The Ministry of Truth has clearly been working overtime these days and they have set their sites on Mike Lindell, inventor, founder, and CEO of MyPillow. The arbiters of tolerance have decided that the world would be just that much more tolerable with Lindell’s brand of sunny Christianity were snuffed out. Many have come to know Lindell for his innocuous, cheesy, and winsome MyPillow commercial spots. He garnered unwelcome attention and ire for his associations with the Trump campaign and for boldly sharing his faith in public. In an orchestrated effort that would have made Stalin declare, “C’mon man. You’re taking this human rights abuse thing too far,” activists are demonstrating their commitment to making Lindell suffer.

Virtually overnight, MyPillow dropped from an “A+” to an “F” rating from the Better Business Bureau. Citing public pressure, a growing list of retailers including Bed Bath & Beyond, Kohl’s, Wayfair, J.C. Penney, Dollar General, ShopHQ, Mattress Firm, BJ’s, Bluestem, Coborns’s, Affirm, Fingerhut, Kinney Drugs, Colony Brands, Chewy.com, The Shopping Channel and H-E-B all refuse to carry MyPillow merchandise. Macy’s has mysteriously run out of stock and anticipate that this status will continue indefinitely. Mike Lindell’s Twitter account has also been permanently scrubbed. Not content to simply put him out of business, “The Daily Mail” ran a broadside against Lindell personally by alleging he carried out a torrid 9-month long affair with actress, Jane Krakowski. For anyone who believes the timing of this tabloid gossip story is mere happenstance, I have several Washington establishment politicians I can sell you really cheap.

I know that many of you are thinking that one has a constitutional right to hold political and religious views, even when they don’t comport with the zeitgeist. That kind of heady idealism is so 1983. This may have been true back in the days when people still believed in absolute truth rather than the enforcement of absolute power to command absolute conformity. The west has evolved past such truth-centric thinking. After all, there was a time when we believed men could not have periods and where commoners could go willy-nilly to parks, churches, barber shops and birthday parties without the permission of the state.

Okay, so maybe ideological conformity isn’t mandatory – yet. Most of us are still free to have divergent views; we just don’t have license to express them publicly. As I write this, Mr. Lindell continues to roam freely as long as he complies with COVID restrictions and mandates. It could be that the left is not engaging in some “will to power” agenda by annihilating any dissent from the claim that the electoral process was pristine. After all, its not as though his questioning of election results was his only crime. Lindell opposes dismembering and crushing the skulls of innocent preborn babies. He even shared his faith at a podium only a few feet away from literally Hitler. He should count his blessings.

The 1976 film, “All the President’s Men” depicted the Watergate scandal that brought down former Republican President, Richard Nixon. In the film, Jason Robarts, in the role of Ben Bradlee (then Managing Editor of the Washington Post) becomes agitated that his reporters (Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward) can’t get any of their sources to go on record despite a spate of damaging allegations. For any journalists confused by why this is controversial, there was a time when relying on anonymous and unnamed sources was deemed to be suspect.  Concerned by the implications of making unproven allegations against Bob Haldeman, Nixon’s Chief of Staff, Robards’s character tells the reporters: “We’re about to accuse…the second most important man in this country of conducting a criminal conspiracy from inside the White House. It would be nice if we were right.” It is obvious that the left’s takeaway from Watergate is that the press can muster its forces to bring down Republican presidents, but they skipped past the part about the need for corroboration and evidence.

Before venturing further, I think some context is appropriate to understand more about this enemy of the state. Might a case be made that Lindell, a man guilty of the crime of compiling expert evidence that points to massive electoral fraud might be redeemable? He has made no secret about his rollercoaster background and, in fact, he recounts his personal journey in his autobiographical book, “What Are the Odds?” He gives the game away with the subtitle, “From Crack Addict to CEO.” While I haven’t yet had the opportunity to read his book, I have heard Mike Lindell interviewed on different podcasts and have a fair understanding of the salient points.

Even in the midst of his addiction, Lindell regaled his drug dealers with his dream of getting clean and launching a successful pillow business. He promised to use this as a platform to help others break free of their addictions and share his faith in Christ. His dealers clearly saw his potential and not only refused to sell him any more drugs, but they sent out word to their competitors that they too were not to provide their product to Lindell. Several months later, Mike prayed that God would remove his desire for drugs and from that day he has not again used or been tempted to return to his habit. He overcame numerous challenges and adversities; managing to turn his business into a major success. He has since expanded into various other sleep-related products. In the early panic over COVID, he retrofitted his factory to make facemasks for healthcare workers. He also kept his promise of creating the Lindell Recovery Network to help people transform their lives by ending their addictions. He has been outspoken in sharing his faith as a means to evangelize and give hope to others.

