Democrats’ Fake Racist hoaxes in Virginia race fail and backfire

In the Virginia race for Governor, the polls have been tightening as the Republican candidate shifts his focus from bland etherial government management issues and into culture war issues that people actually care about. To counter this progress, Democrats have focused less on issues and more on fear and personal smears, amplifying their attempts to focus the race as a referendum of the previous president who has been out of office for a year and on alleged dangers of racism that require Democrats in power to protect people from.

In service to this strategy, Democrats manufactured a white supremacist hoax to scare the electorate by playing on the “fine people” hoax – one of the most widely debunked hoaxes in history where a protest organized by conservatives was hijacked by a different group of racists. Groups like The Proud Boys smelled the hijacking and condemned it before it happened and forbid members from going but it was too late for all to get the memo and the protest between Democrats and Conservatives was crashed by terrorist Antifa members attacking people and a goofy march of racists who carried tiki torches and chanted “Jews will not replace us”. Following the debacle, Democrats and the corporate press invented a race hoax to smear the president by making the false claim that Trump called the racists “very fine people” despite him actually saying the opposite and condemning them several times, unprompted. The hoax was achieved by reporting Trump observing that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the Conservative and Democrat debate that comprised the original protest, but then editing out his following sentence from his remarks that went out of his way to clarify that he was not talking about racists of any kind and then condemned those groups. That was in 2017.

Now, in 2021, Democrats sought to rekindle the fear they successfully stoked with the 2017 hoax by having Democrat operatives dress like the 2017 race marchers, complete with tiki torches, and stand in front of the Republican candidate for Governors bus for photo ops in order to scare people into thinking that those wascally wacists are at it again and only an elected Democrat can keep us safe from them:

Charlie Olaf, McAuliffe’s social-media manager, wrote: “Disgusting reference to the 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville.”

Democratic strategist Max Burns claimed Youngkin’s campaign “counts white supremacists among its most enthusiastic supporters.”

The bet being made here was that the Charlottesville hoax was so successful that if the Democrats could suggest that the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia had a similar support base of people with bad views about race then that will terrify voters against that Republican.

The root of this tactic reveals how Democrats use fear of racism that isn’t actually prevalent as a way to trick vulnerable minds into voting them into power.

The fraud here also wasn’t just in putting the bait out there and trying to hook suckers that bit on it, either – part of the plan was to feign outrage over the bait they knew was fake in an attempt to create a larger buzz over the claim:

When the hoax was uncovered to have been orchestrated by the pro-war, anti-Trump Democrat group The Lincoln Project, the McAuliffe campaign finally “condemned the stunt” after they spent all day pushing it as proof of Youngkin’s racist ties.

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1454202865778675716

After the uncovering, the main excuse was that the Lincoln Project was the sole party to blame and not the Democrats who helped push it – ignoring of course the ties and partnerships the Lincoln Project has with the Democrats in exactly these media stunts:

Corporate press to the rescue!

Corporate media outlets and their members that label themselves as journalists dutifully volunteered in spreading the false story without doing any acts of research, fact checking, or verification (eg: Journalism) and only some of them had the dignity to delete the lies when exposed.

MSNBC contributor Glenn Kirschner condemned the “blatant display of racism, hatred and intolerance,” urging Virginians to vote for McAuliffe, who represents a “kind, welcoming, diverse Virginia.”

https://twitter.com/jackbuckby/status/1454189130997542922

Then there came the damage control spin. The first cover-up was to call the group “Republicans”, which is of course a total lie. It is true that the Lincoln Project was founded by *former* John McCain operative Republicans but the group is not just “anti-Trump” – it is a pro-war org that abandoned the Republican party completely when Trump shifted the platform away from the Bush Doctrine method of bombing and invasion that Biden has always supported and Democrats have followed into. The group endorses and campaigns for Democrats and against Republicans. It is in no way a Republican organization. Further: at least 3 of the people that were later identified as performers in the stunt are all Democrat party operatives that have never been Republicans or affiliated with any Republican organization.

Within 24 hours of the scandal, The Lincoln Project spokespeople were invited onto CNN not to be grilled on why they perpetrated such a cynical fraud and why they thought it was okay to attempt to fool voters in such an ugly lie – but to explain themselves in a piece so favorable to them, The Lincoln Project itself tweeted out the video as damage control:

Why does the corporate press help big government politicians in these ways? Edward Snowden tangentially explains with the observation that the “neo” factions of each party have merged:

Meanwhile, the grift of the Lincoln Project is failing every day, dying hour by hour, but remains alive with Democrat millions in support:

Democrats quietly switch sides on nuclear power

The debate is over. Nuclear power has been officially adopted by the last remaining American faction opposing it as its favored power sources it gave generous financial grants to and leaned on heavily in its environmental image-marketing continue to fail financially and require more fossil fuel to run than they eliminate. Both of those faults have been targets of Republicans and non-partisan pro-nuclear energy proponents for awhile, but it seemed as though Democrats were intent on holding onto the money losing failures and environment worseners just so they could keep that marketing angle alive since wind and solar have such better PR with the general public and their voter base in particular to give up on.

