Toronto Maple Leaf Farm Liberte
What a ridiculous editorial opinion in the Economist this month.
Did it ever occur to the Editor of the Economist that there might be serious election fraud? That the “erosion” of institutions and norms is not coming from those supporting President Trump but rather his opponents – and has been getting worse over several years? What is it going to take for the ultra-partisans to eat their words? Not sworn testimony from ordinary citizens, poll-watchers, and others who have testified, and continue to testify in droves to the many ways in which this election was manifestly stolen. They don’t need to do too much work – investigative journalism it used to be called – to find the evidence.
Just to outline a few of the obvious hints indicating fraud:
⦁ In PA, sudden “spikes” or batches of several hundreds of thousands of ballots arriving in the dead of night, after counting was interrupted (for the first time in history) and they are all (except for 3200) marked for Joe Biden. What is the probability? It is not possible to toss a coin hundreds-of-thousands of times and only get 3200 “heads”.
⦁ Republican poll watchers – who are supposed to (based on election rules and the Constitution) be able to mingle with the staff who are processing, investigating, and rejecting ballots – were kept either out of the counting centers entirely, or kept far away from the activity. It has never happened before! In a year when, because of Covid-19 (CCP-virus), the legislatures had pushed through new rules about sending out absentee ballots to millions of more voters than ever before, the Democrat-controlled election committees decided to keep the legal Republican watchers away. Why? 682,000 ballots, in two counties in PA only, were never observed or qualified by Republican watchers.
⦁ There were 700,000 more ballots received than there were ballots sent out to “voters” in PA – please explain that.
Is the Editor suggesting that it is more important to protect the perpetrators of fraud and a fraudulent Presidency than it is to follow the steps that the law and Constitution allow to redress such crimes? That is absurd and embarrassingly partisan.
I was once a subscriber, but this editorial reminded me why I do not read the Economist. There is not even an attempt at balance or objectivity. I guess the magazine has succumbed, as have most mainstream media, to the lure of advertising money from the CCP. They are painting themselves into a corner by being so one-sided in their reporting, but of course, it takes courage to disobey the “orange man bad” narrative. It takes research, placing patriotism above ideology, a willingness to turn down bribes from terrorist states like the CCP, and it takes courage.
It is disturbing.
I can’t wait to see what the Economist front page will proclaim when the Supreme Court upholds the reelection of Donald J. Trump, or when representatives from the State Legislatures vote along party lines to reelect Donald J. Trump in Congress. The Editor of the Economist claims to be a supporter of the institutions of the US. Will she support those same institutions when they work, as the Constitution contemplated, to determine that Donald Trump is the rightfully elected President? No doubt she will double-down on her partisanship and call it a stolen election, ignoring the evidence and the Constitutional process. This is blatant hypocrisy and partisanship, and that is what will erode the institutions and norms of the US, not the investigation of evidence of fraud.