CT Blue

I have gotten a number of posts on my Bluesky account stating that the 2024 election was stolen, and I’ve pretty much ignored them, though I continue to believe that it is quite possible that our future elections may become somewhat like those in Russia, with the outcome predetermined.

But I give this story a bit more credence:

Walter Mebane is a professor of political science at the University of Michigan. He is a leading expert on detecting voter fraud, having dedicated much of his career to developing statistical techniques for doing so.

He was asked to do a close analysis of the voting in the Pennsylvania presidential election, and his conclusions are to say the least disturbing:

[Details at the link]

In summary:

There is very high probability that a meaningful number of votes in the PA presidential election were subject to malevolent manipulation — and it was “a close call” whether “the election was decided or nearly decided by malevolent distortions of electors’ intentions.” (Mebane, Page 6)

As the author at Lawyers, Guns and Money points out “EAIAC is the single most powerful explanatory principle of the entire Trump era” (I’ll translate: Every Accusation Is A Confession).

That being the case, one would hope that a Pennsylvania prosecutor might look into this and see if further evidence develops. It’s obviously the case that the DOJ would have no interest in doing so. If we are to save our elections at all it’s going to require vigilance on the part of state authorities, because national Republicans are fine with election thefts, as long as they are the beneficiaries.

I should make it clear that I’m not asserting that there was a theft in Pennsylvania, but assuming Mebane knows what he’s doing, it is worth investigating further.

UPDATE: There appears to be serious questions about the methodology Melbane used in his analysis of the voting records. More here.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that bigots can control what is taught in public schools by claiming that they don’t want to have their children exposed to ideas that contradict the “religious principles” that they themselves are inflicting on their children. As Justice Sotomayor put it:

Today’s ruling ushers in a new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to “subtle” themes “contrary to the religious principles” that parents wish to instill in their children. …Exposing students to the “message” that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.

She goes on to predict the inevitable result, which one can only conclude the court fully intends to happen:

Worse yet, the majority closes its eyes to the inevitable chilling effects of its ruling. Many school districts, and particularly the most resource strapped, cannot afford to engage in costly litigation over opt-out rights or to divert resources to tracking and managing student absences. Schools may instead censor their curricula, stripping material that risks generating religious objections. The Court’s ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards.

One can have “religious principles” about things other than the LGBTQ community. There are those on the right who are claiming that both the Framers and god intended that this be a country by and for white men. I wonder how Clarence Thomas will feel about parents demanding that their children not be exposed to the idea that black people are not inferior to white people. Actually, given his record, maybe he wouldn’t mind. And I’m sure RFK Jr. would be on board if schools were forbidden to teach that vaccines can prevent disease, since it would mean exposing his followers to themes that would be contrary to their principles.

A few weeks ago (I think it was a few weeks ago, couldn’t find the link) I read an article about some liberal parents using one of those state laws intended to allow right wingers to control curricula to stop right wing propaganda in the schools by claiming it violated their religious beliefs. I suppose that’s a tactic that might be tried to combat this opinion, but I’m sure that Roberts and his fellow fascists would find a way to tactfully explain that their decision only applies to people with whom they agree or who are backers of the politicians with whom they agree. That is something the press always fails to note about these cases. They always leave room to make an exception to their decisions if the person or entity that might benefit is a Democrat, a person on the left, or a non-Christian. After all, I very much doubt that a religious principle held by a Muslim would be entitled to the same deference as that given to a self described Christian, bearing in mind that if the school system actually attempted to advocate stuff that Christ advocated, like loving your neighbors, etc., those very “Christians” would be the first to object.

UPDATE: A reader (Some people actually still read this blog) sent me a link to an article discussing the Oklahoma case to which I was referring in the last paragraph of this post. It’s not the same article I read, but it’s about the same case and it’s interesting that the person responsible for the law allowing right wing parents to shape curricula is trying to find a way to make it impossible for sane people to do the same. Really he can just sit back and let Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavenaugh and Gorsuch do it for him.