Family Ties to Economics

We’ve talked here before about the formula for success in America (which I wrote about here and here):

1.         Don’t have sex before age 20.

2.         Don’t have sex until after marriage.

3.         Stay married.

4.         Obtain at least a high school diploma.

I first had this formula spelled out in a speech from Richard Wilkins in 2001, the first time I met him. While going through various tributes following his early death (this is a good one, from Sharon Slater, who worked with him for Family Watch International), I found a link to one of his last speeches (full speech here) Richard Wilkins was the keynote speaker at the June 2012 UN event Standing for the Family: The Family in the Context of Human Rights. The speech is called “The Family as the Cradle of International Human Rights,” and again he asserts that the necessary solution to poverty and other social and economic issues worldwide depends on strengthening marriage and family. As always, it is clearly laid out and well documented.

He points out the founding UN documents that validate the family as the basic unit of society, and then laments the failure to abide by those founding principles.

During the past 65 years there has been great (and laudable) progress in individual rights and freedom, particularly with regard to equality for women. But the family—and the associated civic virtues of hard work, tolerance, patience, kindness, forbearance and forgiveness that are taught to children by wise and loving parents—has been ignored. It is well past time for the international community to acknowledge the fundamental roles played by the family and to take appropriate action to strengthen and support the family.

He spends the body of the piece outlining the specific benefits to men, women, and children—and to society as a whole—provided by marriage and family, well-documented by mounting social research. He then outlines social problems stemming directly from family breakdown. And ends with a call to strengthen family:

Because families are the fundamental unit of society, governments and other social assistance actors should not bypass the unit that can best strengthen society. Fathers and mothers, by and large, love their children. Policies and assistance that permit fathers and mothers to work together to strengthen their families to improve the condition of their children will not only be more successful than other possible approaches, they will strengthen society itself. By building a healthy family, we build a healthy society and—ultimately—a healthy world.

In the shadow of some looming economic catastrophes in our own country, I think we need to make the connection to family breakdown as the root cause and stronger families as the ultimate only solution.

Paul Rahe
Photo from Uncommon Knowledge interview

While I was thinking this, I happened to be doing a little catch-up watching of things I got behind on, and tuned in to Glenn Beck’s November 30^th show—last Friday. Glenn wasn’t there that day. BYU History Professor Paul Kerry  hosted, and his  main guest was Professor Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College (I recognized him from Week 3: “The Greek Miracle,” from Hillsdale’s free online History 101 course). Much of the hour talked about the need for a long-term view, and what perpetuates that view. Family is one of those things. Starting at about 21 minutes in, the discussion gets somewhat specific:

Paul Rahe: Let me give you some statistics that I think will shock you and surprise you. In 1940 what was the rate of out-of-wedlock births, in other words the percentage of children born who were not born to people who were already married? The answer is somewhere between 2 and 3%. That was true in 1950,2-3%. It went up to 5%, a shocking number, in 1960. And, among African-Americans, it went considerably higher than that, to about 12%, which caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was an assistant secretary of labor, to work on the so-called Moynihan report about the crisis of black families.

Paul Kerry: And a Democrat as well…

Paul Rahe: Yes. By 1980 it was 18.4%. Last year it was 39.6%. Now, think about that. We are approaching a situation in which half of the children born in the United States are born to young women who are not married. This is a very good example of a lack of long-term planning. Because they’re taking on heavy responsibilities that it’s hard enough for two parents to manage, especially with one working full time and the other at home (which was the old pattern) to manage. And they’re doing this without thinking.

Now, it’s even worse than I say. Because, if you go back to 1940, there’s almost no form of contraception available. So, in the absence of contraception, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 2-3%. With the presence of contraception, it’s 39.6%. And I’ve left abortion out of the picture. In 1940 there are almost no abortions; last year in the United States there were three-quarters of a million abortions. There have been 50 million abortions since 1973.

