Doug Crice: Still trust the ’alternative’ tales over mainstream | TheUnion.com
YOUR AD HERE »

Doug Crice: Still trust the ’alternative’ tales over mainstream

Readers of The Union are blessed with a vigorous debate in the letters to the editor and guest columns in every issue of the newspaper.

Viewpoints are expressed on both sides of the political spectrum, though lately they seem to have swung toward the left, driven by the recent election and events tied to the transition of power in Washington.

The adjective “left” fits better than “liberal,” which in the classic sense means willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own — open to new ideas.



My hope is that the preponderance of leftist commentary reflects the propensity of people with those views to take keyboard in hand and write, rather than stay silent, compared to those of us on the opposite political spectrum, who tend to be a little more passive.

I would like to think that Nevada County as a whole is a little more balanced than Page 4 of The Union.




I wouldn’t want to discourage this discourse, but I would hope for a little more research as a base for these opinions.

James Schlesinger provided a terrific quote (often attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan): “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

The difficulty in gathering facts is that the mainstream media is essentially an arm of the Democrat Party. You can no more get balanced coverage from the networks and major East Coast newspapers than you would expect from Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or that serial liar: Adam Schiff.

Consider, for example, how the media ignored the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as opposed to their careful review of Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. (The Union does a better job of balance, but be skeptical of anything that comes from The Associated Press.)

So where do you get broader coverage of current events? The internet, of course! Before you start laughing at this source fabled for misinformation, look around. Sure, there are a lot of wackos, conspiracy theorists, and off-the-wall ideas, but there are also sites which gather information from reliable, thoughtful people on all sides of the political spectrum.

In evidence of the scope of the problem, I would like to suggest a series of alternate interpretations of some widely held views of recent events:

Even The Washington Post has discovered that the attack on the Capitol was planned weeks in advance, though this information came from reporters on the crime beat, not the political team.

That means the riot was not the result of Donald Trump’s speech, further proof coming from the fact that it started before he was finished speaking. Listen to, or read the transcript of Trump’s speech in which he told people to protest peacefully.

The latest bogus impeachment has no basis in fact or the Constitution. It’s an artifact of the Democrats’ hatred of Trump and the deluge of misinformation surrounding the riots.

Here’s a bonus fact for you: If you were moved by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s dramatic recounting on national TV of her trauma during the riot, note that her office is in a separate building and the rioters never came near it — something the media neglected to mention at first in their haste to use a video clip.

Contrary to what the media repeats constantly, I believe there was substantial fraud associated with the recent election. There are many examples, the most egregious being the Pennsylvania electors changing the rules contrary to law and the state Constitution, some believe. There were over 800 affidavits from witnesses to voter fraud and rules ignored.

I believe statistical analysis showed that Biden’s victory was scientifically impossible. I also think Republicans made major victories in the House races despite Biden’s success because the operatives didn’t have time to cook those ballots. All you hear from the media is that the courts rejected the lawsuits filed to contest the election. What you didn’t hear is that they were universally rejected on procedural grounds without hearing the facts of the case.

The lawsuit that the state of Texas brought to the Supreme Court was rejected because the court ruled that Texas had no standing to sue Pennsylvania. Sure, there were several recounts, but recounts are worthless once the mail-in ballots are separated from their envelopes (which have dates, addresses and signatures).

A requirement for material submitted to The Union is that it reflect factual research, and probably they will add a disclaimer should they publish this contribution.

I would invite readers to do a little more research. There are too many links to fit here, but you might start with my blog (google dougcrice and blogspot and work back to last summer), or else just google the topics. Among the internet chaff, you will find references by serious researchers: professors, lawyers, scientists and knowledgeable laypersons.

If you are an honest liberal, open to alternate reality, do some homework before submitting your contribution to the discourse.

Doug Crice lives in Grass Valley.

Editor’s note: Yes, a disclaimer is merited on claims of widespread fraud, which months after the election now still have produced no evidence that can stand up in court, and the affidavits that did not qualify as credible evidence in our courts because they are of the quality for alien abductions and Bigfoot sightings, also rife on the internet. Cases that would have standing did not have credible evidence, and other cases didn’t have standing; all of this was thoroughly reported at the time. Republican election officials, Republican judges, Republican prosecutors and now former Attorney General William Barr, a Republican who put the Department of Justice on special alert for election fraud, found no evidence of widespread fraud. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Pennsylvania case on the 2019 legislation passed by a Republican-majority legislature with a window for objection that passed without any. The case also was rejected by that state’s supreme court, which has a 6-3 Republican majority.


Support Local Journalism


Support Local Journalism

Readers around Grass Valley and Nevada County make The Union’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.

Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.

Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.

 

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


Columns