Trump Takes His Case to Court in 3 Battleground States

Trump Takes His Case to Court in 3 Battleground States

Fred Lucas @FredLucasWH / November 04, 2020 /1 Comment

In the presidential election, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump in Michigan by 50.3% to 48.1%. Pictured: Election workers count absentee ballots Wednesday at TCF Center in Detroit. (Photo: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images)

The Trump campaign seeks a recount in Wisconsin and has gone to court in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan over ballot counting rules to settle a presidential election that remains undecided.  

As of Wednesday evening, Fox News Channel had former Vice President Joe Biden just six votes shy of the 270 needed in the Electoral College to defeat President Donald Trump and win the White House. 

The Trump campaign and some other news organizations disputed Fox’s Arizona call for Biden.

Most news outlets called both Wisconsin and Michigan for the Democratic nominee Wednesday. Ballots in Pennsylvania are still arriving in the mail.

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

On Oct. 19, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlockleft in place a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit brought by the state’s Democratic Party. That ruling requires state  election officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election, even without a postmark showing a ballot had been mailed by Election Day. 

With Nevada, North Carolina, and Georgia still too close to call, Biden had a lead of 264 electoral votes to Trump’s 214 votes as of Wednesday evening, according to Fox News Channel. The New York Times, however, gave Biden 253 electoral votes.

Biden led Trump in Wisconsin 49.4% to 48.8% as of Wednesday evening, The New York Timesreported. The former vice president also led in Michigan, 50.3% to 48.1%. 

In Pennsylvania, Trump led 51% to 47.7% as of Wednesday evening. In Georgia, the president held a lead of 49.9% to 48.9%. In North Carolina, Trump led 50.1% to 48.7%.

In Nevada, Biden led 49.3% to 48.7%. In Arizona, already called for Biden, he led 51% to 47.6%.  

Independent groups also will sue the state of Michigan, said Gordon Pennington, a poll watcher for the Election Integrity Fund, which advocates clean elections in Michigan. 

Pennington said more than a recount is necessary in Michigan; a thorough examination should determine whether ballots are legitimate, he said. 

Pennington, speaking from Cobo Arena in Detroit where Wayne County officials are counting ballots, accused them of not following the rules. 

About 38,000 votes in the presidential election came in at 3:45 a.m. Wednesday without anyone explaining the point of origin or chain of custody for the ballots, he said. Under Michigan law, he added, ballots harvested or collected after 8 p.m. on Election Day are not supposed to be valid. 

“If you are recounting fake ballots, what’s the point of a recount?” Pennington told The Daily Signal. “We need more forensics.”

The Trump campaign’s lawsuit argues that Michigan did not provide it with proper access to observe the opening of absentee ballots, and asks for a temporary halt to the counting until the campaign has “meaningful access” and the opportunity to review ballots. 

FOX 2 Detroit reported that election staff prevented GOP poll watchers from entering TCF Center in Detroit, a convention center where workers are counting hundreds of thousands of ballots. 

Trump led in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan early Wednesday based on in-person voting. But Biden announced in a brief speech just before 1 a.m. that he believed he would win the presidency. 

After 2 a.m., Trump essentially declared victory at the White House, accusing the other side of fraud. 

Trump campaign officials say the president has a strong chance of  putting Arizona in his column; many news outlets called the state for Biden. 

During his early morning remarks in the East Room of the White House,  Trump said: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court—we want all voting to stop.” 

The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit to halt vote counting in Pennsylvania over a lack of transparency, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. 

A Pennsylvania Republican Party appeal already was before the Supreme Court on the question of whether the state may count votes that arrive in the mail from Wednesday through Friday. 

Although it’s likely the Supreme Court would prefer to avoid weighing in on the presidential contest, it may be forced to decide, said Jason Snead, executive director of the organization Honest Elections. 

Snead noted that the high court previously punted on Pennsylvania’s ballot-counting rules, making it more likely the court will have to hear the case after the election. 

“It is utterly ridiculous, because Pennsylvania had time to prepare for Election Day,” Snead told The Daily Signal. “The court, if it gets to that point, had the opportunity before the election to put the pin in the grenade and didn’t take it. They may regret that.”

Even though Trump seemed to have a significant lead, Snead said he anticipates that Biden could flip Pennsylvania. 

“A massive amount of ballots are uncounted in Pennsylvania,” Snead said. “It’s very likely Pennsylvania will go blue.”

The Trump campaign has asserted irregularities in several Wisconsin counties and is asking for a recount in the state. But Snead said he doesn’t anticipate this effort will go far. 

“In Wisconsin, it is their right to ask for a recount. But I don’t see a change there happening,” Snead said. “The margin is too great in Wisconsin. Recounts don’t usually change the outcome at that amount.”