So the pattern, which is among young people—because 50-year-olds aren’t having this problem, since they’re not giving birth—the problem is a lack of impulse control. The problem is a lack of long-term planning. The problem is that a moral revolution has taken place.

So a question you  might want to ask yourself is, can a republic sustain itself in a world in which people are acting on impulse and irresponsibly—and I say irresponsibly, because there are other human being involved, not only the sexual partner but the offspring—can a republic be sustained in those circumstances? Because the women who have children out of wedlock are in fact going to be dependents on the state. And what they’re going to do is call upon other people to pay their bills, to take care of them. Not the father of the child, but welfare, food stamps, things along those lines.

It was a nice connecting of the dots. Who teaches impulse control and encourages a long-term outlook that helps individuals and communities? Families do that. Who does it in broken homes or single-parent households? No one. Especially if the broken family situation happened because of choosing short-term impulse over long-term perspective. In those cases the burden to teach the values falls on someone who does not hold those values.

The solution to economic problems is not to forcibly take income from successful people and hand it unearned to people whose behavior led to dire circumstances; the solution is to strengthen families, where the formula for success is taught. A backup is for churches and schools to also teach the values traditionally inculcated in families, rather than working against them. The social problems caused by an out-of-wedlock birthrate of 2-3% are much easier for society to solve than the overwhelming 39.6% rate. Too many problems, and too few successful society members to make up for the problems.

We know the formula for success. We know the path to take. Some of us will take that path no matter what. The question is, why isn’t that the direction followed by everyone who ever sought to be a leader? Because a leader moving people in any other direction cannot lead to success.

Each Life that Touches Ours for Good

This is Part II of Remembering Richard Wilkins. Part I is here.

Richard Wilkins, photo from
World Family Policy Center

I first met Richard Wilkins when he came to Houston to speak about defending the family, back in 2001. I took copious notes, which I still have. After the event, I got to enjoy a conversation with his wife, Melany, talking about music and a whole lot of other things. Very fun. He was busy talking with a long line of people, so my conversation with him later was brief.

In 2003, the year the Texas legislature voted on its DOMA legislation, I found much of Richard Wilkins’  information useful when I testified before the House Committee, on a day when 700+ supporters attended and many testified. DOMA passed, but a month later the Supreme Court essentially wiped out the people’s will with the Lawrence v. Texas case (states are not allowed to make laws against sodomy was the specific ruling, but the vague language led to many future attacks on marriage).

In summer 2003 I suggested Richard and Melany as speakers at a homeschool conference, as the keynote speaker to which we invited the public—again to talk about defending the family. We got several hours of information from them, and were able to spend more time together. (They even attended a workshop I taught on literary analysis, which Melany later told me they were using with their youngest son, whom they were homeschooling at the time.) Sometime after the keynote speech I talked with Richard about what to do, now that we had this information. My skill is in gathering information and being able to write it in a way that people can understand, but I had no connections or credentials to get anything published. He said it was good to have the viewpoint of a mother, and that I shouldn’t let that stop me.

Within a couple of months I had written a piece, using much of the information he gave me, and we exchanged emails during an editing process so I could get the references for all the data I included. The piece got published because of his recommendation. In fact, every piece I wrote over the next couple of years, in the defense of marriage, was published because of his recommendation—with the exception of the Houston Chronicle piece shortly before the 2005 Texas Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. But even that was published because he gave me the credential of a voluntary position as writer for Defend Marriage. 

This past spring I re-published some of those pieces on this blog, with links to their original publications:

·         In Defense of Marriage 

·         Defining Marriage and Making Cream Sauce (I co-authored with Richard Wilkins)

·         The Gay Marriage Fantasy

·         Why Texas Will Vote to Protect Marriage—No Matter What You Call Us

Richard was the one to introduce me to historical scientists of marriage: Vico and Unwin. Information about them is included in several of my published pieces, also at Spherical Model. I’m not sure where he learned of them, but they are now oft-quoted. We both needed to see some original information, so he asked me if I could get hold of Unwin’s research. I did an interlibrary loan and was able to obtain a copy of the near-century-old study and send it to Richard. I wrote a three-part blog post on what we learn from Vico and Unwin, starting with “Devaluing Marriage and Family = Decay of Civilization”    

In addition to specific protection of traditional marriage, Richard opened my eyes to the demographic changes leading to lower and lower birthrates worldwide. I wrote about Demographic Winter in June 2011; the diagrams in this post were first shown to me by Richard Wilkins, which I recorded in my notes.

