theamericanconservative--2020-12-11--Why We Question the Election Results

Why We Question the Election Results

Americans ’ trust in government and the media has collapsed .
Two months before the presidential election , only 20 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to “ do the right thing ” most of the time , according to a Pew Research Center survey .
It is unlikely that trust in the government will rebound any time soon , in part because of how the 2020 election was conducted and because the news media has obliterated much of the tattered remnants of its credibility since 2016 .
Instead , the question is : how much lower can Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without a total collapse of legitimacy ?
It is unclear at this time how much fraud occurred in swing states and whether it was sufficient to change the outcome of the Electoral College .
Some of the early charges by Trump supporters and lawyers regarding electoral foul play have belly-flopped spectacularly .
The apparent endorsement by Gen. Michael Flynn for Trump to declare martial law is both reckless and reprehensible .
But there are plenty of legitimate unanswered questions about the election results .
A Monmouth poll last month found that 77 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to fraud .
A Morning Consult poll last month showed that the percentage of Republican voters who said they had “ at least some trust in the U.S. election system ” plunged from 66 percent before the election to 37 percent afterwards .
Like the bogus Russian collusion narrative that Democratic activists created after the 2016 election , that distrust will haunt the Biden administration .
The 2020 election in many states was practically designed to maximize tainted ballots .
In 2012 , a New York Times analysis concluded that “ fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention.
” Notorious mail-in voting fraud stretches back more than 150 years , when there was widespread intimidation and finagling in the Union Army to tilt soldiers ’ votes in favor of Abraham Lincoln ’ s reelection .
But the overwhelming majority of media commentary prior to the latest election insisted that only paranoid people would fear mail-in fraud .
Thanks to 65 million mail-in ballots this year , more fraud may have occurred in this election than in any since 1876 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states made it easier ( if not automatic ) to vote by mail , some states dropped verification requirements—including matching signatures , return addresses , or having a witness verify the person and the vote .
Lawyer J. Christian Adams noted that “ Democrats succeeded in tossing out state laws related to absentee ballot verification , deadlines and a whole range of laws all in the name of COVID .
By and large , GOP efforts in court failed .
It was a courtroom bloodbath that created vulnerabilities across the system.
” There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existing safeguards for absentee voting , but the Democratic activists did so regardless .
On top of this , widespread “ ballot harvesting ” occurred—political activists and others rounding up ballots to take to a drop-box or other venue for delivery .
This was legal in some states , not in others , but it made a mockery of any “ chain of custody ” for a ballot .
Regardless of the potential conniving , any piece of paper with a splotch next to Biden ’ s name was treated as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing up at his polling place , showing his identification ( still required in some states ) , and casting his ballot in a booth .
The 2020 election result is also partly the result of gross negligence of both political parties at federal , state , and local levels .
After the 2000 Florida election debacle with punch-card machines , Congress responded by throwing money at states and municipalities to purchase electronic voting machines .
But the apparent high-tech fix opened up a new realm of potential corruption that sparked fierce controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio .
In 2005 , Rep. Maxine Waters ( D-CA ) complained that many states used more sophisticated technology for lottery tickets than for elections : “ Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have moved to electronic voting… we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against vote tampering.
” Unfortunately , many states continued to rely on electronic systems that bizarrely included a prohibition of auditing the results .
The media has lambasted President Trump ’ s allegations that Dominion , the company that provided electronic voting systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome against him .
But similar condemnations were made just last year by Democrats and left-leaning media .
Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) declared that the voting machine lobby “ literally thinks they are just above the law , they are accountable to nobody , [ and ] they have been able to hotwire the political system in certain parts of the country… The maintenance of our constitutional rights should not depend on the sketchy ethics of these well-connected corporations that stonewall Congress , lie to public officials and have repeatedly gouged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British newspaper , published an investigation last year that concluded that “ democracy in the United States is now largely a secretive and privately-run affair conducted out of the public eye with little oversight .
The corporations that run every aspect of American elections , from voter registration to casting and counting votes by machine , are subject to limited state and federal regulation.
” The Guardian warned that the companies that provide election services “ have long histories of errors that affected elections , of obstructing politicians and the public from seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence , false statements of security and business dishonesty.
” Regardless of the voting software disputes , there are enough anomalies about the 2020 election results to choke a horse .
Though Biden appeared to evoke little enthusiasm among voters , he scored far more votes than did Barack Obama in his “ Come to Jesus ” 2008 salvation campaign .
The late-night surges of Biden votes in key swing states raised suspicions of foul play .
Even The Washington Postadmitted that Biden had the “ least coattails ” of any presidential candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave swept contested House races and many state legislative contests .
Many of the ballots that pushed Biden over the top cast a vote solely for a presidential candidate at a rate vastly higher than the “ sole votes ” for Trump on such ballots .
Unfortunately , Americans can not count on the media to honestly investigate the controversies of the 2020 election .
A week after Election Day , The New York Times ran a banner headline across the top of the front page : “ Election Officials Nationwide Find No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Their reporters basically called election officials in each state and asked , “ Did y ’ all have any fraud ?
” Since government officials said “ no , ” that confirmed 2020 ’ s “ Vox Populi , Vox Dei ” —Biden ’ s win was the voice of God .
That Times headline signaled that the media had zero interest in ferreting through allegations about electoral misconduct .
No wonder that a recent Gallup poll found that 86 percent of Americans believed the media was politically biased , with almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great deal of bias.
” More than 75 percent of Americans believe that news organizations are “ trying to persuade people to adopt a certain viewpoint ” and most Americans believe reporters are “ misrepresenting the facts ” At this point , it is surprising that anyone who is not employed by a newspaper or television network still trusts the media .
From the time that Trump won the 2016 election , much of the media has zealously campaigned to undermine almost every move he made .
During the 2020 campaign , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s direct meddling in a Ukraine fraud investigation or the damning revelations from Hunter Biden ’ s laptop .
Some of the same people who spent years telling us that Trump was the Great Satan are now telling us that democracy is our “ civic religion , ” so we have to bow to Biden .
When Biden was deemed to have won the 2020 election , Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan celebrated with an article whose headline boasted that the media had “ saved democracy.
” Another Washington Post headline scoffed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an “ Election Denier ” —placing them in the same odious category as Holocaust deniers .
An ABC News analysis portrayed distrust of the election results as a form of mental illness .
Social media giants also tilted the playing field and helped Biden win the election .
Twitter was perpetually deleting conservative activists with large followings , banned New York Post stories on Hunter Biden ’ s laptop , and increasingly blocked tweets from President Trump .
Facebook blocked stories on the Biden laptop and flagged a Tucker Carlson video on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawley ( R-MO ) complained , “ This is Big Tech control of news and speech , nationwide , in real time—all in an attempt to control an election.
” Will the controversies surrounding the 2020 election be expunged from the Internet like the tawdry reputation of a convicted con artist ?
On December 9 , YouTube announced that it would “ disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election… .
We will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So will YouTube delete all videos dealing with the controversies around the 1824 and 1876 elections ?
If YouTube is going to effectively ban criticism of presidential elections , will it soon extend the same suppression to congressional , mayoral , and dogcatcher elections ?
How many other Internet giants will help Biden achieve “ consecration via censorship ” ?
Regardless of efforts by the media and Democratic politicians to delegitimize all doubts on Biden ’ s victory , the 2020 election , like the 2000 election , may be decided by lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not directly by voters .
If investigations into alleged fraud or vote rigging expose overwhelming evidence of major abuses after Biden is inaugurated , that will be another cluster bomb dropped onto federal credibility .
At best , the 2020 election was “ good enough for government work ” democracy .
The same folks who are now hollering that Biden represents the “ will of the people ” helped “ define down ” voting to a mockery of prior American standards .
It would be helpful if a national election conferred more legitimacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Lady of the Lake tossing the Excalibur sword to King Arthur .
How many more election debacles does Washington believe the American people will tolerate ?
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

Americans’ trust in government and the media has collapsed. Two months before the presidential election, only 20 percent of Americans trusted the federal government to “do the right thing” most of the time, according to a Pew Research Center survey. It is unlikely that trust in the government will rebound any time soon, in part because of how the 2020 election was conducted and because the news media has obliterated much of the tattered remnants of its credibility since 2016. Instead, the question is: how much lower can Americans’ trust fall in the political system without a total collapse of legitimacy?
