceptable.
l Inconsequential: the subject op-ed did not quote either JFK or Abe Lincoln, both of whom have been quoted in previous op-eds by me. Perhaps you were referring to those op-eds, not this one.
l Unacceptable: Your interpretation/rewording of my views and statement regarding the Chauvin-Floyd incident, “he says Derek Chauvin is just a bad apple and we should forget it and be happy Blacks and Whites ‘stand in line together’ now” is not an accurate summary of my perspective or my statement that not only condemns Chauvin, as well as other incidents of social injustice, but calls for action, “The death of George Floyd at the hands of a Caucasian thug, who was then a trusted public servant of the law, is tragic as is any incident of social injustice. However, selected outliers like Derek Chauvin, despicable as they may be, indicate the need for improved vetting and ongoing monitoring/accountability, but they do not support the allegation of systemic racism in law enforcement, a conclusion widely inconsistent with the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examination of the matter using accounts from victims, not law officers.”
When selectively characterizing others, direct quotes as opposed to summations, appraisals or conclusions are best to avoid harmful effects.
My conclusion that racism is not systemic in law enforcement was and remains based on the Jeffrey H. Anderson, March 5, 2021, article in the Wall Street Journal, which refuted Joe Biden’s claim of “Systemic Racism” in Policing.
The entirety of the article, which includes extracted data and the link to the cited report, can be found with a simple Internet search; thus, in the interest of brevity, only a few extracted paragraphs that summarize the findings are provided here:
“… In a report released days before Mr. Biden’s inauguration, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics examined whether people of different races were arrested to a degree that was disproportionate to their involvement in crime. The report concluded that there was no statistically significant difference by race between how likely people were to commit serious violent crimes and how likely they were to be arrested. In other words, the data suggested that police officers and sheriff’s deputies focus on criminals’ actions, not their race.
“The BJS report did not take cops’ word for who commits crimes. Rather, it relied on victims’ own accounts of who committed crimes against them, as reported through BJS’s National Crime Victimization Survey.
“The NCVS, which dates to the Nixon Administration, is the nation’s largest crime survey. Its results are based on about 250,000 interviews annually with U.S. residents, who are asked whether they were victims of crime within the past six months. In addition, the NCVS gathers data on who actually commits crimes — according to the victims — thereby providing an independent source of data not reliant upon police records …”
My source and yours used different measuring sticks: (1) yours, rate of threat and physical force against Blacks and Hispanics vs. Whites; (2) mine, arrests. And if one digs deep enough into either report, perhaps other key factors skewed data one way or the other, such as the resistance rate of lawbreakers that led to law enforcement actions. As always, truth is an elusive quarry.
As for lauding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. while criticizing progressives, a broad term that covers quite a bit of ground, the op-ed defined progressive as “those who serve themselves with little or no regard to the consequences.”
Under the umbrella of that definition, Dr. King, a selfless man who gave his life to remove oppression in America, is most certainly excluded.
Although you and I have different political affiliations, we are both human beings and Americans who likely share love for our nation. We should respectfully agree to disagree, a habit absent Inside the Beltway, an arena where political gamesmanship abounds and is recklessly prioritized.
May God bless you.