If there is any single source of information that has affected what I write at in defense of marriage, and in fact the entire “Family Is the Basic Unit of Civilization” section of Spherical Model, that source has been Richard Wilkins. That will continue to be so, because he has shown me where to go for continued information. Defending marriage was something he did as a personal calling, as a service to God. There were so many ways he could have been making money instead. He joked about it being “our expensive hobby of saving the world.”

Richard and Melany had a home near Brigham Young University, where we started taking college kids in 2005 (and our daughter still attends there). Plus, I am from Utah and still have family there, so we started visiting them when we were in town. I always felt honored if they could find time to see us. They are gracious hosts (and good cooks), beyond anything our friendship could offer them. Conversations were always lively and valuable. And they included our children, as well as us adults, as having opinions totally worth listening to.

Richard preparing for role of Scrooge,
photo from Salt Lake Tribune

We only spent a relatively minimal time talking shop; there was so much else the Wilkins’ were interested in. I learned along the way that Richard is very musical. He had taken piano lessons from a teacher who lived just two blocks from my childhood home (the teacher had a couple of kids my age that I knew through school and church--it's a small world). Melany is also musical, which I knew from our first conversation, and I found out her field was theater.

Eventually we learned of their participation in the annual Hale Community Theater production of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Richard started playing the central role of Ebenezer Scrooge back in 1985, when he was in his early 30s, way too young to look the part without a lot of theater makeup. We left Utah in 1984, and never got the chance to see him perform. He managed to keep performing even during the years in Qatar; he had a month’s leave every winter. The cast began rehearsals without him, and he would arrive ready to go just days before performances began. The local news stories following his death centered on his relative fame for this role, with the worldwide protection of marriage only in the background. But the performances were about to start for the season. The stories talked about how he relished the role of Scrooge (among other theater roles he performed over the years).

He had a voice that worked well for theater, but also for speaking. This last month there was some discussion about the Daniel Day Lewis performance of Lincoln, with a higher, more piercing rather than basso voice of earlier portrayals. The description reminded me of Richard. When he gave a speech, his voice shifted in pitch, toward tenor from baritone, and carried easily through a big room. In normal speech, he was still animated and lively. And he had a marvelous booming laugh—such that it was almost startling in a small room. At the last dinner we had with him in May (myself, my daughter and her fiancé-now-husband), Richard told us a memorably funny story, with full animation and laugh, and we have repeated it to each other several times since. What a delight!

There’s that image of Scrooge, when he wakes up Christmas morning and becomes aware he hasn’t missed it—and he has more time to live differently and happily. That happy, joyous Scrooge is how I picture Richard: “And it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge,” “as good a friend…as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.”

It is a blessing to find such a friend, who served so well. I recalled a quote this week, from another man who lived such an exemplary life. The Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, quoted yet another prophet, Spencer W. Kimball: “President Spencer W. Kimball, who was such a great example of this principle, once said to me, ‘I feel that my life is like my shoes—to be worn out in service to others.’”  Richard was such a man—worn out in service. He was so energetic, so effective, he accomplished whatever the Lord asked of him, and, at only 59, he did it in fewer years than we would have preferred. We will miss him. But we feel privileged to have known him, and look forward to a next-life day when we can joyfully get together again.

_____________________________

* The title "Each Life That Touches Ours for Good" is hymn 293 from Hymns, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint.