Snead added that he doesn’t see evidence of fraud at this point. 

“Just because it takes longer to count does not mean there is massive fraud or malfeasance,” he said. “It could be bureaucratic incompetence.”

Asked about Michigan, he said it is likely a matter of counting absentee ballots.

Snead said Trump likely will carry Georgia and North Carolina, but that litigation could expand to Nevada and Arizona. 

“If it is close in any of these [states], there could be litigation,” Snead said. “If Arizona flips red—I’m not sure it would, but the Trump campaign is bullish about it—the Biden campaign could initiate litigation.”

The Republicans and know how to win close elections!!!

The 12 Closest Presidential Elections In United States History


12. 1844: James Polk (Democratic) vs. Henry Clay (Whig)

Electoral Vote: 170 – 105
Popular Vote: 49.5% – 48.1%

Running on a platform of Manifest Destiny, or expanding the United States from Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean, Tennessee Governor James Polk was able to edge one of the most important political figures of his time, Henry Clay. Polk won the election by virtue of holding onto New York and its 36 electoral votes by a mere 5,106 votes. Had New York swung to Clay, he would have won the election instead.

Image Source: President ElectRaymond History

11. 1976: Jimmy Carter (Democratic) vs. Gerald Ford (Republican)

Electoral Vote: 297 – 240
Popular Vote: 50.1% – 48.0%

Georgia Governor and relative outsider, Jimmy Carter, pulled off a narrow win over President Gerald Ford. Ford had replaced the resigned Spiro Agnew as Vice President, and then took over for President Richard Nixon following his resignation. For ensured his place in the history books with this loss, becoming the only man to ever serve as President without ever being elected as President or Vice President. 

Image Source: YoutubeBaltimore Sun

10. 1968: Richard Nixon (Republican) vs. Hubert Humphrey (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 301 – 191
Popular Vote: 43.4% – 42.7%

In a battle of Vice Presidents, former Vice President (and 1960 election loser) Richard Nixon defeated sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey with a decisive Electoral College win. The popular vote margin, however, was much more narrow. In fact, Humphrey would likely have won the popular vote if third party segregationist candidate, George Wallace, had not siphoned off 9.9 million votes in the heavily Democratic South.

Image Source: WikipediaVox

9. 1888: Benjamin Harrison (Republican) vs. Grover Cleveland (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 233 – 168
Popular Vote: 47.8% – 48.6%

Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison, the grandson of President William Henry Harrison, held on to beat President Grover Cleveland in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote. It was just the 3rd instance in United States history where the popular vote winner did not win the presidency. Cleveland’s loss in his home state of New York by just 15,000 votes proved to be the decisive margin, as the state’s 36 electoral votes would have swung the election. Feeling that he had been wrongfully beaten, Cleveland ran again in 1892, winning a second term.

Image Source: President ElectHenry’s Home

8. 2004: George W. Bush (Republican) vs. John Kerry (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 286 – 251
Popular Vote: 50.7% – 48.3%

Coming off of one of the most controversial elections in United States history (and a later member on this list), George Bush earned a popular vote majority and a narrow Electoral College victory to win a second term in office. Ohio proved to be the decisive state, with Bush holding on through a late night count to win the state’s 20 electoral votes and the election. 

Image Source: Southern Methodist UniversityPeriodic Table of the Presidents

7. 1916: Woodrow Wilson (Democratic) vs. Charles E. Hughes (Republican)

Electoral Vote: 277 – 265
Popular Vote: 49.2% – 46.1%

President Woodrow Wilson combined a decisive popular vote margin with the narrowest electoral vote margin of the 20th century to earn a second term as president. The election came down to the state of California, with Wilson earning the state’s 13 electoral votes by just 3,600 votes. Had Hughes flipped the state, he would have won the election despite the wide popular vote deficit.

Image Source: Wikipediadeadpresidents

6. 1884: Grover Cleveland (Democratic) vs. James Blaine (Republican)

Electoral Vote: 219 – 182
Popular Vote: 48.9% – 48.3 %

New York Governor Grover Cleveland edged out Republican Senator James Blaine with tight margins in both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Just as it would four years later, the election came down to Cleveland’s home state of New York. The governor held on by just 1,151 votes to earn the state’s 36 electoral votes and the presidency. 

Image Source: Wikipediayesteryearsnews

5. 1960: John Kennedy (Democratic) vs. Richard Nixon (Republican)

Electoral Vote: 303 – 219
Popular Vote: 49.7% – 49.6%

Senator John Kennedy defeated Vice President Richard Nixon in the second narrowest popular vote margin of all-time. Thanks to key wins in Texas and Illinois, Kennedy won the electoral vote comfortably. However, after 68 million votes were cast, Kennedy only won the popular vote by a mere 112,000 votes.

