Who’s funding sedition?

Liberals love to hate the Koch (sounds like “Coke”) brothers because of their reputation for supporting conservative and libertarian political causes through a nonprofit they founded that’s called Americans for Prosperity. The organization’s motto is “We protect the American Dream by fighting each day for lower taxes, less government regulation and economic prosperity for all” — what could possibly be wrong with that?

Plenty, according to the people at OurFuture.org.

Their website ominously warns “But the Koch brothers are a symbol of a greater problem of the power of money in politics—in particular, the ability of some über-rich people and large corporations to put their massive thumbs on the scale of democracy in ways that manipulate and ultimately overwhelm the will of the people.”

However, reality (and O.C.D. people like me) present a problem for our liberal activist friends at OurFuture.org. Several years ago, minimal research at a different website called OpenSecrets.org revealed that the Koch brothers weren’t even among the top 50 political donors — which means they really aren’t behind the really big money in politics. Big money tends to go to liberal Democrats, possibly because their votes are less expensive.

We cannot safely assume Republican integrity isn’t also for sale. The fact that a number of Republicans campaigned on repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act but then voted to kill the repeal proved that Republican politicians aren’t more trustworthy than Democrats. Unfortunately, we may only deduce that Democrat votes are cheaper votes to buy.

Supporting free speech is wonderful and noble, but bankrolling criminal gangs poorly disguised as protesting mobs is an evil and disruptive act of sedition. Some of these masked “Antifa” types have committed wanton acts of violence, and destroyed private property in broad daylight.

Adding insult to injury, on several occasions the police have allegedly been ordered to “stand down” by the Democrat politicians in charge of liberal enclaves such as Berkeley (during protests to prevent speeches by conservative pundits) and Baltimore (to protest the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody.) For example, in the video below, a cowardly mob swarms and attacks a nonviolent counter-protester in broad daylight, brazenly committing felonious assault while the police just stood there and watched it happen.

(Editorial note: YouTube has removed this video. Censorship at its finest.)

If the incident shown in the video doesn’t disturb you, then you also shouldn’t object to the targeted victim pulling out a concealed weapon and shooting four or five of his attackers, either.

And it will happen, sooner or later. People do have the legal right to protect themselves.

During the 2016 election campaign, an act of sedition occurred when people were transported by bus into North Carolina, specifically for the purpose of creating mayhem and social unrest. The police in Charlotte later revealed to the media that 70 percent of the criminals arrested during the protest possessed out-of-state driver’s licenses.

The website Zero Hedge reported that George Soros has funded much of this activity through his Open Society Foundation, but this is nothing new.

George Soros has been buying power and influence in Washington since the scandalous days of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Soros was the money behind MoveOn.org and made major donations to Media Matters. More recent financial records indicate that through the OSF, Soros gave $650,000 to the Black Lives Matter organization, to help fund the riots that took place Ferguson, Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

While Soros hasn’t been credited with funding Yvette Felarca and BAMNsomeone with deep pockets has to be paying the legal fees for all the harassing litigation they have filed against Troy Worden and the Berkeley College Republicans. Their strategy seems to be to bankrupt the student organization with an endless stream of frivolous lawsuits. Everyone opposed to these anarchist tactics to divide Americans should support the Mr. Worden and the Berkeley College Republicans with a donation to his legal defense fund, found at this link.

Someone is funding this insurrection. But who’s behind it? It isn’t only George Soros, although it’s a pathetic joke and a travesty of justice that he gets a tax benefit as he buys political power through his “charitable” organization. Nevertheless, George Soros is far from being the only liberal activist with deep pockets and an insatiable desire for buying power in Washington.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer recently tried to launch a $10 million dollar advertising campaign calling for the impeachment of President Trump on Fox News, but the television network returned his money after viewers reacted negatively to the ads. Apparently a majority of the audience of Fox News would prefer for the president to first commit an impeachable offense. Normally, one would suspect that a super-successful hedge fund manager like Mr. Steyer would be making smarter investments with his fortune, but of course he has every right to let his money speak on his behalf.

There’s also billionaire hedge fund manager Jim Simons, who supports political action committees (PACs) of liberal Democrats such as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, and apparently the same is true for hedge funds — both Simons and conservative political donor Robert Mercer are partners in the hedge fund known as Renaissance Technologies, which manages a tidy $30 billion in assets. That’s right — two of the biggest political donors in the last election cycle, one liberal and one conservative, both earn their income from the same company.