It is unclear at this time how much fraud occurred in swing states and whether it was sufficient to change the outcome of the Electoral College. Some of the early charges by Trump supporters and lawyers regarding electoral foul play have belly-flopped spectacularly. The apparent endorsement by Gen. Michael Flynn for Trump to declare martial law is both reckless and reprehensible. But there are plenty of legitimate unanswered questions about the election results.
A Monmouth poll last month found that 77 percent of Trump backers believed that Biden won due to fraud. A Morning Consult poll last month showed that the percentage of Republican voters who said they had “at least some trust in the U.S. election system” plunged from 66 percent before the election to 37 percent afterwards. Like the bogus Russian collusion narrative that Democratic activists created after the 2016 election, that distrust will haunt the Biden administration.
The 2020 election in many states was practically designed to maximize tainted ballots. In 2012, a New York Times analysis concluded that “fraud in voting by mail is… vastly more prevalent than the in-person voting fraud that has attracted far more attention.” Notorious mail-in voting fraud stretches back more than 150 years, when there was widespread intimidation and finagling in the Union Army to tilt soldiers’ votes in favor of Abraham Lincoln’s reelection. But the overwhelming majority of media commentary prior to the latest election insisted that only paranoid people would fear mail-in fraud. Thanks to 65 million mail-in ballots this year, more fraud may have occurred in this election than in any since 1876.
At the same time that many states made it easier (if not automatic) to vote by mail, some states dropped verification requirements—including matching signatures, return addresses, or having a witness verify the person and the vote. Lawyer J. Christian Adams noted that “Democrats succeeded in tossing out state laws related to absentee ballot verification, deadlines and a whole range of laws all in the name of COVID. By and large, GOP efforts in court failed. It was a courtroom bloodbath that created vulnerabilities across the system.”
There was no reason to abolish many of the existing safeguards for absentee voting, but the Democratic activists did so regardless. On top of this, widespread “ballot harvesting” occurred—political activists and others rounding up ballots to take to a drop-box or other venue for delivery. This was legal in some states, not in others, but it made a mockery of any “chain of custody” for a ballot. Regardless of the potential conniving, any piece of paper with a splotch next to Biden’s name was treated as if it were as sacrosanct as an American showing up at his polling place, showing his identification (still required in some states), and casting his ballot in a booth.
The 2020 election result is also partly the result of gross negligence of both political parties at federal, state, and local levels. After the 2000 Florida election debacle with punch-card machines, Congress responded by throwing money at states and municipalities to purchase electronic voting machines.
But the apparent high-tech fix opened up a new realm of potential corruption that sparked fierce controversy over the 2004 election results, especially in Ohio. In 2005, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) complained that many states used more sophisticated technology for lottery tickets than for elections: “Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have moved to electronic voting… we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against vote tampering.” Unfortunately, many states continued to rely on electronic systems that bizarrely included a prohibition of auditing the results.
The media has lambasted President Trump’s allegations that Dominion, the company that provided electronic voting systems in several key states, rigged the outcome against him. But similar condemnations were made just last year by Democrats and left-leaning media. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) declared that the voting machine lobby “literally thinks they are just above the law, they are accountable to nobody, [and] they have been able to hotwire the political system in certain parts of the country… The maintenance of our constitutional rights should not depend on the sketchy ethics of these well-connected corporations that stonewall Congress, lie to public officials and have repeatedly gouged taxpayers.” The Guardian, a left-leaning British newspaper, published an investigation last year that concluded that “democracy in the United States is now largely a secretive and privately-run affair conducted out of the public eye with little oversight. The corporations that run every aspect of American elections, from voter registration to casting and counting votes by machine, are subject to limited state and federal regulation.” The Guardian warned that the companies that provide election services “have long histories of errors that affected elections, of obstructing politicians and the public from seeking information, of corruption, suspect foreign influence, false statements of security and business dishonesty.”
Regardless of the voting software disputes, there are enough anomalies about the 2020 election results to choke a horse. Though Biden appeared to evoke little enthusiasm among voters, he scored far more votes than did Barack Obama in his “Come to Jesus” 2008 salvation campaign. The late-night surges of Biden votes in key swing states raised suspicions of foul play. Even The Washington Post admitted that Biden had the “least coattails” of any presidential candidate in 60 years as a Republican red wave swept contested House races and many state legislative contests. Many of the ballots that pushed Biden over the top cast a vote solely for a presidential candidate at a rate vastly higher than the “sole votes” for Trump on such ballots.
Unfortunately, Americans cannot count on the media to honestly investigate the controversies of the 2020 election. A week after Election Day, The New York Times ran a banner headline across the top of the front page: “Election Officials Nationwide Find No Fraud.” How did the Times know? Their reporters basically called election officials in each state and asked, “Did y’all have any fraud?” Since government officials said “no,” that confirmed 2020’s “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”—Biden’s win was the voice of God. That Times headline signaled that the media had zero interest in ferreting through allegations about electoral misconduct.
No wonder that a recent Gallup poll found that 86 percent of Americans believed the media was politically biased, with almost half stating that there was “a great deal of bias.” More than 75 percent of Americans believe that news organizations are “trying to persuade people to adopt a certain viewpoint” and most Americans believe reporters are “misrepresenting the facts”
At this point, it is surprising that anyone who is not employed by a newspaper or television network still trusts the media. From the time that Trump won the 2016 election, much of the media has zealously campaigned to undermine almost every move he made. During the 2020 campaign, the media mostly buried stories about Biden’s direct meddling in a Ukraine fraud investigation or the damning revelations from Hunter Biden’s laptop. Some of the same people who spent years telling us that Trump was the Great Satan are now telling us that democracy is our “civic religion,” so we have to bow to Biden.
When Biden was deemed to have won the 2020 election, Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan celebrated with an article whose headline boasted that the media had “saved democracy.” Another Washington Post headline scoffed that anyone who doubted Biden’s victory was an “Election Denier”—placing them in the same odious category as Holocaust deniers. An ABC News analysis portrayed distrust of the election results as a form of mental illness.
Social media giants also tilted the playing field and helped Biden win the election. Twitter was perpetually deleting conservative activists with large followings, banned New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop, and increasingly blocked tweets from President Trump. Facebook blocked stories on the Biden laptop and flagged a Tucker Carlson video on the origins of Covid-19. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) complained, “This is Big Tech control of news and speech, nationwide, in real time—all in an attempt to control an election.”
Will the controversies surrounding the 2020 election be expunged from the Internet like the tawdry reputation of a convicted con artist? On December 9, YouTube announced that it would “disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election…. We will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors.” So will YouTube delete all videos dealing with the controversies around the 1824 and 1876 elections? If YouTube is going to effectively ban criticism of presidential elections, will it soon extend the same suppression to congressional, mayoral, and dogcatcher elections? How many other Internet giants will help Biden achieve “consecration via censorship”?
Regardless of efforts by the media and Democratic politicians to delegitimize all doubts on Biden’s victory, the 2020 election, like the 2000 election, may be decided by lawyers and political appointees (justices), not directly by voters. If investigations into alleged fraud or vote rigging expose overwhelming evidence of major abuses after Biden is inaugurated, that will be another cluster bomb dropped onto federal credibility.
At best, the 2020 election was “good enough for government work” democracy. The same folks who are now hollering that Biden represents the “will of the people” helped “define down” voting to a mockery of prior American standards. It would be helpful if a national election conferred more legitimacy on a new president than the legend of the Lady of the Lake tossing the Excalibur sword to King Arthur. How many more election debacles does Washington believe the American people will tolerate?
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-11--Think the 2020 Election Was Uniquely Dysfunctional? Think Again

We 've been here before , in 1824 and 1876 , with one major difference this time around : more lawsuits .
16th February 1877 : The Electoral Commission of 1877 holds a secret session by candlelight in Washington , DC .
The commission was set up to decide the result of the controversial presidential election between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel J Tilden , and resulted in the 22 contested votes from Florida , Louisiana , Oregon and South Carolina being eventually awarded to Hayes .
Original Publication : From Frank Leslie 's Illustrated Newspaper .
( Photo by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may prefer to avoid wading into yet another presidential race 20 years after Bush v. Gore .
It may never hear a Trump v. Biden ( or some variation thereof ) .
The election may never be decided in Congress .
But the involvement of state legislatures and President Donald Trump mounting potential a 2024 campaign are not so different from the previous electoral debacles I wrote about in my book Tainted by Suspicion : The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections .
The Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state .
Republicans on the Arizona state legislature held a forum in Phoenix—though not a sanctioned hearing—on alleged election irregularities .
The Michigan Senate ’ s Government Oversight Committee held two days of hearings and the Georgia Senate ’ s Oversight and Judiciary committees each held a hearing looking at allegations .
Rudy Giuliani and others on Trump ’ s legal team have implored state lawmakers to appoint clean slates of electors , pleading that the supposed fraud is too profound .
While it ’ s tempting to compare the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the players in that drama are , well , still alive , the real parallels are with 1876 and 1824—for different reasons .
Whether there is a similarity with 1824 is contingent on what happens in 2024 .
Trump has hinted that he will run again .
If he does , it will almost assuredly be on a “ we was robbed ” platform like Andrew Jackson did in 1828 .
Jackson complained that a “ corrupt bargain ” had prevented him from winning the White House race four years earlier .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson was a disruptor , taking on the Washington establishment and , as he saw it , battling to take America back for the people .
He was possibly even more detested by elites than Trump is .
Though not impeached , Jackson was censured by Congress .
As for 1876 , that election is similar to the 2020 dispute because it ’ s playing out in multiple states , not just a single recount in Florida .
Also , 2020 was much like 1876 in that the early returns were deceptive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave competing slates of electors—which is similar to what Giuliani is asking legislatures to do now .
Barring a series of major bombshells that would stun even the most partisan Republican , Joe Biden will win in the Electoral College on December 14 and be inaugurated on January 20 , 2021 .
Another point to note about past disputed election outcomes is that this isn ’ t a radical departure .
The lore about past contests going down to the wire isn ’ t exactly accurate .
The election of 1800 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jefferson versus his disloyal running mate Aaron Burr after Election Day , was an anomaly that went into overtime .
In a pre-12th Amendment America , the Jeffersonian electors gave an equal number of votes to Jefferson and Burr .
The only reason this election was prolonged was because the lame-duck Federalist majority in the House considered making mischief—and they were serious about it , believing Burr a more malleable character than Jefferson .
But despite this , there was only an outside chance the House would take such an extraordinary measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This post-election dispute wasn ’ t so much about a clash between two parties or visions as it was growing pains for a new republic .
It was thus different from the others that followed .
Yes , Al Gore had a statistically better chance of winning Florida than Trump has of flipping the two or three states he needs for victory .
But the odds were always with George W. Bush .
And whether or not the never-proven “ corrupt bargain ” occurred , there was almost no chance that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clay would send the 1824 election to anyone other than John Quincy Adams .
Even in 1876 , so divisive that Democrats openly threatened violence in the streets , it was fairly clear Rutherford B. Hayes would be president , as the makeup of the bipartisan Electoral Commission gave Republicans an eight-to-seven advantage .
Yet there was at least more uncertainty in the centennial election—which brings us to another similarity to 2020 .
In both elections , many Americans went to bed believing one candidate had clearly won only to find out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other way .
However , in 1876 , it was Democrat Samuel Tilden who seemed to be leading .
Many of the big daily newspapers reported he had won .
Of course , in 2020 , it was many Republicans ( if they turned in before midnight ) who felt that their president was well on his way to being re-elected .
Didn ’ t someone say Florida and Ohio always pick the winner ?
Just as Pennsylvania , Georgia , Arizona , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Nevada have been litigated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina , Louisiana , and Florida .
Reconstruction-era Republican governors tried to hold these Southern states for Hayes , claiming massive Democratic election fraud when it appeared the vote there had gone to Tilden .
Democratic state legislatures and canvassing boards , as well as state courts , tried to intervene until Congress appointed a 15-member bipartisan Electoral Commission with five senators , five House members , and five Supreme Court justices .
Republicans had the advantage once the Electoral Commission , in a series of eight-to-seven votes , awarded the three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , with a Republican Senate and Democratic House , both had to approve the decision .
So Southern Democrats were able to squeeze Republicans to end Reconstruction in the south with the Compromise of 1877 in order to resolve the stalemate .
As for 2020 , no such bargains or compromises will intervene .
The Trump legal team wants court victories or interventions from state legislators—both of which seem unlikely .
In that respect , it is more like 2000 , where Trump , much like Gore , must win or lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new slates of electors should make us uncomfortable , lest it become commonplace .
But I strongly suspect that if this were 100 years earlier—perhaps even 70 years earlier—legislatures would likely be the remedy before a political matter was taken into the courtroom .
The fact that courts were the driving force in the last two disputed presidential elections has more to do with the litigious era in which we live in than any constitutional or political norm .
Fred Lucas is the chief national affairs correspondent for the Daily Signal , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump and Tainted by Suspicion : The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections .
The views expressed are solely his own .
Title and publications listed are for identification purposes only .

The U.S. Supreme Court may prefer to avoid wading into yet another presidential race 20 years after Bush v. Gore. It may never hear a Trump v. Biden (or some variation thereof). The election may never be decided in Congress.
But the involvement of state legislatures and President Donald Trump mounting potential a 2024 campaign are not so different from the previous electoral debacles I wrote about in my book Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.
The Pennsylvania Senate Majority Policy Committee recently held a hearing on the election controversies in the state. Republicans on the Arizona state legislature held a forum in Phoenix—though not a sanctioned hearing—on alleged election irregularities. The Michigan Senate’s Government Oversight Committee held two days of hearings and the Georgia Senate’s Oversight and Judiciary committees each held a hearing looking at allegations.
Rudy Giuliani and others on Trump’s legal team have implored state lawmakers to appoint clean slates of electors, pleading that the supposed fraud is too profound.
While it’s tempting to compare the 2020 dispute with 2000, since most of the players in that drama are, well, still alive, the real parallels are with 1876 and 1824—for different reasons.
Whether there is a similarity with 1824 is contingent on what happens in 2024. Trump has hinted that he will run again. If he does, it will almost assuredly be on a “we was robbed” platform like Andrew Jackson did in 1828. Jackson complained that a “corrupt bargain” had prevented him from winning the White House race four years earlier.
Trump already fancies himself another Old Hickory. Jackson was a disruptor, taking on the Washington establishment and, as he saw it, battling to take America back for the people. He was possibly even more detested by elites than Trump is. Though not impeached, Jackson was censured by Congress.
As for 1876, that election is similar to the 2020 dispute because it’s playing out in multiple states, not just a single recount in Florida. Also, 2020 was much like 1876 in that the early returns were deceptive. And it was that year that states gave competing slates of electors—which is similar to what Giuliani is asking legislatures to do now.
Barring a series of major bombshells that would stun even the most partisan Republican, Joe Biden will win in the Electoral College on December 14 and be inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Another point to note about past disputed election outcomes is that this isn’t a radical departure. The lore about past contests going down to the wire isn’t exactly accurate.
The election of 1800, which went from John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson to Jefferson versus his disloyal running mate Aaron Burr after Election Day, was an anomaly that went into overtime. In a pre-12th Amendment America, the Jeffersonian electors gave an equal number of votes to Jefferson and Burr. The only reason this election was prolonged was because the lame-duck Federalist majority in the House considered making mischief—and they were serious about it, believing Burr a more malleable character than Jefferson. But despite this, there was only an outside chance the House would take such an extraordinary measure in the infant days of the country. This post-election dispute wasn’t so much about a clash between two parties or visions as it was growing pains for a new republic. It was thus different from the others that followed.
Yes, Al Gore had a statistically better chance of winning Florida than Trump has of flipping the two or three states he needs for victory. But the odds were always with George W. Bush.
And whether or not the never-proven “corrupt bargain” occurred, there was almost no chance that a House of Representatives run by Speaker Henry Clay would send the 1824 election to anyone other than John Quincy Adams.
Even in 1876, so divisive that Democrats openly threatened violence in the streets, it was fairly clear Rutherford B. Hayes would be president, as the makeup of the bipartisan Electoral Commission gave Republicans an eight-to-seven advantage. Yet there was at least more uncertainty in the centennial election—which brings us to another similarity to 2020.
In both elections, many Americans went to bed believing one candidate had clearly won only to find out the next morning the election could go the other way. However, in 1876, it was Democrat Samuel Tilden who seemed to be leading. Many of the big daily newspapers reported he had won. Of course, in 2020, it was many Republicans (if they turned in before midnight) who felt that their president was well on his way to being re-elected. Didn’t someone say Florida and Ohio always pick the winner?