Image Source: WikipediaSteinbeck Now

4. 2016: Donald Trump (Republican) vs. Hillary Clinton (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 306 – 232*
Popular Vote: 47.5% – 47.7%*
*Results still pending

In one of the most surprising elections in American history, businessman and complete political outsider Donald Trump stunned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a clear electoral vote margin. Despite the large discrepancy, Clinton won the popular vote over Trump by 0.2%. She ran up big margins in populous California and New York, but lost narrowly across the Midwest, falling in Michigan by 0.3%, Wisconsin by 1%, and Pennsylvania by 1.2%. While results are still pending, it seems that Clinton’s margin may expand as California’s vote continues to be counted. 

Image Source: 270towinNewsweek

3. 1880: James Garfield (Republican) vs. Winfield Hancock (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 214 – 155
Popular Vote: 48.27% – 48.25%

In the closest popular vote margin in United States history, Congressman James Garfield beat General Winfield Hancock to win the presidency. While Garfield had a solid margin in the Electoral College, the popular vote was unbelievably close. Garfield ended up with only 1,898 more votes than Hancock out of more than 9.2 million ballots cast, a margin of 0.02%. Garfield was assassinated after serving less than a year in office. 

Image Source: SlideGobeardedcats

2. 1876: Rutherford Hayes (Republican) vs. Samuel Tilden (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 185 – 184
Popular Vote: 47.9% – 50.9%

In the most contentious election in United States history, Rutherford B. Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden by a single electoral vote to earn the presidency, despite losing the popular vote by 3%. In an election rampant with fraud on both sides, the electoral votes of four states were left undeclared after an initial count, leaving Tilden with a 184-165 advantage. A special commission was appointed to resolve the 20 votes, and they voted down party lines to give all 20 to Hayes, winning him the presidency 185-184. To appease furious Democrats, Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction and withdraw federal troops from the South.

Image Source: WikipediaTime

1. 2000: George W. Bush (Republican) vs. Al Gore (Democratic)

Electoral Vote: 271 – 266
Popular Vote: 47.9% – 48.4%

In the closest election in United States history, Governor George W. Bush scraped out the presidency over Vice President Al Gore by the narrowest of margins. Bush earned only one electoral vote more than the minimum 270 for victory, despite losing the popular vote by over half a million votes. The election came down to Florida’s 25 electoral votes, with Bush earning a 537-vote win in the state. The election was not called for over a month as recounts dragged on in Florida, not ending until the Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop the recounts. The 537 votes separating a Bush presidency from a Gore presidency is the smallest in American history.

Canary Islands 2014: Harold Kroto and Richard Dawkins

Image result for harry kroto richard dawkins


August 7, 2019

Richard Dawkins c/o Richard Dawkins Foundation, 
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Dawkins,

Page 64 in THE GOD DELUSION:  “founders were secularists and that is enough to place them firmly on the side of those who object to displays of the Ten Commandments in government-owned public places” If founders objected then why were these up to begin with? The best explanation in this line of reasoning was given by Greg Koukl below:

Church and State: The Separation Illusion

Greg Koukl

Separationists’ Achilles Heel

Separationists attempt to take the Constitutional high ground by quoting Jefferson and others like him. They claim that the founders envisioned a high wall of separation. Recent court decisions simply enforce those original intentions.

Is the “religious right” imposing a new standard favoring religion that undermines our basic Constitutional freedoms, as the L.A. Times ad claimed? You can get to the heart of the matter by asking another question: Do these recent legal actions stop something from being added, or do they remove things already there? They remove them.

Courts have removed prayer from school, crèches from the lawns of city halls, and crosses from public parks. Separationists have managed to get personal Bibles off of teachers’ desks, the Ten Commandments out of school rooms, and references to God eliminated from students’ graduation speeches.

This is their Achilles’ heel: Things can only be removed that were already there to begin with. How did they get there? They were allowed by citizens, legislatures, and courts who saw no harm in them, no intolerance, no danger, and no breech of any Constitutional principle for almost 175 years.

This observation tells us two things. First, from the beginning, religious symbols and religious thought were woven into the fabric of government and society with no sense of Constitutional impropriety. This proves that the new court actions are revisionist, an attempt to change the traditional practice, not a return to our historical and Constitutional roots.

Second, conservatives are in a defensive posture, not an offensive one. The “religious right” has not declared war. The war has been declared on an American way of life held dear to many, and they won’t surrender it without a fight.

The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.

Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.

Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:

…Please click on this URL

and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.