Nor should we neglect to mention the political contributions from Harvey Weinstein and the “intelligentsia” of Hollywood — or the influence of liberal internet entrepreneurs in social media (Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook) and search engines (Eric Schmidt of Google.) However, the average American cannot literally compete head-to-head with people like George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg or Tom Steyer, because the average American doesn’t have an extra $10 million dollars to burn.

Even so, it’s very important to remember that George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Jim Simons all earn a great deal of income by investing and managing money that actually belongs to other people. Even they must replenish what they spend or eventually they run out of money.

Empty seats and lost revenue due to the current fan boycott of the NFL has been noted by the people who write the checks. According to adweek.com, top advertisers have begun threatening to cut ties with the league. Papa John’s Pizzas now blames the NFL for the nationwide decrease in Sunday pizza sales. Money talks, as the old expression goes. There is strength in numbers.

As individuals we may not be able to compete with the wealth of a George Soros, but whenever we have been united as one nation, nothing has ever been able to stop the American people. Boycotts do work. One can ruin a person’s career, especially if that person happens to be a conservative. When liberal activists discovered that the developer of JavaScript had opposed Proposition 8 in California, founder Brendan Eich was forced to resign from his own company, Mozilla Corporation, by the threat of a boycott of the company’s products.

NFL players can grumble all they want about being denied their right to protest (which isn’t true) while representing their employer “on the job”, which average Joe Taxpayer also cannot do, but they are apparently oblivious to the fact that without the fans, the players won’t have jobs.

There is a special name for football games played without fans — they’re called scrimmages. The brutal truth is, when fans no longer care, the games no longer matter.

Nothing grabs a person’s attention like the sudden loss of significant income. People who can afford to travel from one state to another in order to join some ginned-up protest probably don’t work for a living…but they are getting money from somewhere. Dry up the money behind these ne’er-do-wells, and this problem will soon fade from memory.

Perhaps the solution to ending sedition in America will be making hedge funds illegal.

A Fair Share of the Tax Burden

Liberal Democrat politicians love to insist that their priority, when tax reform becomes the topic of discussion, is to force successful people to pay “their fair share” of taxes. The wealthy are frequently described as greedy people who gained their wealth at the expense of the poor.

However, according to the latest statistics from the Office of Management and Budget, the top 20 percent of American taxpayers currently pay a whopping 95 percent of all tax revenue collected. In other words, 80 percent of American taxpayers are currently getting a free ride at the expense of the people working hard to achieve success. Is that what is considered equality in the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Or is this in reality the land of the greedy, and the home of tax slaves?

For most of my life, corrupt politicians with insatiable appetites for taxpayer dollars to be used to buy votes from their constituents have demonized Americans for creating wealth, and convinced the majority of the citizens (a.k.a. beneficiaries) that punishing success is somehow good and noble, instead of being wicked and evil.

However, those same politicians and the media don’t hesitate to play favorites. They vilify wealthy Americans perceived to be conservative such as the Koch brothers, but ignore wealthy liberal donors like Tom Steyer, who just funded a $10 million dollar advertising campaign calling for the impeachment of President Trump, and of course George Soros, who has funded a wide variety of groups and activities designed to benefit liberal Democrat politicians.

Ironically, in the video above, filmed during the presidency of Bill Clinton, Soros is described as “Donald Trump without the humility.” Now, just let that thought marinate in your brain for a few minutes. Soros is such a hypocrite that he claimed he was only trying to “do the right thing” when he helped Nelson Mandela develop strategies to protect the economy of South Africa from unscrupulous currency speculators like himself, but then he declines to register his investment firm with the Securities and Exchange Commission. avoiding the same regulations that he helped impose on his competition. Political donations and “philanthropy” are used to buy these people political influence.

Similarly, the U.S. tax code has been weaponized and used to pit Americans against each other in a perpetual battle of class warfare. The tax code is a monstrous but clever method to manipulate the behavior of the majority. Because builders and everyone else in the real estate business wants people to buy houses, the tax code incentivizes home ownership. Children are also considered a deduction by the  tax code. If Americans really understood the lies, half-truths and deceptions being used to manipulate them, the vast majority of the general public would be outraged. But most regular people don’t have the slightest idea what politicians are really saying when they talk about our money.