Just as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada have been litigated in 2020, in 1876, it was South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida. Reconstruction-era Republican governors tried to hold these Southern states for Hayes, claiming massive Democratic election fraud when it appeared the vote there had gone to Tilden. Democratic state legislatures and canvassing boards, as well as state courts, tried to intervene until Congress appointed a 15-member bipartisan Electoral Commission with five senators, five House members, and five Supreme Court justices.
(As an aside, Oregon’s Democratic governor tried to name one elector for Tilden despite Hayes winning the state.)
Republicans had the advantage once the Electoral Commission, in a series of eight-to-seven votes, awarded the three Southern states and Oregon to Hayes. Still, with a Republican Senate and Democratic House, both had to approve the decision. So Southern Democrats were able to squeeze Republicans to end Reconstruction in the south with the Compromise of 1877 in order to resolve the stalemate.
As for 2020, no such bargains or compromises will intervene.
The Trump legal team wants court victories or interventions from state legislators—both of which seem unlikely. In that respect, it is more like 2000, where Trump, much like Gore, must win or lose.
The notion of state legislatures appointing new slates of electors should make us uncomfortable, lest it become commonplace. But I strongly suspect that if this were 100 years earlier—perhaps even 70 years earlier—legislatures would likely be the remedy before a political matter was taken into the courtroom. The fact that courts were the driving force in the last two disputed presidential elections has more to do with the litigious era in which we live in than any constitutional or political norm.
Fred Lucas is the chief national affairs correspondent for the Daily Signal, and author of Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump and Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections. The views expressed are solely his own. Title and publications listed are for identification purposes only.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-12--Why Rand Paul is Right to Oppose the Defense Bill

Why Rand Paul is Right to Oppose the Defense Bill The Kentucky senator recognizes that the neocons ' use of ‘ unitary executive theory ’ is pure war propaganda , and nothing more .
“ Rand Paul is at it again , ” blared Politico on Thursday .
“ And his moves could force another brief government shutdown.
” While Politico and other media outlets seemed to frame the Republican senator ’ s opposition to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act as his typical libertarian rabble-rousing , most were missing his entire point as it relates to America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance the theory of an all-powerful executive branch when that theory helps promote war , and they will become strict constitutionalists who seek executive restraint whenever it does not .
In explaining his opposition to the 2020 NDAA in its current form , Sen. Paul said on the Senate floor Thursday , “ According to the unitary executive theory , since the Constitution assigns the president all of the ‘ executive power , ’ he can set aside laws that attempt to limit his power over national security .
This is enormous : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president above the law.
” “ Now these same people who advocated for virtually unlimited commander in chief powers have put forth limits to restrain a president from removing troops from a country , ” Paul added .
Paul was citing language in the current NDAA that would make it impossible for President Trump to carry out his expressed desire to withdraw troops in Afghanistan .
An amendment supported by Rep. Liz Cheney would block the president from withdrawing troops via executive order and would defer that decision to Congress .
So who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assorted hawks Paul was pointing his finger at ?
The son of Ron Paul did not hesitate to name names .
Paul thundered : Representative Liz Cheney has argued that “ the nature of military and foreign policy demand the ‘ unity of the singular Executive , ’ ” and that the Founders “ certainly did not intend , nor does history substantiate , the idea that Congress should legislate specific limits on the President ’ s powers ” in wartime .
Senator Lindsey Graham said “ the one thing he has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one Commander-in-Chief , not 535 , and I believe this Commander-in-Chief and all future commanders-in-chief are unique in our Constitution and have an indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland .
If we have 535 commanders in chief , then we are going to be less safe.
” Paul hammered on , “ The late Senator John McCain said , ‘ it would be a very serious situation where we are now 535 commanders in chief… the President of the United States is the only commander.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dick Cheney was adamant that the War Powers Resolution , which requires the President to report to Congress on matters of war , was unconstitutional as ‘ an infringement on the president ’ s authority as the commander in chief , ’ ” Paul noted .
After citing numerous high-profile Republican voices who insisted American presidents have the power to unilaterally go to war without consulting Congress , Paul highlighted their rank hypocrisy .
“ Until recently , this chorus of voices sang of nothing but the almighty , endless powers that Presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul said .
“ That is until a President arrived on the scene who wanted to reduce overseas troop levels and end America ’ s longest war in Afghanistan.
” Paul continued , “ Then the promoters of a strong commander in chief suddenly jumped ship and began advocating that 535 members of Congress should indeed become generals and limit the President ’ s ability to remove troops from Afghanistan.
” In other words , war propagandists have little use for unitary executive theory when the current executive wants to bring the troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The neoconservative philosophy isn ’ t so much about a unitary executive , isn ’ t so much about an all-powerful commander-in-chief .
The philosophy of these people is about war and substantiating war and making sure that it becomes and is perpetual war.
” The Kentucky senator nailed it , for anyone paying attention—which excluded most in the Washington bubble and mainstream media .
“ Shouldn ’ t we call out hypocrisy ?
” Paul begged Thursday .
“ Shouldn ’ t someone stand up and expose this rank demagoguery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those advocating for unlimited commander in chief power want it only to apply when that President advocates for war ?
” Someone should .
Rand Paul is .
Good .
Even if he ’ s the only one .
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul .

“Rand Paul is at it again,” blared Politico on Thursday. “And his moves could force another brief government shutdown.”
While Politico and other media outlets seemed to frame the Republican senator’s opposition to the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act as his typical libertarian rabble-rousing, most were missing his entire point as it relates to America’s actual national defense: Washington warmongers will advance the theory of an all-powerful executive branch when that theory helps promote war, and they will become strict constitutionalists who seek executive restraint whenever it does not.
In explaining his opposition to the 2020 NDAA in its current form, Sen. Paul said on the Senate floor Thursday, “According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution assigns the president all of the ‘executive power,’ he can set aside laws that attempt to limit his power over national security. This is enormous: critics say that it effectively puts the president above the law.”
“Now these same people who advocated for virtually unlimited commander in chief powers have put forth limits to restrain a president from removing troops from a country,” Paul added.
Paul was citing language in the current NDAA that would make it impossible for President Trump to carry out his expressed desire to withdraw troops in Afghanistan. An amendment supported by Rep. Liz Cheney would block the president from withdrawing troops via executive order and would defer that decision to Congress.
So who are these people, the neocons and assorted hawks Paul was pointing his finger at? The son of Ron Paul did not hesitate to name names. Paul thundered:
Representative Liz Cheney has argued that “the nature of military and foreign policy demand the ‘unity of the singular Executive,’” and that the Founders “certainly did not intend, nor does history substantiate, the idea that Congress should legislate specific limits on the President’s powers” in wartime. Senator Lindsey Graham said “the one thing he has been consistent on’ is that “there is one Commander-in-Chief, not 535, and I believe this Commander-in-Chief and all future commanders-in-chief are unique in our Constitution and have an indispensable role to play when it comes to protecting the homeland. If we have 535 commanders in chief, then we are going to be less safe.”
Paul hammered on, “The late Senator John McCain said, ‘it would be a very serious situation where we are now 535 commanders in chief… the President of the United States is the only commander.”
“And of course, former Vice President Dick Cheney was adamant that the War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to report to Congress on matters of war, was unconstitutional as ‘an infringement on the president’s authority as the commander in chief,’” Paul noted.
After citing numerous high-profile Republican voices who insisted American presidents have the power to unilaterally go to war without consulting Congress, Paul highlighted their rank hypocrisy.
“Until recently, this chorus of voices sang of nothing but the almighty, endless powers that Presidents had as Commander in Chief,” Paul said. “That is until a President arrived on the scene who wanted to reduce overseas troop levels and end America’s longest war in Afghanistan.”
Paul continued, “Then the promoters of a strong commander in chief suddenly jumped ship and began advocating that 535 members of Congress should indeed become generals and limit the President’s ability to remove troops from Afghanistan.”
In other words, war propagandists have little use for unitary executive theory when the current executive wants to bring the troops home.
Sen. Paul would say later, “The neoconservative philosophy isn’t so much about a unitary executive, isn’t so much about an all-powerful commander-in-chief. The philosophy of these people is about war and substantiating war and making sure that it becomes and is perpetual war.”