Harry Kroto

Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto

Image result for harry kroto richard dawkins

I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:

Arif Ahmed, Sir David AttenboroughMark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael BatePatricia ChurchlandAaron CiechanoverNoam Chomsky,Alan DershowitzHubert DreyfusBart Ehrman, Stephan FeuchtwangDavid Friend,  Riccardo GiacconiIvar Giaever , Roy GlauberRebecca GoldsteinDavid J. Gross Brian Greene, Susan GreenfieldStephen F Gudeman,  Alan Guth, Jonathan HaidtTheodor W. HänschBrian Harrison,  Hermann HauserRoald Hoffmann,  Bruce HoodHerbert Huppert,  Gareth Stedman JonesSteve JonesShelly KaganMichio Kaku,  Stuart Kauffman,  Lawrence KraussHarry KrotoGeorge LakoffElizabeth Loftus,  Alan MacfarlanePeter MillicanMarvin MinskyLeonard Mlodinow Yujin NagasawaAlva NoeDouglas Osheroff,  Jonathan Parry,  Saul PerlmutterHerman PhilipseCarolyn PorcoRobert M. PriceLisa RandallLord Martin Rees,  Oliver SacksJohn SearleMarcus du SautoySimon SchafferJ. L. Schellenberg,   Lee Silver Peter Singer,  Walter Sinnott-ArmstrongRonald de SousaVictor StengerBarry Supple,   Leonard SusskindRaymond TallisNeil deGrasse Tyson,  .Alexander VilenkinSir John WalkerFrank WilczekSteven Weinberg, and  Lewis Wolpert,

In  the second video below in the 67th clip in this series are Richard Dawkins’ words that Harry Kroto wanted me to see. Since then I have read several of Richard Dawkins books and have attempted to respond to the contents of these books directly to Richard Dawkins by mail. In fact, I have been writing Richard Dawkins letters since May 15, 1994 which was the 10th anniversary of the passing of one of my heroes, Francis Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time responding to many of Richard Dawkins’ heroes such as Carl Sagan, Jacques Monod, H.J. Blackham, Isaac Newton, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Max Planck, Johann Sebastian Bach, Francis Bacon, Samuel Beckett, Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Michael Faraday, Gerald Horton, Edmund Leach, Louis Pasteur, George Wald, Jacob Bronowski, Steven Weinberg, Charles Darwin, Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer, Jonathan Miller, William B. Provine, Woody Allen, Noam Chomsky, James D. Watson, Francis Crick, Michael Polanyi, The Huxley family, Antony Flew, and Edward O. Wilson (Dawkins has since revised his opinion of Flew and Wilson, but he earlier regarded them very highly). 

Image result for francis schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer 1911-1984


Image result for antony flew


Both Francis Schaeffer and Richard Dawkins have talked extensively about the life of Charles Darwin.

Image result for charles darwin


Sir Harry Kroto with his high school friend Sir Ian McKellan at the FSU National High Field Magnetic Lab on Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

Image result for harry kroto richard dawkins

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)


Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2)



Edit Post ‹ The Daily Hatch — WordPress

A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)


Richard Dawkins Photos Photos – Professor Stephen Hawking Unveils Medal For Science Communication – Zimbio

Professor Stephen Hawking Unveils Medal For Science Communication

Professor Stephen Hawking Unveils Medal For Science Communication In This Photo: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Brian May, Harold Kroto, Alexi Leonov, Garik Israelian


Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Credit: Don Arnold Getty Images


Image result for richard dawkins brief candle in the dark

Garik Israelian, Stephen Hawking, Alexey Leonov, Brian May, Richard Dawkins and Harry Kroto






Related posts:

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 48 Nobel Prize Winner and Global Warming Denier Ivar Giaever “I think religion is to blame for a lot of the ills in this world!”

October 20, 2015 – 5:20 am

  On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner […]

FRANCIS SCHAEFFER ANALYZES ART AND CULTURE PART 78 THE BEATLES (Breaking down the song TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS) Featured musical artist is Stuart Gerber

September 24, 2015 – 5:42 am

The Beatles were “inspired by the musique concrète of German composer and early electronic music pioneer Karlheinz Stockhausen…”  as SCOTT THILL has asserted. Francis Schaeffer noted that ideas of  “Non-resolution” and “Fragmentation” came down German and French streams with the influence of Beethoven’s last Quartets and then the influence of Debussy and later Schoenberg’s non-resolution which is in total contrast […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 42 Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

September 8, 2015 – 5:10 am

  _______ On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto _________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize […]

RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Bart Ehrman “Why should one think that God performed the miracle of inspiring the words in the first place if He didn’t perform the miracle of preserving the words?”

September 2, 2015 – 8:42 am

On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said: …Please click on this URL and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them. Harry Kroto ____________________ Below you have picture of 1996 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner Dr. […]

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: