Can illegal voting really sway an election?

President-Elect Donald Trump claimed that three million votes in the United States were cast illegally. It is just the latest in a long line of unsubstantiated claims. Not only does he make the claim without citing evidence, he assumes that all illegal votes were against him. We know that's not true because Trump so thoroughly convinced some of his supporters that voter fraud was epidemic, they committed voter fraud to counteract the perceived injustice. However, just because Trump says whatever he wants without substantiation, does that mean no evidence exists? Regardless of whether Trump can back up his claims, is illegal voting a large scale issue in the United States? Virtually all claims of widespread voter fraud occur on right-wing websites. Even liberals who marched down the street tearing up property didn't believe voter fraud was a substantial issue. They just didn't like the election result. Almost all of the proposed evidence is generated by one side leadin

Do Not Ignore Donald Trump's Track Record

President-Elect Donald Trump represents a net negative to the majority of Americans. Most voters preferred that he didn't win and many who voted for him did so reluctantly. He not only lost the popular vote, non-voters most commonly referred to the outcome as " terrible ." In New Jersey, some Democrats didn't vote because they didn't believe Trump would win and some conservatives didn't vote because they couldn't stomach Trump. So, despite many conservatives who are happy that Hillary Clinton didn't win, as a nation we're mostly unhappy with the outcome. I am not interested in protesting a legitimately held election or kindling the fire under a trite faux resistance . I don't intend to bash the 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump and I have no interest in trying to shame them as I've seen elsewhere . I'm trying to convince everyone, including his supporters, that Donald Trump has been lying to you and that we must view

Bending the Bill of Rights

I had more trouble finding the right words to open this post than for any other in recent memory. Looking at the other articles that mention the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, opinion writers evidently and understandably feel obligated to voice their outrage at the killings and engage in some kind of emotional contest over who feels worse about it. It feels disrespectful not to express emotion. It certainly feels unnatural. Our feelings about this are why we're writing. I understand that these writers could explain their emotional response to the shooting and find themselves incapable of containing the terror I'm sure they feel. I could have followed the same path here. I may have been able to open this blog with an eloquent, respectful and emotional introduction, but it would have felt dishonest. I am emotionally distraught. I don't want to experience the nausea and chest pain I felt the day those children died. I won't be emotional here. I can't. Immediately a

The Benghazi Conspiracy Theory

Sen. John McCain has taken the resolute position that the US Embassy Attack in Benghazi involved a cover up orchestrated by the President of the United States to conceal details from the American government and people. I can only speculate about his motivation, but I would optimistically like to think it stems from his desire to protect Americans abroad, as he has had the most unpleasant experiences at the hands of overseas enemies. His determination to hold American leadership accountable for the Ambassador Chris Stevens' death probably stems from his genuine appreciation of and fondness for him, who, by all accounts was respected and liked by all who knew him. Sen. McCain's insistence that the President is responsible probably comes from his belief that the President is weak on foreign policy and preemptively judges the President's decision-making as inadequate. Many Americans share this view of the President, therefore the theory that he knew more about the attacks than

How to Fix the Republican Party

The United States two-party political system is frequently revered for its elegant simplicity and effectiveness. During my younger years, my father told me it was a good system not easily replaced and one of my favorite historians, J. Joseph Ellis, considers it among the "triumphs" of the Founding Fathers  (no, it's not in the Constitution). I, on the other hand, find it limiting, divisive, destructive and dangerou s . I want it weakened, split and then eradicated. Data shows that more people are hating it every year, as Independent voters now outnumber both Republicans and Democrats. My father was right about one thing. It's not easily replaced. Over the past century, Democrats and Republicans have passed laws that make it all but impossible for third-party candidates to get any exposure to the electorate. Despite elected third-party representation in every other developed government, Americans consider it the most unlikely of pipe-dreams. I've dedicated a c

Republicans Miss the Mark

Republicans, I am your target. I'm a political moderate who believes a balanced budget is essential to renewed American prosperity. I'm a swing voter. In 2008, my ballot crissed and crossed party lines as I tried to support candidates who reflected ethical leadership and responsibility. You've had me in your sights since 2008, and after campaigning for my benefit, speaking directly to me and my circumstances, you have completely missed the mark. You believed you could attach any price tag to fiscal reform and we'd accept it because we are desperate for it. You overstated the meaning of the 2010 congressional election, when seats swung conservative, you believed it was an endorsement of all Republican ideals. You banked on it. You were wrong. For the sake of promised fiscal responsibility, I, and apparently many others, was not willing to take it at the cost of compromising fundamental freedoms and sacrificing reason. Americans tend to respect science. It brought

Kansas Vs. Missouri: The Ultimate Showdown

If you are not from Kansas or Missouri, you may not know how much they hate each other. People from Kansas often call  all  Missourians idiots. Same thing vice-versa, but it's a different story when the opposing residents are face-to-face. The hate usually does not percolate to the surface in casual friendships. Missourians and Kansans don't seem to hate each other. They hate the other state. Many work together, get along very well, cross borders to have parties with their friends, but as soon as they begin to argue over which state is superior, arguments are heated and sincere. It is state bigotry, hating someone for where they live. They seem to think it is somehow "competitive" and healthy, but it's every bit as petty as racism. The rivalry stems from the Civil War when Kansas Jayhawkers and Missouri Bushwhackers would cross the border and slaughter each other and each other's families. Neither side can claim innocence. The violence has been tamed cons