The Kentucky senator nailed it, for anyone paying attention—which excluded most in the Washington bubble and mainstream media.
“Shouldn’t we call out hypocrisy?” Paul begged Thursday. “Shouldn’t someone stand up and expose this rank demagoguery? Shouldn’t someone cry foul that those advocating for unlimited commander in chief power want it only to apply when that President advocates for war?”
Someone should. Rand Paul is. Good.
Even if he’s the only one.
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-12--Fight the Lockdowns in the Name of Public Liberty

Church parishioners are now being punished for gathering to express their faith .
George Washington warned us about this .
On Sunday , November 29 , the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP ) blockaded nearly 100 parishioners at Church of God Restoration on the side of the highway .
One person was fined and reportedly more penalties may follow .
A week prior , the house of worship was fined $ 5,000 for violating the current public order declaring churches unable to open indoors or even for outdoor gatherings .
Churches are technically only supposed to be open virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBN News , “ Canada ’ s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry suspended all in-person religious gatherings in an attempt to slow the spread.
” Minister Tobias Thissen claims he will be building a defense against the $ 1,296 worth of tickets he has received .
“ We ’ re proud to stand for religious freedom , ” the minister told the CBC .
Unfortunately for Thissen and other people of faith , the Canadian government clearly is not .
Many protesters were seen practically begging the RCMP to allow them entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were yelling at the officers , plainly fed up with the tyrannical restrictions Manitoba residents have endured .
Outside the Church of God Restoration , protesters sang hymns in freezing cold weather , spiritually coming together to stand against the injustice .
Winkler mayor Martin Harder , though , is completely oblivious to the ridiculousness of his mandate .
“ I am disappointed , ” he said .
“ I think there are other ways in which to get our point across without having to gather in an illegal manner and try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is missing the point .
Those of faith are gathering because they submit to a higher god—not to the diktats rendering politicians and the state all-powerful .
Congregating “ virtually , ” as is mandated , is hardly a substitute for those who want to gather in person and practice their spiritual devotion .
Similarly , churches in England have been restricted to what is known as the “ rule of six , ” permitting only gatherings of six or fewer people inside churches , making it near impossible for even the tiniest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Church of God—the man who was fined $ 1,296—was reportedly confident in remaining where he was regardless of the economic toll .
This sort of bravery is admirable , though it can not be expected of all given the heavy burden .
Nevertheless , his actions are a lesson in moral and civil disobedience .
It is appalling the degree to which Canadian and U.S. governments have sought to strip freedoms from the individual man .
This Thanksgiving , it was California Governor Gavin Newsom who enacted lockdown measures that mandated six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on while not eating , and a max of two hours ’ time together .
Newsom is also notorious for having shut down churches throughout the pandemic , while allowing Hollywood , cannabis dispensaries , and summer camps to keep running .
Another stay-at-home order has just been issued in California .
COVID-19 has granted power-intoxicated bureaucrats across the world just what they have always desired : an unprecedented opportunity to centralize power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many .
This is an issue concerning practicality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty .
In his 1796 Farewell Address , George Washington warned of the threat Americans are facing at this moment : “ The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual ; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction , more able or more fortunate than his competitors , turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation , on the ruins of public liberty.
” This public liberty is what we ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a writer and student .
He has been published in The Daily Wire , The Washington Times , The Washington Examiner , RealClearPolitics , Christian Broadcasting Network , The American Conservative , and elsewhere .
Reach him at [ email protected ] .

On Sunday, November 29, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) blockaded nearly 100 parishioners at Church of God Restoration on the side of the highway. One person was fined and reportedly more penalties may follow. A week prior, the house of worship was fined $5,000 for violating the current public order declaring churches unable to open indoors or even for outdoor gatherings. Churches are technically only supposed to be open virtually via present Manitoba law.
According to CBN News, “Canada’s Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry suspended all in-person religious gatherings in an attempt to slow the spread.”
Minister Tobias Thissen claims he will be building a defense against the $1,296 worth of tickets he has received. “We’re proud to stand for religious freedom,” the minister told the CBC. Unfortunately for Thissen and other people of faith, the Canadian government clearly is not.
Many protesters were seen practically begging the RCMP to allow them entry into the church parking lot. They were yelling at the officers, plainly fed up with the tyrannical restrictions Manitoba residents have endured. Outside the Church of God Restoration, protesters sang hymns in freezing cold weather, spiritually coming together to stand against the injustice.
Winkler mayor Martin Harder, though, is completely oblivious to the ridiculousness of his mandate. “I am disappointed,” he said. “I think there are other ways in which to get our point across without having to gather in an illegal manner and try to provoke animosity between individual groups.
Winkler is missing the point. Those of faith are gathering because they submit to a higher god—not to the diktats rendering politicians and the state all-powerful.
Congregating “virtually,” as is mandated, is hardly a substitute for those who want to gather in person and practice their spiritual devotion. Similarly, churches in England have been restricted to what is known as the “rule of six,” permitting only gatherings of six or fewer people inside churches, making it near impossible for even the tiniest congregations to adequately gather.
One parishioner at Church of God—the man who was fined $1,296—was reportedly confident in remaining where he was regardless of the economic toll. This sort of bravery is admirable, though it cannot be expected of all given the heavy burden.
Nevertheless, his actions are a lesson in moral and civil disobedience. It is appalling the degree to which Canadian and U.S. governments have sought to strip freedoms from the individual man. This Thanksgiving, it was California Governor Gavin Newsom who enacted lockdown measures that mandated six feet between family members indoors, masks on while not eating, and a max of two hours’ time together. Newsom is also notorious for having shut down churches throughout the pandemic, while allowing Hollywood, cannabis dispensaries, and summer camps to keep running. Another stay-at-home order has just been issued in California.
COVID-19 has granted power-intoxicated bureaucrats across the world just what they have always desired: an unprecedented opportunity to centralize power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. This is an issue concerning practicality, but it’s also one of liberty.
In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned of the threat Americans are facing at this moment: “The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
This public liberty is what we ought to be fighting for.
Gabe Kaminsky is a writer and student. He has been published in The Daily Wire, The Washington Times, The Washington Examiner, RealClearPolitics, Christian Broadcasting Network, The American Conservative, and elsewhere. Reach him at gkaminskycontact@gmail.com.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-14--Mark Zuckerberg, Venture-Capital Radical

The Facebook founder 's unusual LLC philanthropy allows him to blur the lines between business , charity , and politics .
Imagine an organization that lobbies for progressive laws while providing venture-capital funding to techno-futurist endeavors .
It gives to numerous charitable causes in its own region—funding homeless shelters , Boys & Girls Clubs , and other community organizations—while also participating in political advocacy and influence at the state and national levels .
It spends a fortune every year on cutting-edge innovations in science and technology while funding a grade school designed to produce the next generation of left-wing activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assets for social change , all without the limits and transparency required of a traditional , nonprofit philanthropic organization .
The person behind such a project would have to be exceptionally creative , entrepreneurial , and innovative .
He is—and his name is Mark Zuckerberg .
The world knows Zuckerberg for Facebook , but I ’ m talking about another venture altogether : the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ( CZI ) , co-founded in 2015 with his wife , Priscilla Chan .
Like the enigmatic Emerson Collective run by Silicon Valley fellow traveler Laurene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philanthropic endeavor , but it ’ s structured as a limited liability corporation ( LLC ) , rather than a standard 501 ( c ) 3 nonprofit .
CZI does have several affiliate and subsidiary organizations , though , some of which are 501 ( c ) 3s .
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Foundation , for instance , is a traditional grantmaking non-profit with $ 4,650,890,520 in assets according to its most recent financial statement .
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy Fund is another affiliated non profit with $ 101,062,685 .
While not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization is FWD.us , a site which bills itself as backing bipartisan immigration reform .
Zuckerberg started the site in 2013 along with other tech giants including Bill Gates ; Drew Houston , co-founder of DropBox ; and Sean Parker , who created Napster and was in early on Facebook ( he was played by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network ) .
FWD.us claims to look for bipartisan solutions , stating on its website , “ A majority of Americans support immigration and criminal justice reform , and we ’ re working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the aisle to drive real change at the local , state , and federal levels.
” But a statement issued shortly after the election suggests that “ bipartisan ” is really code for “ liberal ” here : Tech titans , of course , are not merely interested observers on the immigration issue .
