The Vox' Ian Millhiser nauseating 'reporting' could use Meta, Grok or Google's Gemini - Would be less obvious:

The Inequity of the Pursuit of Equity Over Public Safety, the Inverse Relationship Between Journalistic Malpractice & Adjectives and Ifs and Buts were Adam Schiff and Bots, Everyday Would Be Impeachment Day.







The headline itself is self-evident: 'Republicans ask the Supreme Court to disenfranchise thousands of swing voters.' - It's not. It's asking for election integrity:


Pundits don't matter

Polls don't matter

Who votes don't matter

Only those who counts the votes matters. Voting fraud is so easy a caveman can do it. All that's needed is an Insider with a MOM: Means, Opportunity and Motive. When an Insider is a government official, prosecution is practically impossible.

Security Professionals refer to this as the inside threat. Have you heard about the Secret 2020 Election Day Meeting With CISA, Dominion, ES&S, ERIC, FBI, Leftist Organizations, State Officials, and Others?


What about the Pandora Papers or Panama Papers?

As long as the Inside Threat is not addressed, there won't be election integrity


Back to Millhiser's 'reporting.' He writes: "The Republican Party wants the Supreme Court to weigh in on a nauseatingly complicated voting rights case," and continues, "the case involves an astoundingly convoluted system Arizona uses to register certain voters." The liberal use of adjectives notwithstanding, shouldn't the Supreme Court not weigh in in a 'nauseatingly complicated voting and astoundingly convoluted voting rights case?

"Thus, in response to Inter Tribal, Arizona refused to fully register voters who submitted the federal form without providing proof of citizenship." Millhiser's 'reporting' implies that voter ID should not be required. Claiming that it's burdensome for people to get ID cards is what CNN calls a "successful cynical strategy." No different than Gavin Newsom and progressives claiming community college students are too stupid to figure out which courses to take, so they can transfer to the California Univeristy System.

You see, progressives argue that VoterID places a heavy burden on the elderly, disabled and or needy.

But the elderly, disabled and needy are required to provide a photo ID to be eligible for assistance, including foodstamps, VA benefits, disability, senior assistance & so on.

Unless the applicant uses corrupt intermediaries or are well connected politically, they'll have to jump thru hoops to get the help they need.

Netflix's The Maid, can give you an idea of what the elderly, disabled and needy go through.




"According to an expert who testified in the RNC case, “approximately one-third of a [percent] of non-Hispanic White voters [in Arizona] are Federal-Only Voters, while a little more than two-thirds of a percent of minority voters are Federal-Only Voters. "This racial disparity likely explains why the Republican Party is now asking the Supreme Court to further restrict this small percentage of Arizona voters." This is referred to as the
Pareto Rule of Equity: 90% of those intended to be helped, get the short end of the stick: A study has shown how Black DEI professionals get the short end of the stick. According to a report from Zippia, 76.1% of chief diversity officer roles are held by white employees while 3.8% are held by Black employees, for example.


According to the biography in the aforementioned article, Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.



The 'decline of liberal democracy' is like CNN's exclusive 'report' on
'prominent conservative legal scholar' Judge J Michael Luttig, which is like Government Intelligence, which is like Government Fast Response, which is like Congressional Ethics Committee. An Oxymoron!


And like the 'expert who testified in the RNC case,'




Journalists are vested on supporting their bosses' narrative, not on uncovering the truth. Pulitzer Prizes are now given to the best fake news.

Lawyers are paid to come up with the best argument money can buy. Not to uncover the truth. A lawyer will argue that because a wealthy client broke the law, the law must be changed. Explains why the poor are overrepresented in the prison system. Most laws are designed to strengthen the aforementioned culture, including passing laws to control law-abiding citizens with little concern for law breakers: The legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies. The Justice System  isn't about justice.
It's about social control.

Politicians are paid to keep people safe. But instead of trying to solve our problems, they are trying to solve their own problems—of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind. The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy. 

Scientists are paid to increase their employers' profitability not to make the world a better place

Just like Archeogists are paid to force-fit narratives demanded by their stakeholders, or as Boin said: "This [discovery] changes everything about how we perceive the pace of social change and our impression of the impact of social and cultural change." Or what about philosophers? David Kyle Johnson Ph.D. writes in Psychology Today: Recently, Gary Gutting interviewed Alvin Plantinga for The New York Times philosophy column. “Is atheism irrational?” the title asked, with the implied answer: “Yes.” Yet among philosophers, a supposedly rational group, 62% are atheists, compared to about half that among all academics and 2% in the general population. When asked why this is so, Plantinga suggested their motivations were psychological, not philosophical. Maybe they are like Thomas Nagel, he suggested, and don’t “want there to be any such person as God” because that means they are constantly being observed, judged and evaluated. Or perhaps, like Heidegger, they desire autonomy and think God’s existence threatens it

"No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace." James 3:17