This brings us back to the scenario where the U.S. went through a highly contested election and where claiming election integrity was suspect led to escalating consequences. Despite courts refusing to consider the evidence accrued through numerous sources and roughly 3,000 affidavits, a narrative was created. Questioning the November 3^rd election results was tantamount to inciting an insurrection. Social media smoothed the waters by the censoring and cancellation anyone disputing the results based on their mandate that “election fraud is rare.”

Maybe its just me, but when you make the right to free speech contingent on a subjective determination of how common an event is, then you just may be on shaky ground. It should also be noted that in 100% of the countries where the electoral process is known to have been fraudulent, those who seize power through such illicit means always deny that anything untoward took place. I find that when people would rather discuss abstract concepts than address the substance of an argument and summarily dismiss the evidence being offered, their motives are not likely the pursuit of truth. After all, in a former time, what Lindell did on his own would have been considered “doing journalism.”

Keep in mind that the news media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming with absolutely no evidence that the story was fabricated by the Russians. Social media followed suit, assumedly under their policy position that, “sons of American Vice Presidents with drug habits and a sexual predilections for underaged girls leaving their laptops unclaimed at computer repair shops with incriminating communications exposing influence peddling on their father’s name through the son’s patronage position, for which they were uniquely unqualified, on Ukraine energy boards that happened to be under investigation” is rare.

Lost in the post-election schism that this dispute is not over a matter of opinion. There is an answer to what happened on November 3, 2019 (and on). There was either sufficient fraud that the election was stolen or there wasn’t. With this in mind, a few obvious questions come to mind:

• Does the fact that roughly 50% of the public believe the election was stolen – including a substantial number of Democrats and independents – suggest this is more than a case of wish-casting from fringe dwelling ideologues?
• Do those who acknowledge a certain level of voter fraud took place, but not enough to turn the election, is that a conclusion derived from a thorough review of the facts or mere opinion?
• What is the proper way to examine the results to find the truth if not to carry out a deep dive into the allegations and evidence and reach a conclusion based on evidence? If this avenue is blocked, does this settle the question about whether or not the election was stolen? Is it reasonable for people to insist on election integrity by pursuing legal remedies to find out the facts?
• Should an election under such a cloud of suspicion be approved based on the assumption that if one side has the determination, skill, corrupt partners and layers of infrastructure to pull it off then they deserve it?
• Is it noble to conceding based on the philosophy that allowing an election to be stolen is better than challenging it because then they won’t be violent?
• Is truth established by what version of events is deemed to be permissible by the political class and their allies?
• Is unity and civility achieved by dictating what conclusion everyone is expected to adopt?
• Should the objective be to find out who garnered the most legal votes? After all, if electoral integrity doesn’t matter, then why go through trouble of holding elections? Wouldn’t a game of “rock, paper, scissors be a more economical solution and give a fighting chance that the less corrupt side will be able to occasionally assume office?
• If there is no scrutiny and the issues that led to the elevated distrust are not addressed, what are the chances that the country will be able to unite?

Even a cursory appraisal of the Democratic left’s conduct before, during and after the election exposes that they were not invested in an honest election, but in acquiring power. Just remember that the side that wants the nation to simply moveon.org are the same ones who spent 2½ years investigating President Trump over baseless allegations of Russian collusion allowing Trump to “steal the election.” If their commitment was to election integrity, they should have fully cooperated with a full audit. Their actions, which I addressed in 2 previous blogs here and here, were suspect. There is nothing remotely subtle about the blind ambition of the left. They’ve shown they want power at any cost.

The election was either legitimate or stolen; there is no third option. There are shades of each category that carry their unique implications, but the core question cannot be censored, shamed or punished out of contention. Anyone who is willing to relent under pressure to forgo their convictions, whatever side they may be on, could justly be deemed weak, hypocritical, duplicitous, or guilty of some similarly malign quality. Determinations about reality cannot be achieved through compulsion, submission or even from a desire to just get along. You may feel that such options are right for you, but you have absolutely no right to demand that others adopt your concession of choice. As such, the only response likely to bring cohesion and tamp down needless divisions among reasonable people is to have a full audit of the election based on addressing the evidentiary challenges. There are several possible outcomes only one of which is true. Here are the possibilities and the commensurate implications:

Scenario #1: Election fraud was committed in favour of Trump and Republican candidates.