It ’ s no secret that Silicon Valley has benefited greatly from H1-B visas , which allow them to hire IT and other tech specialists from other countries , especially India and China .
These foreign workers tend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalents , and there are longstanding complaints that the tech industry has abused the visa program .
Trump shut down H1-B Visas earlier this year , while Biden has shown himself much more Big Tech-friendly on this issue .
As noted by immigration resource Path2USA : When it ’ s not pushing policies that coincidentally cut Silicon Valley ’ s costs , CZI directs many of its resources toward impact investing—one of the left ’ s preferred methods of social change , in which venture capital is directed specifically to startups expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flagship projects is the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub , which supports forward-thinking medical research and technology .
In the group ’ s own words : “ At the Biohub , we actively nurture and create opportunities for leaders in science and technology to come together and drive discovery , setting the standard for collaborative science.
” Biohub projects include some mind-blowing research like the Cell Atlas initiative : CZI funds bio-imaging technology and open-source science research software in its portfolio as well .
Outside of the medical realm , CZI has devoted substantial capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beneficiaries have been remarkably successful , such as Age of Learning , which created ABCmouse , a popular educational website for kids two to eight .
Brightwheel , another recipient of CZI ventral capital , creates apps for early childhood education .
Another , Eruditus , runs high-budget courses for corporate executives .
CZI also recently devoted $ 6.3 million to “ equity in education.
” Elsewhere , CZI ’ s educational ventures are overtly political .
The Chang Zuckerberg Initiative is a key backer of PilotEd , a school initiative that utilizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
PilotEd currently operates one school in Indianapolis , and is working on opening its second in Las Vegas .
For students at pilotED , issues of identity are worked directly into the curriculum along with social-emotional learning .
For example , a history lesson about Plymouth Rock includes the traditional story of the gathering of Pilgrims and indigenous people .
But it also includes what is left out of traditional history books .
Teachers talk with students about who they identify with in the story .
Do they see themselves as someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as someone who experiences genocide ?
The lesson would wrap up with a discussion on emotions and questions such as “ What would it feel like if that was your family , or if it was your friend ?
” The same feature opens with a glowing report on seven-year-old PilotEd elementary students being inserted into racial protests in Indianapolis this summer .
But even the intensely woke PilotEd is far from the LLC ’ s most explicit bit of politicking .
In 2020 , the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative dove headfirst into two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of California .
Here is more from their website : The criminal justice reform also strikes a bipartisan tone on paper .
CZI claims , “ The justice system ’ s emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation profoundly impacts our communities .
We ’ re focused on finding new ways forward by safely reducing incarceration , providing fair chances for those impacted , and lifting up the voices of people closest to the problem.
” One CZI-supported criminal justice program is Fair and Just Prosecution , which brings new prosecutors together to “ talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group for prosecutors .
It ’ s an interesting program to consider in light of the coordinated campaign by left-wing mega-donors to fill prosecutors ’ offices with progressives .
The CZI-opposed Prop .
20 was rejected handily in California ’ s November election .
CZI ’ s favored Prop .
15 , though—heavily unpopular from the start—was also rejected , by a much narrower margin .
But this is not necessarily indicative of CZI ’ s potential to effect change .
It ’ s now the stuff of business legend that Peter Thiel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the original investor in Facebook .
When Zuckerberg arrived in Palo Alto in 2004 , he had a website with exponential growth in accounts but no revenue , let alone profits .
A few short months later , Thiel famously invested the first $ 500,000 and several other rounds of venture capital followed .
In May 2012 , Facebook went public .
Thiel sold off the majority of his stock that same year , with his half-million dollars netting nearly $ 1 billion .
Zuckerberg has since created Facebook Live , bought WhatsApp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in virtual reality and artificial intelligence .
Facebook is currently valued at around $ 800 billion .
Less well known , though probably more important , is that Thiel passed on several rounds of further financing , believing at the time Facebook was overvalued based on the money raised .
He would later call these moves his biggest professional mistake , saying that he underestimated Facebook ’ s potential for exponential growth .
In effect , Thiel underestimated Zuckerberg .
With CZI now likewise in its early years , nobody should make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked as a freelance journalist since 2009 , after spending more than a decade in finance .
He ’ s based in Chicago .

Imagine an organization that lobbies for progressive laws while providing venture-capital funding to techno-futurist endeavors. It gives to numerous charitable causes in its own region—funding homeless shelters, Boys & Girls Clubs, and other community organizations—while also participating in political advocacy and influence at the state and national levels. It spends a fortune every year on cutting-edge innovations in science and technology while funding a grade school designed to produce the next generation of left-wing activists. It leverages billions of dollars in assets for social change, all without the limits and transparency required of a traditional, nonprofit philanthropic organization.
The person behind such a project would have to be exceptionally creative, entrepreneurial, and innovative. He is—and his name is Mark Zuckerberg.
The world knows Zuckerberg for Facebook, but I’m talking about another venture altogether: the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), co-founded in 2015 with his wife, Priscilla Chan. Like the enigmatic Emerson Collective run by Silicon Valley fellow traveler Laurene Powell Jobs, CZI is ostensibly a philanthropic endeavor, but it’s structured as a limited liability corporation (LLC), rather than a standard 501(c)3 nonprofit.
CZI does have several affiliate and subsidiary organizations, though, some of which are 501(c)3s. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Foundation, for instance, is a traditional grantmaking non-profit with $4,650,890,520 in assets according to its most recent financial statement. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy Fund is another affiliated non profit with $101,062,685.
While not a direct subsidiary, another CZI partner organization is FWD.us, a site which bills itself as backing bipartisan immigration reform. Zuckerberg started the site in 2013 along with other tech giants including Bill Gates; Drew Houston, co-founder of DropBox; and Sean Parker, who created Napster and was in early on Facebook (he was played by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network).
FWD.us claims to look for bipartisan solutions, stating on its website, “A majority of Americans support immigration and criminal justice reform, and we’re working with legislators and groups on both sides of the aisle to drive real change at the local, state, and federal levels.” But a statement issued shortly after the election suggests that “bipartisan” is really code for “liberal” here:
We want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their historic victory and celebrate the opportunity for progress it provides our nation. As we saw with years of public backlash throughout President Trump’s entire term, voters from all walks of life repudiated Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, demagoguery, and xenophobia. President Trump made his assault on the immigration system and immigrant families a signature issue for his presidency, and the public voted him out.
Tech titans, of course, are not merely interested observers on the immigration issue. It’s no secret that Silicon Valley has benefited greatly from H1-B visas, which allow them to hire IT and other tech specialists from other countries, especially India and China. These foreign workers tend to work for less than their American equivalents, and there are longstanding complaints that the tech industry has abused the visa program.
Trump shut down H1-B Visas earlier this year, while Biden has shown himself much more Big Tech-friendly on this issue. As noted by immigration resource Path2USA:
Vice President Joe Biden’s victory in the US Presidential elections will be a victory for US immigration as well. Promising a comprehensive immigration reform, Joe Biden not only intends to increase the H1-B visa quota but also resume work permits for spouses of H1-B visa holders. With an intention to reverse many of the restrictive immigration policies imposed by the outgoing Trump administration, Joe Biden is being hailed as the President that will bring fairness to skilled foreign workers that will support and improve the U.S. economy equally.
When it’s not pushing policies that coincidentally cut Silicon Valley’s costs, CZI directs many of its resources toward impact investing—one of the left’s preferred methods of social change, in which venture capital is directed specifically to startups expected to advance progressive goals.
One of its flagship projects is the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, which supports forward-thinking medical research and technology. In the group’s own words: “At the Biohub, we actively nurture and create opportunities for leaders in science and technology to come together and drive discovery, setting the standard for collaborative science.”
Biohub projects include some mind-blowing research like the Cell Atlas initiative:
The Cell Atlas will be made available to researchers around the world, shedding light on the many different types of cells that control the body’s major organs, including the brain, heart and lungs. This type of resource has never been created. Much of the technology necessary to complete the Cell Atlas was only developed recently. These new tools will be deployed at CZ Biohub and other participating institutions to map the cells of the human body in unprecedented detail.
CZI funds bio-imaging technology and open-source science research software in its portfolio as well.