Normal families use zero-based budgeting — meaning if you have zero dollars, that’s approximately how much money you can spend. As an example to illustrate the point, let’s say Joe Blow and his family earns $2,000 per month. The mortgage is $800, and utilities another $200. That leaves $1,000 for groceries, a car payment, entertainment, and everything else the Blow family needs. If Joe gets a raise, the monthly budget adjusts upward. If he loses his job, they will be forced to survive on any savings until new employment can be secured and the income stream replaced. If Joe tries to print his own money, he’ll get arrested for counterfeiting.

Conversely, the federal government uses baseline-budgeting, which has no relationship to reality whatsoever. If Joe’s income stream dips, he’s got to conserve money, so Joe is probably going to cancel the cable service, and eat hamburgers instead of steaks. The federal government never cuts back. They can legally print money whenever they want. But their rhetoric grotesquely distorts reality for ordinary Americans. When politicians are shrieking about so-called draconian spending cuts to the federal budget, they are lying. The federal government almost never cuts spending. In reality the politicians are only arguing about reductions in the future rate of increased spending.

Remember when Democrats in Congress kept harping that children would starve because of draconian cuts to the funding of school lunch programs? It sounded horrible, evil and cruel. There was only one problem. None of it was true. There was never going to be a reduction in the amount of money being spent on school lunches. They were arguing about a reduced percentage in the rate of increase to be spent on school lunches in future years.

President Trump is the first chief executive in recent memory to actually implement targeted, real spending cuts to specific federal programs. Even though the dollar amounts were more symbolic than meaningful in terms of reducing the deficit or lowering the debt, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Trillions of dollars in wealth have been redistributed from wealthy Americans who have achieved success to greedy politicians in Washington. Just enough of the proceeds are shared with the people who pay no taxes to buy their votes, so the vicious cycle may continue.

It isn’t fair that twenty percent of the population bears 95 percent of the tax burden. It’s immoral, and it ought to be criminal. But it shouldn’t be a surprise. Politicians are some of the greediest and unscrupulous people on earth. The highest tax bracket for a U.S. taxpayer in 2017 is a whopping 39.6 percent, yet for a politician, that still isn’t high enough. The evil rich must be punished, unless they also happen to be political donors.

By comparison, God only asks for 10 percent of our income.

Atheism and the Problem of Moral Relativism

According to moral relativism, the concept of right versus wrong varies from person to person. One person might consider adultery to be wrong, while another could decide that open marriages are copacetic.  For something to be recognized as universally wrong by everyone, a supernatural God must exist and serve as the consistent arbiter of right versus wrong, or good versus evil.

A helpful example to easily illustrate the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism would be Hitler and the Nazis, responsible for the Holocaust. In order to demonize someone with whom you disagree in modern society, all one needs to do is call that person a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier. Six million innocent Jews were slaughtered like sheep. Presumably, only an incomprehensibly cruel person would tolerate the genocide of an entire group of human beings. But we know that the Holocaust really happened, and that six million people were murdered by the Nazis in cold blood. The Nazis were moral relativists because they decided that Jews could be exterminated like vermin simply because of their religious beliefs.

While we know there were courageous German dissidents like Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, willing to sacrifice their own lives for others, there were also people like George Soros — a secular atheist of Jewish heritage himself, and current financial supporter of the Antifa movement — who collaborated with the Nazis, and admitted years later that he felt no remorse about watching his fellow Jews stripped of their personal property before being shipped off to concentration camps, and eventually death.

Obviously, the Nazis managed to reconcile their collective conscience with the attempt to systematically exterminate the Jewish population in their midst, so we cannot deny the existence of moral relativism. The only question that remains is, can we assume that moral absolutism also exists, and that there are some things that are inherently wrong?

Atheists are not evil or especially immoral people, but they cannot apply consistency to their moral beliefs. Although many Nazis were atheists, they didn’t murder the Jews because of their atheism, and many were also not atheists. The Jews were exterminated because Hitler promoted nationwide bigotry against them. Decent German people opposed to the slaughter were powerless to resist the Nazis, because their guns had been confiscated.

So, what does all of this have to do with atheism and the problem of moral relativism? Everything. Atheists want to be able to proclaim moral absolutism exists when the scenario suits them, but they don’t know how to apply moral absolutism with any logical consistency, due to their lack of belief in a supernatural God.