Let’s be honest – not even the left is making this claim. Just imagine though what such a stunning victory that would be for the left. If this is proved true, Republican’s would live under a perpetual cloud of shame and the Democrats would be more than vindicated. The left might even be shown to have won additional seats.

Scenario #2: There was no election fraud.

Again, this is another fantasy. This was, after all, the initial claim of the Democrats and the media talking heads until it was clear that continuing with this farce was on a par with denying the Holocaust. Still again, any cloud of suspicion over the voting process would evaporate and those claiming voter fraud would be laughing stocks. This would be another win for the Democrats and their apologists on the left.

Scenario #3: Election fraud was minimal.

In this situation, there would be some level of vindication for both sides, but the Democrats and their defenders would clearly be the primary beneficiaries. To have made such a fuss only to come up short would ultimately be a Pyrrhic victory for those who challenged election integrity. It could be written off as much ado about a nothingburger. Based on the framing of the issue, this appears to be the predominant claim of the mainstream media, most Democrats and many Republicans and conservatives (notably, the never Trumpers). They could crow that they were right all along and justified in promoting their “anonymous sources” were right all along. It would substantially lower the temperature and would open the door to tweaking the electoral process to stop loopholes that did have a corrupting effect. There would be some kind of win-win, but imposing this this conclusion through some mandate devoid of scrutiny is profoundly divisive and ensures the scab will continue to be ripped off and never fully heal.

Scenario #4: The election was rigged extensively, but did not alter the outcome.

The left would be set back more on their heels as the claim that the election was stolen, while being proved wrong, would be deeply suspect. Furthermore, those the media claimed to be trustworthy sources of information should have the veil ripped off and should be discredited, fired, and otherwise removed from any position of influence. If media invented those sources or cherry-picked them, they should be removed and rightly denounced as fake news because investigative journalism is the role of a news organisation, not selecting a narrative handed to them. Those who believed the election was stolen would be far more justified for reaching their conclusions. Power would not change hands, but there would need to be major fixes to give assurances that the democratic voting process can be trusted. As long as the objective is for free and fair elections, this should be acceptable to both sides.

Scenario #5: Election fraud was vast and Trump was legitimately re-elected.

This eventuality will not be pretty, but it is non-negotiable for several reasons which I will detail. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that there are only a few reasonable explanations for why there is such resistance to auditing the election results and none of them is good. It would include all the factors noted in the previous scenario, but would also include:

• The Harris-Biden team would be usurpers of power regardless of what role they did or did not play in the stolen election and they would be completely delegitimized
• The recognition that the full audit was necessary all along and the process itself is irredeemably corrupted
• The complicity of those who tacitly or actively participated in electoral fraud would be exposed and should face criminal charges
• All who conspired before or after the fact by burying the evidence and/or creating the environment for a stolen election too would face the consequences for their deeds
• Those claiming to be trustworthy news sources that are currently seeking the censorship of conservative news organisations that were correct should find themselves up on charges for collusion in electoral fraud
• Social media that has thrown their weight around by silencing dissent based on their self-identification as “fact checkers” should face criminal charges for defamation and complicity in violating election law and have their platforms forever removed

Admittedly, some of the outcomes I advance are wishful thinking based on what true justice in a representative Republic should look like. A nation cannot continue with citizens living in any form of sincere coexistence without a shared view of free and fair elections. In short, the left is about to destroy people’s lives, cancel the free speech of half the population, treat political dissent as domestic terrorism, prevent those with divergent opinions from earning a living, force ideological conformity on the citizenry through re-education camps, nullify the electoral process, and drive a stake through the heart of a country. It would be nice if it they were right.

One other quick point. The article asserting an affair between Lindell and the actress was summarily dumped down the memory hole. Perhaps this was because of the fact that both parties not only denied the story to be true but insist they never even met one another. What is that called again when someone presents as true something that is not supported by any evidence.

A final message for those who have been brainwashed (or weaned, if you will) on the concept that the left wants the kind of democratic socialist paradise found in Sweden (aka, capitalism with a large social welfare state) as opposed to the kind in Venezuela, North Korea or Cuba. We are presently looking at a situation where the political class is using state-run media, compelled speech, censorship and brute force; cancelling and/or destroying people for even questioning the integrity of an election. I hate to tell you folks, but this is not the “democratic socialism” you were looking for.