Outside of the medical realm, CZI has devoted substantial capital to education technology. Some of the beneficiaries have been remarkably successful, such as Age of Learning, which created ABCmouse, a popular educational website for kids two to eight. Brightwheel, another recipient of CZI ventral capital, creates apps for early childhood education. Another, Eruditus, runs high-budget courses for corporate executives. CZI also recently devoted $6.3 million to “equity in education.”
Elsewhere, CZI’s educational ventures are overtly political. The Chang Zuckerberg Initiative is a key backer of PilotEd, a school initiative that utilizes a highly unorthodox, unabashedly progressive curriculum. PilotEd currently operates one school in Indianapolis, and is working on opening its second in Las Vegas.
A feature on CZI’s website boasts of PilotEd’s unconventional methods:
For students at pilotED, issues of identity are worked directly into the curriculum along with social-emotional learning. For example, a history lesson about Plymouth Rock includes the traditional story of the gathering of Pilgrims and indigenous people. But it also includes what is left out of traditional history books. Teachers talk with students about who they identify with in the story. Do they see themselves as someone who is persecuted for their beliefs or as someone who experiences genocide? The lesson would wrap up with a discussion on emotions and questions such as “What would it feel like if that was your family, or if it was your friend?”
The same feature opens with a glowing report on seven-year-old PilotEd elementary students being inserted into racial protests in Indianapolis this summer.
But even the intensely woke PilotEd is far from the LLC’s most explicit bit of politicking. In 2020, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative dove headfirst into two key ballot initiatives in its home state of California. Here is more from their website:
Today, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI), announced additional funding for two 2020 California ballot measure committees. This includes an additional $4.5 million in support of Proposition 15, which would restore an estimated $12 billion annually in much-needed local revenue to California communities by closing commercial property tax loopholes; and $1 million to the No on Proposition 20 campaign to oppose a measure that would incarcerate more people for low-level crimes and increase already bloated prison budgets.
The criminal justice reform also strikes a bipartisan tone on paper. CZI claims, “The justice system’s emphasis on punishment over rehabilitation profoundly impacts our communities. We’re focused on finding new ways forward by safely reducing incarceration, providing fair chances for those impacted, and lifting up the voices of people closest to the problem.”
One CZI-supported criminal justice program is Fair and Just Prosecution, which brings new prosecutors together to “talk about best practices”—effectively a brainstorm group for prosecutors. It’s an interesting program to consider in light of the coordinated campaign by left-wing mega-donors to fill prosecutors’ offices with progressives.
The CZI-opposed Prop. 20 was rejected handily in California’s November election. CZI’s favored Prop. 15, though—heavily unpopular from the start—was also rejected, by a much narrower margin. But this is not necessarily indicative of CZI’s potential to effect change.
It’s now the stuff of business legend that Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, was the original investor in Facebook. When Zuckerberg arrived in Palo Alto in 2004, he had a website with exponential growth in accounts but no revenue, let alone profits. A few short months later, Thiel famously invested the first $500,000 and several other rounds of venture capital followed. In May 2012, Facebook went public. Thiel sold off the majority of his stock that same year, with his half-million dollars netting nearly $1 billion. Zuckerberg has since created Facebook Live, bought WhatsApp and Instagram, and is now investing in virtual reality and artificial intelligence. Facebook is currently valued at around $800 billion.
Less well known, though probably more important, is that Thiel passed on several rounds of further financing, believing at the time Facebook was overvalued based on the money raised. He would later call these moves his biggest professional mistake, saying that he underestimated Facebook’s potential for exponential growth. In effect, Thiel underestimated Zuckerberg.
With CZI now likewise in its early years, nobody should make the same mistake again.
Michael Volpe has worked as a freelance journalist since 2009, after spending more than a decade in finance. He’s based in Chicago.


theamericanconservative--2020-12-14--Conservative Life in the Liberal Professoriate: A Cautionary Tale

“ American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by a liberal ethos .
It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand , and moral anarchy on the other.
” -Irving Kristol For 21 years I have worked at the same institution , Winthrop University .
It is a small liberal arts university—about 5,500 students , most from the very red state of South Carolina .
And therein lies this conundrum .
While most of our students are conservative to moderate , our faculty , like the majority of the professoriate , leans decidedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I have written for a professional library publication called Against the Grain , the irony of which will soon be apparent .
At the request of the journal 15 years ago , I agreed to write a regular column that I called “ Little Red Herrings.
” Most of what I wrote has been of a professional nature : publishing , censorship , and inside baseball library stuff .
In other words , columns that even one ’ s mother or spouse dreaded to read .
But occasionally I took on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the country went into lockdown in February , I felt a column about metadata or reference interviews would be nearly fatuous , so I undertook to write something about the pandemic .
“ The Wuhan Wilding ” seemed to me the right piece .
I hoped to follow it up with a column for the following month , “ Work in the Wuhan Wilderness.
” It was a time of reflection for me since I was then but 45 days from retirement .
I wrote “ Wilding ” and sent it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the past five years .
I wanted to make three points .
First , I did not want us to lose sight of the origin of the virus .
In five years , many might forget where it originated .
Subsequent riots in the wake of the heinous murder of George Floyd have proven that history is not a strong point with them , as epigone abolitionists and others in sympathy with their angst have borne the brunt of the rioters ’ fury .
Only a few weeks prior to my using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” or “ Wuhan virus ” had been used by CNN , not exactly a right-of-center media outlet , and also by every other major media outlet in the country .
Second , I wanted to point out that crises bring out the best and worst in people , and I gave examples of both .
Little did I known how Cassandra-like I would be vis-à-vis the latter .
Third , I wanted to make the point that perhaps the outcome of this lockdown might make us more aware of what is important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The editors showcased the article with a half dozen others .
In other words , at that point , no one at the magazine had seen anything wrong with the piece .
Yet once the online version appeared , all hell broke loose .
After 11 vituperative commenters excoriated the piece , the editors not only unilaterally retracted it , but apologized for its appearance .
I was informed that the following month ’ s column would not be printed .
Commenters then began working on the Winthrop ’ s website , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interim president saw their outrage .
My provost telephoned me—we were not yet back to work at that point—to tell me my crime was “ casual racism.
” I replied , peevishly , that the Left had given us casual sex and now we had casual racism .
What next ?
She explained that pointing out that the virus had come from Wuhan and giving examples of cultural differences between Asian and Western values “ signaled ” my racism .
In the spirit of reeducation , she offered to send me a reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the university ’ s bien-pensants .
She further explained that she would have to send an email to all faculty and staff disassociating the university from my article .
When I asked why , she explained that during a virtual staff conference , the issue had come up .
This struck me as odd because we have professional librarians who do not read Against the Grain regularly .
The staff conference also violated Winthrop ’ s own rules about using names in personnel matters .
In an email to faculty and staff titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech rights , and inclusion.
” she wrote : While I was not mentioned by name in the email , everyone on campus knew who the culprit was .
As Carol Iannone once pointed out , “ In the academy , the rule of power and intimidation through group grievance has been substituted for the rule of reason , persuasion , and argument , signaling the virtual end of intellectual life.
” The matter did not end there , however .
A few years ago , I brought to Winthrop a digital commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual footprint for a university .
I deposited both articles in that repository .
Forty-eight hours later , I learned that both had been censored , an unprecedented move .
I received an email from my provost explaining that she had ( privately ) emailed the library ’ s digital commons librarian to remove them .
I doubt the other 20,000 pages on this platform have been or will ever be vetted for the same nihil obstat .
Consequently , I posted my articles on academia.edu .
Still , the matter was far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumped into the fray , condemning me .
The Asia/Pacific American Librarians Association and Chinese American Library Association also condemned me and the article .
The latter argued : The Kung Flu reference pointed to a comment I made in the article .
I hasten to point that the Obama administration used the same “ Kung Flu ” phrase during a flu outbreak in 2015 .
( I am certain no one at any of those organizations has complained . )
The condemnation went on to argue that my article was “ especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially started/caused the disease.
” Seriously ?
Apparently only APALA and CALA do not know it began in Wuhan and was covered up by the Chinese government .
Post-George Floyd , the university hosted its first virtual diversity meeting that , inter alia , included a discussion about “ intersectionality , ” “ heteronormativity , ” and “ cisgender ” matters .
A reading list has been created on a webpage titled , “ Anti-Racist and Social Justice.
” More than once the need for “ reeducation ” came up .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ College Republicans for 15 years .
During the last year prior to my retirement , I wrote to eight faculty members whom I knew to be of a conservative bent , asking them to take over for me .
