Since the day after the 2020 presidential election, I have said
I am agnostic with regard to whether the election was honestly or
dishonestly decided.
The primary reasons for my agnosticism are the usual ones:
The anomalies:
In 132 years, no president has received more votes in his run
for reelection and lost. Yet Donald Trump received 10 million more
votes in 2020 than in 2016 – and lost.
Trump won 18 of the 19 counties both Democrats and Republicans
regard as the “bellwether” counties that virtually always go with
the outcome of presidential elections. Yet he lost.
He won four bellwether states – Florida, Ohio, Iowa and North
Carolina. Yet he lost.
Republicans held onto all the House seats they were defending
and gained another 13 seats. Yet, Trump lost.
Add the following to the anomalies:
Unprecedented efforts were made in some states to change
election laws.
Mostly Democratic states sent out tens of millions of ballots or
applications for absentee ballots to people who never requested
them.
Voting began in some states six weeks before Election Day.
People have submitted sworn affidavits at great personal cost
and with possible perjury charges that they witnessed ballot
tampering on election night.
But all these things would matter little if Democrats involved
in ballot-counting felt morally compelled to count votes
honestly.
So, then, there is one question I have never heard posed that
trumps all other considerations: Would moral considerations prevent
Democrats from cheating to oust Trump? Or, to put the question in
the positive: Would Democrats deem it morally obligatory to cheat
on behalf of Joe Biden?
The answer to the first question is no: Moral considerations
would not prevent decent Democrats from cheating to prevent Trump’s
reelection. The answer to the second question is yes: Decent
Democrats would deem it morally obligatory to cheat on behalf of
Biden.
For four years, the media and their party, the Democrats, told
us every day that Trump is a fascist, a dictator, a racist and a
white supremacist; that he was an agent of the Russian government
– a real-life Manchurian candidate. We were also repeatedly told
by the lying media (Trump’s accurate description of the mainstream
media) that in Charlottesville, Virginia, Trump said there are
“very fine” Nazis (see the PragerU video, “The Charlottesville
Lie”). Yes, the media told us with a straight face that a man with
a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren said
there are fine Nazis. Biden said he decided to run for president
because of this lie.
So, then, here is the question: Why would anyone who sincerely
believed Trump is a white-supremacist fascist dictator not
cheat if he or she could prevent such a person from becoming or
remaining president of the United States?
Let me sharpen this question: Isn’t someone who could prevent a
fascist, white-supremacist, Nazi-defending dictator morally
obligated to cheat if he or she could prevent such a person
from becoming president?
I certainly would. If I were in a position to cheat in order to
prevent a fascist from becoming president, why would I not cheat? I
think of the most relevant example: the Nazis in the 1932
elections, Germany’s last free election until after World War II.
Though the Nazi Party did not receive a majority of votes, the
Nazis held the most seats in the Reichstag, and the head of the
party, Adolf Hitler, was named chancellor of Germany. If I were in
a position to have prevented the Nazis from coming to power by
cheating in the vote-count, wouldn’t I have been morally obligated
to do so – and therefore done so? The answer is obvious.
To repeat, I have never said Biden did not win the election. And
even if there was considerable fraud, that doesn’t mean the
election result would have been different.
But there are consequences to beliefs. Unless Democrats knew
they were lying for four years when they labeled Trump a fascist,
racist, Nazi, dictator, etc., were they not duty-bound to cheat on
Biden’s behalf? So, then, when you have circumstantial evidence
(not proof), combined with opportunity, desire, motive and, most
important, no moral argument against cheating and a strong moral
argument for cheating, it isn’t a “lie,” and it isn’t a
crackpot conspiracy theory, to wonder about the integrity of
America’s 2020 presidential election.
The post The
most important question about the 2020 election appeared first
on WND.