Consider, as an example, the online debate between Matt Dillahunty, the host of the Atheist Experience, and theist David Robertson, on the “Unbelievable” podcast hosted by Justin Brierly, who also served as the debate moderator. Matt is a very intelligent person, and an eloquent advocate for his atheistic worldview.

So the outcome of their debate was quite surprising. Right around the 25 minute mark in the video above, Robertson exposed a major vulnerability in a very typical atheist’s worldview.

Matt tried to insist that he’s not a moral relativist, but then contradicted himself almost immediately when Robertson ambushed him by saying, “If there is, as Dawkins says, no good and evil, then how can I say that Auschwitz is evil?…If I’m an atheist, then I just have to accept evil as just something natural.”

Dillahunty rejected that claim and noted that it was not his responsibility to defend Richard Dawkins, assuming that the paraphrasing of his comments about Auschwitz had been accurate.  Then he added,

The idea that good and evil aren’t things, that they’re not extant things, is pretty common. But I’m not a moral relativist. I’m not portraying a view, as you have adopted, or have claimed that atheism adopts, that morality is just opinions or social constructs and things like that…Killing people, killing six million people, slaughtering six million people, is obviously, flatly, in conflict with well being, both of those individuals, and of the society as a whole. And nothing could be more clear…

Poor Mr. Dillahunty didn’t see that he’d just boxed himself into a corner, but Justin Brierly quickly recognized the fatal flaw in that argument. He focused Robertson’s attention on Dillahunty’s peculiar choice of a certain word in his answer– that word being “obviously.”

The conversation segued into this rather remarkable, rapid-fire exchange:

Dillahunty: It’s not obvious to you that killing people is against their wellbeing? How else could you define wellbeing, if it doesn’t preclude being slaughtered?

Robertson: Well, that’s true. That’s interesting. So, you would say that it would be against the wellbeing of the child in the womb to kill it?

Dillahunty: Well, yes.

Robertson: So, you’d be against abortion, then?

Dillahunty: No.

Robertson: So, you think that killing the child in the womb is against the wellbeing of the child, but you’re for that.

Dillahunty: Did I say I was for it?

Oddly enough, Mr. Dillahunty didn’t seem to realize the contradiction in logic that he’d blundered into making. He quickly tried to soften his position on abortion by substituting the euphemism “pro-choice” but Robertson wouldn’t let him off the hook, finally hammering home his point by saying, “So, your whole argument against me (which) was, is it not obvious to you that killing someone is against their wellbeing, is completely superfluous.”

Ouch.

The debate was only halfway over, but Dillahunty was pretty much finished. It never got any better for him for the remainder of the podcast.

It is difficult to understand how a person as obviously intelligent as Mr. Dillahunty could be so adamant that the Holocaust and murder of 6 million Jews is so obviously wrong that everyone would agree and condemn such a horror, but that same person has no moral qualms about the medically-assisted murder of 55 million or more unborn babies in the U.S. alone.

Doesn’t terminating the life of an unborn child harm it’s wellbeing? Isn’t it detrimental to society as a whole?

Aren’t the answers to these questions obvious?

Moise Katumbi and his Secret Web of George Soros Driven Relationships

As President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) readies his country and its government for Congo’s next free and fair national election, some of the very opposition groups with whom he worked to arrange next year’s vote are coordinating with powerful forces outside of DRC who are deploying millions of dollars in foreign money to influence its outcome, undermine its integrity and financially benefit from its aftermath.

Moise Katumbi, Kabila’s exiled political opponent – a millionaire 100x over, who fled the country after he was convicted of financial fraud related to an illegal real estate deal – has been seeking cover and international credibility in secret meetings with American officials in Washington, D.C. During these meetings, Katumbi has positioned himself as an honest and altruistic broker, promising peace and prosperity in Congo.  But his message doesn’t reflect his motive.  While in exile, Katumbi has sought closer ties with wealthy foreign financiers who profit from ongoing instability and insurrection in Congo, primarily through currency manipulation.