But give up, they did. Which is rare that you get to live to see a public partisan debate like this actually get solved with a concession like this.

In May (2021), Biden White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy told attendees at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy that nuclear power would be “essential” to fight global warming (something Republicans have been saying for decades, pointing out that nuclear power has zero carbon emission and a low environmental footprint).

Still, that’s just an adviser saying it. But now, Biden’s Secretary of Energy is echoing the same line, making clear that the administrations official position is now pro-nuclear and they are just quietly unfolding that change in position so as to save face:

Granholm had previously test-suggested the concept of federal subsidies for nuclear power plants back in May as well, but it didn’t get much press coverage then as her reiterations that more definitively state support for nuclear power (and stated in a more official and public announcement) mark a big shift.

Developing…

Supreme Court rules that anti-fraud provisions (obviously) don’t violate the Voting Rights Act

Why would they?…

The Voting Rights Act bars regulations that result in racial discrimination. To claim that these laws are Voting Rights Act violations, you must claim that racial minorities cheat more than other groups and have a legal right to. Lolwut?

Sounds like there’s no way that’s not a huge exaggeration, I know, but to prove the argument is really that insulting, we’ll walk through it: 

After so many claims of fraud in the 2021 election, many emanating from Arizona, but none of them receiving their day in court with which to have their claims and evidence analyzed and cross examined and thus verified or debunked – Arizona legislature did the next best thing and at least made some common sense “make it harder to cheat” rules under new state voting law provisions that addressed some of the fraud claims. Everyone wins, right? The side that won the election doesn’t have to waste time listening to claims of evidence that they didn’t really win, and the side that claims they were cheated gets their “ways it could have happened” addressed. Since the Democrats didn’t cheat to win, this isn’t a problem, right? Well…

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated both Arizona provisions under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act under a broad claim that the state can’t be trusted because it’s so racist. Seriously… The 9th Circuit alleged state has a “long history of race-based discrimination against its American Indian, Hispanic, and African American citizens” and a “pattern of discrimination against minority voters has continued to the present day.” So by that “ur RACIST” edict, the court said that the state could not make laws that make cheating in elections so easy. Specifically:

The two Arizona provisions say 1- That ballots cast at the wrong precinct on Election Day must be wholly discarded and 2- A restriction on a practice known as “ballot harvesting” by requiring that only family caregivers, mail carriers and election officials can deliver another person’s completed ballot to a polling place. In other words: obvious logical anti-cheating adjustments that should have been made a long time ago and have nothing to do with race in any way whatsoever. Democrats just didn’t have a way to combat this or most other anti-democracy tactics of voting fraud, so they rely on the old “it’s racist!” claim.

In the escalation of this issue to the Supreme Court via the case Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act – the court pointed out that preventing fraud is actually a good, not racist, thing.

“Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight” Justice Alito wrote, while also noting that fraud can “also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.” 

Laws that a person has to vote in the precinct a person is registered to vote in is not discriminatory.

Restrictions on ballot harvesting are not discriminatory.

Hence the 6 to 3 ruling by the court.

The Left is angry because the ruling makes it harder to legally claim that opposition to cheating is racist.

It was the third significant decision on voting rights in the last 13 years by the court, along with the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County ruling and the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision. All three have made it harder to prevent voter suppression, liberals argue, and easier for those in power to enact laws that erect obstacles to voting.

The impact of the three rulings, taken together, is that “the conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions,” wrote Rick Hasen, an expert on election laws and the author of “Election Meltdown.” “This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting laws.”

Yup. The court is “taking away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions”. Those “major tools” being “using dishonest claims of racism to oppose policies you can’t attack on Constitutional, factual, or logical grounds”. So sad.

The Left lamented:

Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Narrows Another Path to Challenge Discriminatory Voting Laws – ACLU.org

The Court’s Voting-Rights Decision Was Worse Than People Think –The Atlantic

Supreme Court Drives a Stake Through the Heart of the Voting Rights Act – Truthout.org

And in all these hysterical whoah’s, I was unable to find a single actual-argument (let alone any actual evidence) in support of the ludicrous claim that racial minorities disproportionally vote in-person in the wrong precincts and have a right to keep doing so, and/or why collecting mail-in ballots from voters who are unable or unwilling to submit those ballots themselves (which, remember – involves nothing but sealing the postage-free envelope, signing your name, and putting in your mail box – all of which is expressly allowed for caregivers and family members to do in the Arizona provisions) is an act of racial discrimination.

Everyone upset about this ruling is just mad that it’s harder to cheat.

Explaining the Obvious Logical Rules on Replacing a Dead Justice

Alternate title: The correct yet totally hypocritical party stance of replacing Scalia.