Remembering Richard Wilkins

I’ve been traveling since a couple of days before Thanksgiving, with only sporadic computer access and writing time. I don’t usually check email on my phone, but Wednesday morning I sort of accidentally did that and was shocked to find an email letting me know of the death of a friend and fellow warrior.

Where to start? Back in 1996 Richard Wilkins was a professor of Constitutional Law at BYU’s J. Reuben Clark Law School (one of the first graduates of the school to come back to teach). He often worked on law cases concerning how international law affects our Constitution and warned about the trend toward allowing international law to trump our sovereignty. I’m not sure of the exact reasons, but he felt the need that year to travel to a UN conference in Istanbul. He was concerned about what he was hearing there and took the opportunity to speak.

He told me that he spoke about the Proclamation on theFamily, issued shortly before that by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which he was a devout member (as I am). At the time it came out, the issues in the Proclamation were such standard doctrine to us that he said he wondered at the reasoning. Since that time, he says he sees it as prophetic; every line in it is challenged in the world today. But in 1996 he happened to take a brochure of the Proclamation with him and had it in his pocket. When he shared those ideas, the opponents to the family (the previous speakers) hissed their disapproval, but the room at large gave him a standing ovation. They came up to him afterward to thank him for speaking what so many of them believed, and they formed long-standing alliances to work toward protecting the natural family from the international onslaught.

Richard formed the World Family Policy Forum, an annual workshop of international interest in protecting the family, which continued for a number of years in various places around the world. (I believe he worked in association with Alan Carlson of the World Family Policy Institute.) He also founded Defend Marriage, which became a project of United Families International. Around 2006 he took a sabbatical from the law school to found the Doha Family Policy Institute. This was to be a three-year project, but as it neared an end, he decided to retire from teaching and stay on in Qatar indefinitely.

I expected that to continue until he was ready to retire, but last spring he suddenly announced that his position had been Qatarized, and he would be returning home. I didn’t know what that meant until I asked him in person in April. The Doha Institute was a project of the Sheika (essentially the first lady) of Qatar, and she chose to convert his position to an appointment to a Qatari citizen. It happens. He was disappointed but not terribly surprised. But he was not hopeful that the Institute could do as much worldwide good without experienced guidance. One of the things he was able to accomplish was setting plans in place for the 2014 Year of the Family celebration. I understand they will honor him there with a moment of silence.

Looking at it now, I think it was a blessing that he got to return home for a relatively relaxing half year surrounded by family. No one could have predicted there was so little time left. The morning after Thanksgiving he suffered a sudden massive heart failure. Extraordinary efforts were spent for three days, trying to revive him, but he finally passed Monday evening, November 26, with family around.

For friends reading this in Utah, funeral services will be held at 11:00am this Saturday, December 1st, at the LDS Chapel at 2445 North 650 East, Provo, UT 84604. There will be a viewing at the same location this Friday evening from 5:00 PM-8:00 PM and this Saturday morning from 9:00 AM-10:30 AM. I’m sorry not to be able to give more notice; travel this week has prevented me from posting regularly, and will also prevent me from attending the services.

I pray for blessings of comfort to his dear wife, Melany, and their children, all of whom I have met and have heard about with each visit and Christmas letter. Not only was Richard a champion of the idea of family as the basic unit of society, it was the central personal joy of his life.

I’ll continue this post with a Part II about how I knew him and how he profoundly affected my writing.

For additional stories about his passing, I suggest here, here, and here.

Liberal Twinkie Dilemma

Let me start with the childhood memory of a favorite lunchbox treat. My mom used to put Twinkies in the freezer, and then they would not only help keep the sandwich cool (before icepacks were invented for lunchboxes, as far as I know), but would thaw enough for eating just about by lunchtime. But they didn’t always totally thaw, so my preferred way—the real right way—of eating a Twinkie was to eat the outer pound cake first, and then the semi-solid creamy filling last. (I also ate Oreos the authentic way, by eating the outer cookie first and saving the creamy inside for last.) Good times.