All eight turned me down .
This is important since no official campus club can exist and apply for funds without a faculty advisor .
All eight expressed to me fears about some sort of reprisal , either in tenure , promotion , committee assignments , or all three .
Today , I understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a happier ending than most .
It appeared in a number of news outlets and local media covered it as well .
But not until my congressman , Ralph Norman , and my state senator , Wes Climer , came to my defense , did matters begin to turn .
Along with several others , we pointed out to the full Board of Trustees that the precipitous actions of the provost flew in the face of First Amendment guarantees .
We demanded an apology , written to all faculty and staff , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle , occurred .
Further , we are working with the senior staff to make sure something like this does not happen again .
After opining about the rise of multiculturalism and political correctness , Christopher Lasch wrote in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy , “ How much longer can the spirit of free inquiry and open debate survive under these conditions ?
” My guess is that the sands in that hourglass are nearly spent .
Mark Y .
Herring is professor and Dean of Library Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served the last 21 years of his career before retiring in July of this year .
Prior to that he served as dean or director in Oklahoma and Tennessee .
Herring has nine books and scores of articles to his credit .
He wrote a regular column for Against the Grain for 15 years before the magazine censored him .
He also served as the faculty advisor to the College Republicans at Winthrop .
Herring lives with his wife , Carol , in Rock Hill , South Carolina .

“American life has been ruthlessly corrupted by a liberal ethos. It is an ethos that aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other.” -Irving Kristol
For 21 years I have worked at the same institution, Winthrop University. It is a small liberal arts university—about 5,500 students, most from the very red state of South Carolina. And therein lies this conundrum. While most of our students are conservative to moderate, our faculty, like the majority of the professoriate, leans decidedly left.
During the same 21 years, I have written for a professional library publication called Against the Grain, the irony of which will soon be apparent. At the request of the journal 15 years ago, I agreed to write a regular column that I called “Little Red Herrings.”
Most of what I wrote has been of a professional nature: publishing, censorship, and inside baseball library stuff. In other words, columns that even one’s mother or spouse dreaded to read. But occasionally I took on a topic much in the public eye. When the country went into lockdown in February, I felt a column about metadata or reference interviews would be nearly fatuous, so I undertook to write something about the pandemic. “The Wuhan Wilding” seemed to me the right piece. I hoped to follow it up with a column for the following month, “Work in the Wuhan Wilderness.” It was a time of reflection for me since I was then but 45 days from retirement. I wrote “Wilding” and sent it to the editor with whom I have worked for the past five years.
I wanted to make three points. First, I did not want us to lose sight of the origin of the virus. In five years, many might forget where it originated. Subsequent riots in the wake of the heinous murder of George Floyd have proven that history is not a strong point with them, as epigone abolitionists and others in sympathy with their angst have borne the brunt of the rioters’ fury. Only a few weeks prior to my using it, the phrase “Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan virus” had been used by CNN, not exactly a right-of-center media outlet, and also by every other major media outlet in the country.
Second, I wanted to point out that crises bring out the best and worst in people, and I gave examples of both. Little did I known how Cassandra-like I would be vis-à-vis the latter.
Third, I wanted to make the point that perhaps the outcome of this lockdown might make us more aware of what is important in life. Hope springs eternal.
The editors showcased the article with a half dozen others. In other words, at that point, no one at the magazine had seen anything wrong with the piece. Yet once the online version appeared, all hell broke loose.
After 11 vituperative commenters excoriated the piece, the editors not only unilaterally retracted it, but apologized for its appearance. I was informed that the following month’s column would not be printed. Commenters then began working on the Winthrop’s website, making sure both my new provost and our interim president saw their outrage. My provost telephoned me—we were not yet back to work at that point—to tell me my crime was “casual racism.” I replied, peevishly, that the Left had given us casual sex and now we had casual racism. What next? She explained that pointing out that the virus had come from Wuhan and giving examples of cultural differences between Asian and Western values “signaled” my racism. In the spirit of reeducation, she offered to send me a reading list that would better situate me with the university’s bien-pensants.
She further explained that she would have to send an email to all faculty and staff disassociating the university from my article. When I asked why, she explained that during a virtual staff conference, the issue had come up. This struck me as odd because we have professional librarians who do not read Against the Grain regularly. The staff conference also violated Winthrop’s own rules about using names in personnel matters.
In an email to faculty and staff titled, “Comments on our mission, speech rights, and inclusion.” she wrote:
Conflicts on college campuses seem to position these as antithetical to one another. They are not. In navigating this intersection, it is incumbent upon an academic institution to clarify when a member of the community makes statements that do not represent the university, at the same time that we recognize the equal weight of our commitments to academic freedom and inclusive excellence. Recent remarks by a member of our academic community—in a now-deleted online column and on Twitter—included comments that may be viewed as ethnically offensive relating to the COVID-19 virus. These remarks do not reflect the spirit of Winthrop’s mission and do not represent the views of Winthrop University.
While I was not mentioned by name in the email, everyone on campus knew who the culprit was. As Carol Iannone once pointed out, “In the academy, the rule of power and intimidation through group grievance has been substituted for the rule of reason, persuasion, and argument, signaling the virtual end of intellectual life.” The matter did not end there, however.
A few years ago, I brought to Winthrop a digital commons software platform designed as a kind of intellectual footprint for a university. I deposited both articles in that repository. Forty-eight hours later, I learned that both had been censored, an unprecedented move. I received an email from my provost explaining that she had (privately) emailed the library’s digital commons librarian to remove them. I doubt the other 20,000 pages on this platform have been or will ever be vetted for the same nihil obstat. Consequently, I posted my articles on academia.edu. Still, the matter was far from over.
The American Library Association jumped into the fray, condemning me. The Asia/Pacific American Librarians Association and Chinese American Library Association also condemned me and the article. The latter argued:
[T]he article was blatantly racist and xenophobic during a time in our country when discrimination, racism, and hate crimes against Asians and Asian Pacific Americans are on the rise. People of all races and ethnicities–including Asian and Asian Pacific Americans–are dying and to trivialize the disease by calling it by racist names like the “Wuhan virus” and “Kung Flu” is the epitome of ignorance and white supremacy in our profession.
The Kung Flu reference pointed to a comment I made in the article. I hasten to point that the Obama administration used the same “Kung Flu” phrase during a flu outbreak in 2015. (I am certain no one at any of those organizations has complained.) The condemnation went on to argue that my article was “especially dangerous since we do not know what officially started/caused the disease.” Seriously? Apparently only APALA and CALA do not know it began in Wuhan and was covered up by the Chinese government.
Post-George Floyd, the university hosted its first virtual diversity meeting that, inter alia, included a discussion about “intersectionality,” “heteronormativity,” and “cisgender” matters. A reading list has been created on a webpage titled, “Anti-Racist and Social Justice.” More than once the need for “reeducation” came up.
I have also been the faculty advisor to the College Republicans for 15 years. During the last year prior to my retirement, I wrote to eight faculty members whom I knew to be of a conservative bent, asking them to take over for me. All eight turned me down. This is important since no official campus club can exist and apply for funds without a faculty advisor. All eight expressed to me fears about some sort of reprisal, either in tenure, promotion, committee assignments, or all three. Today, I understand better their hesitation.
My story has a happier ending than most. It appeared in a number of news outlets and local media covered it as well. But not until my congressman, Ralph Norman, and my state senator, Wes Climer, came to my defense, did matters begin to turn. Along with several others, we pointed out to the full Board of Trustees that the precipitous actions of the provost flew in the face of First Amendment guarantees. We demanded an apology, written to all faculty and staff, by the provost, which, with some struggle, occurred. Further, we are working with the senior staff to make sure something like this does not happen again.
After opining about the rise of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christopher Lasch wrote in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, “How much longer can the spirit of free inquiry and open debate survive under these conditions?”
My guess is that the sands in that hourglass are nearly spent.
Mark Y. Herring is professor and Dean of Library Services emeritus, Winthrop University, where he served the last 21 years of his career before retiring in July of this year. Prior to that he served as dean or director in Oklahoma and Tennessee. Herring has nine books and scores of articles to his credit. He wrote a regular column for Against the Grain for 15 years before the magazine censored him. He also served as the faculty advisor to the College Republicans at Winthrop. Herring lives with his wife, Carol, in Rock Hill, South Carolina.