Photo Credit: Creative Commons/Shawn Calhoun

Justice Antonin Scalia died in his sleep on a hunting trip, leaving a vacancy on the Supreme Court which now raises a bunch of questions regarding which party gets to nominate someone to fill that vacancy.

The rules on replacing a retiring or life-retired (read: dead) Justice are: The President nominates a person for the vacancy and the Senate Judiciary Committee (Senators who are part of a kind of “judge pickers club”) publicly interviews them with questions and then the Senate votes on whether or not to confirm the nominee as a Judge on the Supreme Court. Right now the White House is filled by a Leftist Democrat and the Senate (and its judiciary committee) is controlled by center-Right Republicans. So who gets to fill this seat?

In an interesting plot twist: both Republicans and Democrats are factually correct (in different areas) and yet total hypocrites on the issue.

Specifically, Democrats claim President Obama should obviously be appointing the new judge for a speedy confirmation by the Senate and Republicans say since President Obama has less than 1 year left as President, the new one that takes office in January 2017 should be the one to make the nomination (which they hope will be a Republican).

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) may be a total partisan hack who peddles easily debunked talking points from her hippie base on the regular, but she’s right in her comments on this subject…

“Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes,” Ms. Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, said in a statement.

“Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate,” she wrote. “I can’t find a clause that says ‘…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.’”

She added: “Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.”

That’s all true in the most “duh” of fashions. Unfortunately for Warren though, the same Constitution they all took an oath to uphold, applies to the other party as well, and the unmistakable fact of the matter at hand is that of course Congress can deny Obama this appointment.

Consent means the Senate is under no obligation whatsoever even to hold a vote on any presidential appointment. The Senate’s obligation is to do what the Senate wants, and only what the Senate wants. Those are the rules. To try to hold senators to a different rule is to try to change the rules on them–and people tend to resent that. Everyone is free to disagree with the positions individual senators or the Senate as a whole take on individual nominations or prospective nominations. But there is no question that senators individually or collectively can deny their consent to any actual or prospective nomination for any reason–just as the American people can vote for whomever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Indeed, President Obama isn’t even entitled to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia–or at least, Congress can deny him that right. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how many seats there are on the Supreme Court. In 1789, there were only six. Given sufficient congressional support (i.e., veto-proof majorities in both chambers), Congress could reduce the number of Supreme Court justices from the current nine to eight. McConnell, Cruz, and Rubio could propose doing so right now. It seems strange to criticize senators who are merely expressing in what circumstances they will withhold their consent when Congress has the power to deny the president the ability to fill this vacancy entirely by itself eliminating this vacancy.

At the same time Democrats turn a blind eye to President Obama repeatedly ignoring constitutional limits on his power, they claim Republicans would dishonor the Constitution if they use powers the Constitution clearly grants them. That is unlikely to dissuade Senate Republicans from delaying a vote on Scalia’s successor until 2017. Nor should it.

So now that it is established that it is both an easily verifiable “duh” that yes, the President can go forward with this process as usual but yes, the Senate can halt this process as usual – the real question is what *should* happen logically, morally, and reasonably.

Here’s where the derpiness starts…

Seems to me that the timing of an election should play no role in judicial appointments and claiming otherwise is just playing politics in the kind of loophole bullcrap ways everyone hates about politics.

As a historical precedent, however…

There is ample precedent for rejecting lame duck Supreme Court nominees.

[T]he Senate does have an obligation to fulfill its “advice and consent” obligation. Says the Constitution, the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…” A preemptive rejection of any possible Supreme Court appointment is self-evidently in conflict with that obligation. The phrase “do not let it become about whoever Obama names” makes that explicit.

A man as versed in the Constitution as Senator Cruz should be embarrassed to posit that the nation could owe a debt to Scalia, that a “debt” to a dead man should play any role in a process governed by the Constitution, or that a sitting president’s nominee should be preemptively rejected before his or her identity is known. There is no agreed upon standard of what legitimate advice and consent entails. But any standard that rejects a nomination before it is even made fails the laugh test.

James Madison’s Constitution is not a living, breathing document that changes in meaning as an election approaches. A president is no less legitimate as a lame duck. The Framers intended for the Senate to give up-or-down votes based on a nominee’s merit, however it’s defined. The timing of an election should play no role.

The precedent of the Senate halting a nomination process was upheld by some pretty key Senators in pretty recent history, however. Mainly: New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. And former Senator Joseph Biden. And former Senator Barack Obama. – i.e. – the current sitting President and Vice President who are now arguing the opposite position on account of being total hypocrites in regards to Senate rules applying to a Presidency.

In Bidens case, it’s especially egregious because his argument was made in the absence of a vacancy. He was just pre-emptively making the case that “in case this happens, the president should be advised that this is the normal way of doing things and it would be wrong to do it any different way”… Oops…