But suddenly this long-time lunchbox standard is about to become a fading memory only. Hostess, the maker of Twinkies (and Ding-Dongs and Hostess Cupcakes, and other high preservative bakery treats) has gone under—the victim of a combination poor economy overall for too many years and outrageous demands for employees by their labor unions. The labor demands could not be met; the unions refused a reasonable pay cut to protect jobs. So the result is the total loss of 18,500 jobs. Another example of labor unions doing what’s best for employees (seriously, they would describe it that way).

Dipped Twinkies and Ding Dongs
in a chocolate shop on Cannery Row;
We asked how long they could provide these, and they
said only until the ones they have on hand are gone

So the question comes up—and I’m not making this up—about whether the federal government should step in and “bail out” the troubled bakery company. After all, isn’t Hostess too big to fail? Isn’t the public’s need for Twinkies, from the only provider, greater than any principles of economics? And, most important, shouldn’t the government back up union workers whenever it must?

This must be the liberal position, right?

Except that, pretty much simultaneously the First Lady is crusading for the federal government to gain greater control over school lunches. Not only should sweet bakery treats with creamy fillings be banned from school lunch menus and campus vending machines, in some areas school officials monitor foods sent from home. A cupcake (or, Fed forbid, a Twinkie) instead of an apple might be a big no-no, and could be confiscated, with a disciplinary note sent home to the bad parent.

So, in liberal world, there should be cheers for the demise of an evil corporation offering foods that could lead to childhood obesity. But…the way liberal world is supposed to happen is, because of the federal government’s positive influence on our food choices, the public would then pressure the company to discontinue the evil food production and turn toward making delectable veggie burgers, if they plan to continue their existence at all—which they are pretty much required to do, because their purpose is to provide employment, right?

Twinkie memorial found on Facebook

But that isn’t what’s happening. Demand for fattening bakery snacks at low prices is still fairly high—at least judging by the series of memorials I’ve seen on Facebook. Plus, the loss of those union jobs is bad optics in a campaign (oh, wait, the campaign is over—except that among liberals, the campaign is never over).

What is a liberal to do?

May we humbly suggest the full big government assault on all fronts: insisting on federal government bailout and production of a product simply to preserve union jobs—while simultaneously outlawing the product in school or in places where anyone under 18 is allowed to make purchases, while making sure the media tells this story in some relatively surreal way. Yes, that would do it.

Because the free market alternative is totally unacceptable: high demand for this particular product could lead some new enterprise to buy up the company’s assets and begin producing the product elsewhere—maybe even with the same name and packaging—but without the restraints of overpriced union labor. And the product might become even more available as a result. And this is why many of us prefer living in free market world instead of liberal-controlled world.

Giving Thanks in All Things

We’re traveling this week. Thanksgiving we’re spending at our son Economic Sphere’s little base housing duplex in Monterey. It is the first time we’ve seen him since we dropped him off at the swearing in ceremony last February, when he joined the Army. So this is very good. His wife is taking on the whole Thanksgiving feast cooking performance, including soaking the turkey in brine all night (I have never been so adventurous in cooking a turkey).

We spent a day with old friends before we arrived, friends who lived in Houston a decade ago before moving to northern California. We used to live in this part of the world; Economic Sphere was born just up the road a couple of hours’ drive, during that era of our lives. It was surprising to drive through some of the same places, still looking the same. From the roads, California doesn’t look on the verge of economic collapse, and it’s hard to picture imminent disaster. As for our kids, I’m glad they’re here when they don’t have to pay in-state taxes (military are assigned to their home location instead of the state they’re stationed in). And housing, which can be outrageously priced here, is taken care of for them right now. And they don’t have kids in schools that I could not trust to appropriately educate any grandchild of mine. (Although, I would like to hint that, now that they are somewhat settled, I would love to learn of a grandchild coming to this little family, before they’re stationed overseas somewhere beyond my reach. Am I allowed to bring up such suggestions?)

I’m thankful we can still travel. I’m thankful for our beautiful family and friends. I’m thankful I can still get internet access. I’m thankful for a few days off. I’m thankful that turkey and sweet potatoes are not on the extensive list of foods I’m allergic to. (No pumpkin pie this year, alas. Nor apple pie.)

I’m thankful we have this special day where we pause with our family and friends and together celebrate saying thanks to God, the giver of all the good.

I wish the same for the same sense of gratefulness for all of you. It makes for a better life.

This is an aside, but I'm also thankful for good humor. One of my favorite Thanksgiing moments is this old episode of WKRP in Cincinnati. I hope you enjoy.

 

The Non-Riot Revolution

This has been a several part series on the election and what it means. First I posted my report as a poll watcher on Election Day, which contrasted with overall reports. Then I collected a list of evidences of voter fraud. So now we can get to the question: Given massive voter fraud and an illegitimate presidency, what do freedom-loving conservatives do in response?

There will be a number of legitimate efforts to pursue legal prosecution of fraud, as there should be. This effort, such as is carried out by True the Vote (who trained me and thousands of other poll watchers), is quixotic—dreaming the impossible dream of having free and fair elections. I think that needs to continue. We do not consent to Venezuela-style elections, where the outcome is decided by the dictator and any “election” is just a token gesture to mollify critics around the world. That is what we experienced this time, but it is not what we have consented to. As with all rulers not chosen freely by the people, the tyrant is an illegitimate ruler; the people have not consented. Rather they are enslaved. Hayek’s title The Road to Serfdom makes more literal sense now.

I expect others will pursue the impossible recourse of “proving” the illegitimacy of the election before the electoral college vote, and using the electoral college as an opportunity to overturn the fraudulent results. This is also quixotic, but even less sensible. Imagine if the other side saw the electoral college as merely a way to manipulate an outcome that they didn’t approve of. I wouldn’t mind seeing this play out in fiction or a movie, but I see it as not realistic in response to this election.

Unlike the anti-freedom, anti-civilization radicals, we who love and honor freedom and civilization will not riot in the streets, essentially throwing a tantrum that we can’t have our way.

What we will do—no magic formula, no perfect easy resolution—is to live individual lives following the rules of civilization, and where we can, rules of freedom. We will not lie, cheat, and steal like our enemies. We will value innocent life. We will value and preserve the family as the basic unit of civilization. And we will honor God as the provider of our inalienable rights and obey the laws He has given us to preserve them.

Most of the people in the history of the world have lived under tyranny. While I believe God has had a special purpose in allowing freedom to flourish in America these past couple centuries, His larger purpose is to turn His children (all of us) to Him. Hardship more often turns broken hearts to God than thankfulness for abundance turns hearts to Him. Unfortunately.

Good people show up everywhere. While following the rules of freedom, free-enterprise, and civilization lead a people to thrive, living these laws individually will not guarantee success amidst an oppressive regime. But they can lead to individual happiness despite the oppression.

Photo of honeybees from Hinode Farms

There are those who are reframing the political game for the next election. I will let them. I am not particularly interested. Until enough hearts change in this country that a critical mass of people actually choose freedom and civilization, winning the political game from time to time will not solve the underlying cancer. Not that we should abandon all efforts in the political world, but let’s be realistic about the limits of politics.

My suggestions may not seem like enough. But there’s a story about honeybees, where each individual bee gathers practically microscopic amounts of pollen from hundreds of individual flowers, making maybe a twelfth of a teaspoon of honey per bee. Not much by itself, but added together with the hard work of others, the result is abundance of sweetness. So, while my individual efforts, and yours, may not seem to be enough under the circumstances, if we do our part anyway, let’s trust that God can make something of our efforts.

In short, here’s what I suggest:

·       Keep doing your part as a good citizen. Vote intelligently for the best candidates you can find.

·       Keep voicing your opinions, and find more and better ways to express the philosophy of freedom and civilization to those who do not yet understand. (This is my purpose at Spherical Model.)