Katumbi’s version of Congo’s prosperity is drawn very narrowly around Katumbi himself and this tightly-knit and highly interconnected group headed by George Soros. With an estimated net worth of over $100 million and ownership stakes in several businesses, including the DRC’s most popular soccer team, Katumbi – despite his exile – has a network and a platform to promote himself and weaken Congo’s current elected government, the very leaders who secured a lasting peace between rival factions in Congo almost two decades ago, a group with whom Katumbi himself used to be affiliated until 2015. Soccer is one of the few shared passions of the Congolese people, and who better to exploit and redirect the national team’s fans’ fervor than its owner.  But Katumbi’s business interests are best served by being back inside the country, so in a well-worn page out of the Soros playbook, Katumbi is enlisting a web of dark money to destabilize the country, allowing him to eventually return.  Soros has made billions meddling in elections the world over–including in the United States. He is dedicated to promoting a highly partisan progressive, left-wing agenda and profiting off chaos and crisis overseas.  A principal funder of 172 Democracy Alliance-funded organization, the Soros U.S. network is pushing questions and skepticism of census and redistricting validity, just as he and his network are doing in DRC.

Soros and his affiliated philanthropies are heavily involved in funding and promoting global anti-President Kabila sentiment and criticism of the DRC government. Soros, his son, and several individuals who previously worked with him serve as trustees and leadership of the International Crises Group, whose policy experts have called for US-intervention in Congo’s process of self-rule and determination.  Congo Research Group’s parent entity, New York University’s Institute for International Cooperation, has received substantial funding from Soros affiliated groups and a member of their board of advisors also serves as County Officer Director in Kinshasa for Soros’ Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA). Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, a professor of African studies in the U.S. who has been notably critical of President Kabila, previously served as a contributing blogger for OSISA. The Enough Project’s previous parent entity, the Center for American Progress, was heavily funded by Soros and his Open Society Foundations. Soros has even gone as far as to dispatch journalists, who previously worked for outlets including NPR and PBS, to use their platform to push fake news about the current government.
The Congolese people yearn for the peace and prosperity Katumbi promises, but Katumbi cannot deliver without first scoring a win for his biggest fan, George Soros.

Hungarian Government Wants Nothing To Do With George Soros

Most politically aware Americans have heard of George Soros. A boogeyman to the right-wing, the liberal billionaire has dropped millions of dollars to boost Democratic candidates over the years. He’s been a prolific donor to liberal causes since wasting close to $24 million of his own money in an attempt to defeat George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.

Soros, however, hasn’t used his wealth just to influence American politics. The Hungarian-born investor has spent millions in an effort to exert influence over his home country. But much like the conservatives who loathe him here in the states, government officials in Hungary just want Soros and his liberal agenda to go away.

Central Europe has witnessed a political backlash against the massive influx of migrants into the area. Most elected officials have either promised a change in policy or have been ousted at the ballot box by candidates promising to do so. For their part, government officials in Hungary have waged a two-year battle to keep migrants out of their small nation. The country built a fence along its border with Serbia to curb illegal immigration. The wall has since been considered a massive success.

Though the war over immigration policy apparently isn’t over in Hungary.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban just wrapped up a six-week anti-Soros campaign over the weekend. Streets in the capital city of Budapest are decorated with billboards and posters of a grinning Soros along with the caption “Don’t let Soros get the last laugh!” The Hungarian government warns that the liberal baron is using his network in Europe to enact an extreme open-borders policy on the continent.

“One of the elements of George Soros’s plan is for one million migrants to be brought into Europe every year,” Orban’s spokesman Zoltan Kovacs stated to The Daily Caller. “The second element in the billionaire’s plan would be a European asylum authority, which would seize powers in this area from the authorities of the member states.” Kovacs referred to Soros’ presence in the country as a “mafia-style network.”

In an effort to out Soros’ operation, lawmakers are pushing for legislation that would force NGO’s in the country to reveal where their funding is coming from and for what purpose the money was received.

Soros has vehemently pushed back against the Hungarian government’s campaign. In a statement, he claimed the posters of him smiling are anti-Semitic and a throwback to Nazi propaganda of the “laughing Jew.” A spokesman for Soros, Michael Vachon, referred to the prime minister’s accusations as “fantasy” and says Soros has no intention of importing millions of immigrants into Europe.

“Soros’s position is entirely consistent with mainstream European values,” Vachon said. “The Hungarian regime’s xenophobia and demonization of refugees are anti-European. The claim that Soros is promoting a scheme to import a million illegal immigrants into Europe is Victor Orban’s fantasy.”

 

 

Did President Obama Use Taxpayer Funds to Meddle in Foreign Elections?

A host of Republican senators are joining forces to request Secretary of State Rex Tillerson investigate former President Obama for tampering in the elections of other nations.

