Fixation

   The coming election will be "the greatest disaster in history," the president said today.
   Translation: He knows he will lose, and this is another step in his campaign to discredit the system by calling it "fixed"
   Of course, he also did that four years ago, warning that the fix was in to favor his opponent. But here's another way to look at it. The fix may well have been in, but he did the fixing.
   The current talk follows his suggestion that the election be delayed, ostensibly because of the dangers of the corona virus and a Postal Service overwhelmed by a barrage of fake ballots. Reminder: the current chief of the Postal Service is an ardent Trump supporter.
   Another suspicion that the fix is in.
   Reality check: No election has ever been postponed, and the president has no authority to change the day of the general election. Only Congress can do that, and a president has no veto power over it.
   Second reality check: There is no evidence of substantial voter fraud. Repeated investigations have turned up only a handful of mistaken ballot submissions, usually by people who believed they were fully eligible but for some small reason were not. As for votes cast by undocumented aliens in the country illegally, they're not so stupid as to expose themselves to authorities and risk prison and deportation.
   But the biggest danger facing America later this year is that Trump will refuse to step aside despite an overwhelming loss by both popular vote and electoral vote. He is already warning of widespread fraud, despite there being no evidence that it is likely to happen.
   He could, of course, challenge the results in the courts, but that would require separate lawsuits in a multitude of states. That has already happened, but in only one state -- Florida -- and it involved the electoral count in a close race between George W. Bush and Al Gore in the election of 2000. It was not until Dec. 12 of that year that the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the recount and Gore conceded.
   The presidential election, by law, is held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which this year is November 3. The Electors then meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which this year will be December 14. Both dates are set by law, which can be changed only by Congress.
   Therefore, any claim or suggestion that the outcome of the presidential election won't be known for many weeks or even months, as the prez has warned, is nonsense.
   So what will he do if he loses? He will put the blame on someone or something else, as he has done repeatedly throughout his lifetime as his way of "proving" that he never loses. And don't expect him to concede.

A Declaration

   When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with a president, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
   Presidents derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever any president becomes destructive of the people's unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to remove that president and elect a new one, who is more likely to ensure their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a president duly elected should not be removed for light and transient causes, but when a long train of abuses shows a design to reduce the people to absolute despotism, it is their right and their duty to remove such a president.
   The current president has a history of repeated attempts to establish a tyranny over the states. As proof, consider these facts:
   He has refused to approve laws necessary for the public good.
   He has obstructed laws for the naturalization of foreigners, and blocked other laws that would encourage their immigration.
   He has tried to make judges dependent on his will alone.
   He has sent swarms of security forces to harass the people, without the consent of local legislators.
   He has excited domestic insurrection against these outside forces.
   We the people have asked repeatedly for changes, but these requests have been answered only by repeated injury.
   Therefore, a president whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to hold office as the leader of a free people.
   
   The above updates parts of a document published in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Danger Definitions

   The president used unidentifiable government security agents to control political opposition in Oregon, and has said he will take similar action in other American cities. An alternate term for such a government force is "secret state police."
   In German, the phrase is "geheime staats polizei," which in the 1930s was shortened to "gestapo."
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Self Praise

   I was angered today when I hear the current occupant of the Oval Office say, "I have done more for Black Americans than anyone, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln."

   That exception is only "possible"? Freedom from slavery is only a "possible exception"? What has he done that is greater or more important than freedom from slavery?

   Next perhaps he'll align himself with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and with John Lewis.

Civil War?

   As the Republican president sends federal agents into Democratic-controlled American cities to deal with protests, local officials point out that the forces are not wanted, have not been requested, and violate the Constitution.
   So what if he sends them in anyway, as he has threatened, to Chicago, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and other cities where there has been no violence?
   He has already sent forces into Portland, Oregon, and those troops wear camouflage outfits, without identification, drive unmarked vehicles and arrest people nowhere near federal properties.
   The consequence of a federal government sending troops into cities, bypassing local and state security forces, can swiftly lead to autocratic control or even a confrontation between independent local forces and an unwanted federal interference.
   Granted, he has not (yet) sent in active duty military forces, since that would be an even more clear violation of the Constitution, but he has sent in members of other federal security forces -- highly questionable in itself, since they have not been requested, wear military style camouflage gear and do not identify themselves.

Election Warning

"I will totally accept -- if I win."

   Question by Chris Wallace to President Trump: "Will you accept the results of the election?"
   Answer: "I'll have to see."
   Implication: He may not accept the result if he loses, and will refuse to leave the White House at the end of his term.
   Compare that conversation, broadcast today on Fox television, to Trump's answer to a similar question in October, 2016: "I will totally accept ... if I win."
   So if he loses the vote come November, will he or will he not accept the results? Given his attitude of four years ago, he may not, and could refuse to leave the White House when his term expires on January 20, 2021.
   As it is, he did in fact lose the popular vote for election in November 2016, but gained the presidency by winning the vote in the Electoral College, even as he claimed the entire process was "rigged" against him.
   This prompted resident cynic Pug Mahoney to wonder, Who did the rigging? Perhaps he and his team manipulated the electoral vote by focusing on the states where he was likely to win enough electoral votes to take the office, thus making the popular vote in many other states irrelevant.
   Already, many Americans are wondering via Internet postings what will happen if he refuses to concede and leave the White House. Will that mean the Secret Service will step in and escort him from the building? Or will Congress and the new president leave him there and ignore him?
   Considering his history, being ignored could well be a more severe loss to his ego than losing the election.

Setting an Example

   It has been said that a national leader sets an example for the rest of the country, but that the current president of the U.S. does not.
   Actually, he does set an example. By not wearing a mask during this time of rampant illness, even as he uses the term "plague," he says to Americans that it's OK to refuse to cover your mouth when you cough. By his behavior, he says it's OK to attend large gatherings like political rallies. By his insults, he shows that it's OK to ignore physicians about health issues.
   So follow his example: Don't wear a mask in public, and don't wear a seat belt when you drive. By this president's example, it's OK to be stupid.