·      Stand up against tyranny where the laws have not yet been ruled against us. Encourage state and local leaders to respond to your desire for freedom.

·      Avoid mollifying and appeasement while also avoiding contention. Living better lives than those who don’t know how to follow God’s law is a better convincer than sharp words.

·      Defend family, and defend religious freedoms—we haven’t lost yet. And whatever the culture around us does, we must nevertheless resist the acceptance of evil.

·      Find others to connect with, and strengthen one another.

Not Fair and Square

There was voter fraud this election. No question about that. And it appears to be massive. Enough to change the outcome of the election? I don’t know, but probably. As an obscure blogger it’s probably safe for me to go out on a limb and say, “Yes, I believe the election was stolen and the president wields power illegitimately.” With that knowledge/belief, what should happen now? We'll get to that question eventually.

First, let’s catalog a bit of the evidence (at this point reported and under investigation but not publicly verified), to establish reasons for this personal belief. That will fill the post for today (it could fill up several, but I’m just touching the surface). Then we’ll take on the “remedy.”

As I said, the catalog of fraud is more than I can easily cover here and still talk about the overall issue. But here are a few lists:

This piece from RedState is from a month before the election, outlining the likely tactics based on holes in the system and current and past practices. Turned out this was prescient. The list includes:

·        The SOS Project (Secretaries of State were put in place, by election or appointment, with George Soros approval, because they are ultimately the vote counters).

·        SEIU shenanigans (ACORN and Project Vote are additional names; there are many).

·        11 million illegal immigrants.

·        Fake ID industry, and inability of acting on information of info mismatches.

·        Voter Registration system flaws.

·        Union GOTV strategies.

·        Early Voting.

This collection, ObamaVoterFraud blog, was put together in the few days following the election. With links for each included in the piece, here are just a few of the many claims:

·        10 counties in Colorado report from 104% to 140%  voter turnout.

·        Philadelphia polling stations that kicked out legal poll observers had 90% voter turnout and 99% of vote going to Obama. (Overall turnout in Philadelphia was a realistic 60%.)

·        70,000 reports of observed fraud turned in by end of Election Day.

·        Voter fraud reported in Wisconsin.

·        Obama won dozens of Cleveland districts with 100% of the vote.

·        Ohio residents show up at polls only to be told they already voted (someone illegally voted in their name).

·        Boston reports 129% voter turnout.

·        Nevada unions are registering illegals and forcing them to vote.

This piece from World Net Daily lists several additional evidences (20% of Ohio registered voters are ineligible, for example) and concentrates on illegal foreign donations as something to follow up on. But the author, Joseph Farah, a former liberal radical himself, reveals some of the philosophy that leads our enemy in power to justify their cheating, which I think is germane:

If anyone has a balanced approach to the realities of political life in America, it’s me. I’ve looked at life from both sides. I know the arguments of the other side and can still spout them before most of today’s practitioners of so-called “progressive” thought can.

I also know that the reigning ethos of this movement represented so ably today by Obama is this: “By any means necessary …” It was first articulated by Jean Paul Sartre in his play, “Dirty Hands.” But it became popularized as a slogan of the revolutionary left by Malcolm X.

What it means, in short, is that the ends justify the means. It means violence is fine in achieving a worthwhile objective. It means lying, stealing, cheating and all those other bourgeoisie “sins” are appropriate means of furthering the cause.

Is there any doubt in your mind today that this is now the reigning ethos of the Democratic Party and its various tentacles and allies?

There is no doubt in my mind.

And that’s why stealing the vote is not only an acceptable practice by these people, it is a moral imperative in their twisted worldview.

This collection tries to summarize, as of a week after Election Day, the litany of evidences. Additional reports I didn’t list above include:

·        Voting machines in several states reported “flipping” ballots to Obama during early voting. While much of this was probably user error, there was video evidence of the repeated problem in Pennsylvania, and machines did indeed “flip” to a default Obama vote.

·        In Cuyahoga County, Ohio, 50 precincts showed Romney receiving 2 votes or less, and in 100 precincts, Obama received 99 or more votes for every Romney vote.

·        In Broward County, Florida, Obama received 99% of the vote in many precincts.

·        Wood County, Ohio, has a voting age population of 98, 213 (not all necessarily eligible to register as voters), but on Election Day they somehow had 106, 258 registered voters.

·        In Wisconsin there were reports of people being bussed in from Chicago to vote. The link for this unbelievable (anecdotal Facebook) story is here, and here’s an excerpt:

The Democrats stationed a self described “BIG Chicago pro bono attorney” as one of their two observers at this small polling place. He remained at the polling place from 7:00 a.m. until well after 8:p.m. …..A high priced CHICAGO attorney, sitting in a Sheboygan WISCONSIN polling place, observing wards comprised of 1500 voters? …. WHY???

Why would someone from Chicago be observing in Sheboygan Wisconsin? And WHY at such a small polling place? Finally, isn’t it interesting that this would occur at the VERY polling place in which all of the above described events ALSO occurred? AGAIN WHY WOULD A CHICAGO ATTORNEY BE OBSERVING AN ELECTION POLLING PLACE WITH FEWER THAN 1500 VOTERS IN IT, IN SHEBOYGAN WISCONSIN? Of all the places where there has been suspected voting irregularities, and OUTRIGHT FRAUD throughout the ENTIRE United States, WHY HERE? WHY SHEBOYGAN? WHY THIS SMALL WARD?

This lawyer spent the day running in and out making, and taking calls, which coincidentally then coincided with influxes of groups of individuals by the van and bus loads, coming in to register, AND VOTE, using what appeared to be copied Allient energy bills. These individuals often did not have photo I.D.’s, could not remember their own addresses without looking at the paper, and became easily tripped, confused and annoyed when questioned.

Many of these same individuals, just so happened to be dressed in/wearing CHICAGO BEARS apparel, and whom openly discussed “catching busses back to Chicago” with each other, with poll workers, via their cell phones in the lobby area just outside the polling place, as well as in the parking lot, both before and AFTER registering and voting.

One woman was dressed head to toe in CHICAGO BEARS apparel including perfectly manicured BEARS fake fingernails!

She complained because registering was taking too long and she had to hurry up to catch her bus back to Chicago.

We have photos of these people in vehicles with plates from different states, photos of them leaving the polls, and other irregularities.

Let’s not forget about the military (as the federal government apparently did), with military absentee ballots reportedly down by70%:

The conservative-leaning military vote has decreased drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.

If you follow some of the links within the above lists, you’ll find Project Veritas videos—James O’Keefe, who seems to never fail, even though they should see him coming by now. Also, I left out reports of 140% voter turnout in Florida, as reported early on. It turns out Florida is yet again incapable of voting and counting votes as humanly expected. They had a two-page ballot; instead of reporting how many ballots were reported, they reported how many pages, in other words two pages per vote. When the 140% was cut in half, the turnout was a more believable (but still high) 70%.

Remember 2000, when Democrats claimed Al Gore had been robbed of the presidency—because attempts to cheat in Florida failed to put him over the top in every count, so they just kept counting and changing the count—recounting only counties that had already gone heavily in his favor but had not guaranteed his win as expected? Remember the outrage of the left? Just imagine (actually you can’t imagine, because it doesn’t happen) if conservatives were guilty of so many evidences of fraud? The opposition would simply take to the streets and refuse to accept the legitimacy of the presidency. In fact, even when Bush clearly won, they spent eight years claiming he was a usurper (actually not using that word; they don’t have the vocabulary).

Conservatives are genuinely upset. But I see no riots forthcoming, nor would I favor such a response. Next post the question is, Given massive voter fraud and an illegitimate presidency, what do freedom-loving conservatives do in response?