Yes. You read that right.

Kind of a shoe-on-the-other-foot situation.

Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe, Thom Tillis, David Perdue, and Bill Cassidy have requested Tillerson investigate reports of the Obama administration sending taxpayer funds to support extreme (sometimes violent) leftwing political activists in foreign lands.

The lawmakers disclosed multiple conversations with foreign diplomats who outlined active political meddling by the Obama administration’s State Department, including the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in Macedonia, Albania, Latin America, and Africa.

A portion of this State Department funding appears to have gone to organizations supported by the controversial liberal billionaire George Soros.

It is already common knowledge that Obama attempted to meddle in the last Israeli election, attempting to oust Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Over the past few months, elected officials and political leaders of foreign nations have been coming to me with disappointing news and reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries,” Lee said in a statement. “This includes reports of diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activists, and the U.S. government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles.”

“This sort of political favoritism from our missions around the world is unacceptable and endangers our bilateral relationships,” he said.

The senators are seeking an investigation that would review “all funds associated with promoting democracy and governance and review the programs, accounts, and multiplicity of U.S. entities involved in such activities.”

How many Americans can get comfortable with knowing their hard earned tax dollars are going to potentially fund Soros-promoted leftism abroad?

Some of the evidence being presented to bolster their case includes reports of the U.S. Mission actively intervening in the political climate of Macedonia, which included the media, civil society, and propping up left-leaning groups in the area.

USAID and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations groups were actively involved.

The letter from the senators went on:

“Respected leaders from Albania have made similar claims of U.S. diplomats and Soros-backed organizations pushing for certain political outcomes in their country,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Time and again, foreign leaders visiting Washington have expressed concerns to us about how American taxpayer funds are being used counterproductively in their respective countries,” the lawmakers disclosed, referring to efforts undertaken in Latin America and Africa.

Liberals have been losing their collective minds over the notion that Russia attempted to influence a U.S. election.

Hypocrisy, thy name be Democrat.

Is Electronic Voting Rigged?

Time to fess up. I’ve never been a big fan of electronic voting machines.

As a country, we do billions, maybe trillions, of dollars of commerce every day, most of it over electronic systems. If we can do that, why can’t we vote that same way? Because unlike the money system, there is no receipt or paper trail on these machines. I get no piece of paper telling me that my vote counted and that it was accurately recorded. When I go to the bank to make a deposit, I get a receipt. I can even pull it up online and check to make sure that the bank gave me credit for my deposit. Not so when it comes to electronic voting.

Were I interested in cheating my way to an election win, I’d rig the voting machines. Oh, who’d do that you say? Anyone interested in grabbing power is my answer. Capt. James T. Kirk beat the Kobayashi Maru test by changing the program. He didn’t cheat, instead he changed the program because he didn’t believe in a “no win” scenario. He always believed there was a way out. But while that might work at Star Fleet Academy, it’s not so good when applied to elections.

It has recently been revealed that George Soros, a uber-wealthy socialist and big supporter of Democrats, may own an interest in voting machines used in sixteen states. This allegation arose of the result of a Wikileaks email hack, which was quickly attacked by Dems as being the fault of the Ruskies. When sources reveal that Republicans have been up to the usual dirty tricks, or women come forward with 20 year old allegations, the Dems have no problem with believing the credibility of those accusations. But let emails, hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s email come out, and somehow it’s not fair to even discuss those. The Dems say it’s like breaking into someone’s house and discovering their secrets, then revealing the same. But I digress.

So back to Soros. Maybe he owns or controls 50,000 voting machines, maybe he doesn’t. I just don’t like the system of no checks and balances. During the “hanging chad” farce that was Gore v. Bush in 2000, at least there was something to look at, to examine, to contest. Today, how could that be done? If, and that’s a big if, “if” the election came down to my vote and the machine says I voted for X but I insisted I voted for Y, how would an objective outsider ever know?

In Ireland, which you’ve probably heard I just visited, they still do paper ballots. They do a thing called a transferrable vote, that is, you vote for your first choice, then second choice, third choice and on down the line. One, it’s on a piece of paper. Two, it’s the end of runoffs. Three, while it may take a bit longer to tabulate, it’s accurate.

Yet we persist in electronic voting that is ripe for corruption, manipulation and fraud. Sometimes just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. This, to me, is one of those times.

Disagree?