Alice, George, and History
Long ago, an election was stolen.
It was stolen in a place that was effectively a one-party state at the time. Oh, yes, there was technically political opposition. But as a practical matter, the ruling party called the shots; its candidates always won. Elections were largely a formality, held for show.
But elections were held nonetheless. The standard tricks of the trade were used to affect their outcome: votes recorded that were not cast, dead people voting, bought votes, fraudulent totals – you name it.
However, sometimes the ruling party would squabble within itself, with no clearly “pre-anointed” victor. In those cases, the results might be close. And things could get . . . interesting.
In one such case, the results were close indeed. After a hard fight, one of the two indeed won. Then the election was stolen. And the results were so obviously fraudulent as to be nauseating.
In one location, dead people were documented to have voted. People who never voted during the election – and who were out of town on election day and thus unable to vote at all – were nevertheless counted as having voted in person.
The totals in favor of one candidate were nauseatingly one-sided – so much so, that it’s impossible to believe them: 408-110; 5,554 -1,179; 965-61 (or 966-61; sources differ); 711-158; 723-198; 2,908-166; and 4,195-38 (later “amended” to 4,620-40 – or an election “turnout” of 99.6% of registered voters in that locality).
All told, it’s estimated that tens of thousands of outright fraudulent votes were cast. They were overwhelmingly cast for one candidate. And when that wasn’t enough, days after the election one key result was “corrected”; enough names were added – alphabetically and in the same handwriting – to official poll lists as having voted for a single candidate to change the election’s results. Barely.
In short, the election was blatantly stolen. And though challenged, the challenge was unsuccessful. The beneficiary of the theft ended up keeping the stolen office – a high national office, at that.
Now, you might wonder why I’m writing this and posting it to a military blog. Well, the above is indeed true. But it’s not a story about fraudulent elections in some Third-World dictatorship or Communist nation during the Cold War – nations that were known to hold elections merely for show.
I’m also not talking about the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election that was stolen to put Al “Comic Relief” Franken in the Senate.
Rather, it’s the story of what happened in South Texas during the 1948 Democratic Senate Primary Run-Off election. That election was patently fraudulent – and blatently stolen.
That’s the election that sent LBJ to the Senate, saving his political career and setting him on the path to the White House.
Without that stolen election, LBJ isn’t Vice-President on the morning of November 22, 1963. And without LBJ as president, IMO Vietnam as a major land war either never happens at all or plays out far differently than it did. LBJ was terrified of being identified as being “soft” on Communism, and identified as having “lost” a nation to the Communist cause. IMO that’s the main reason he engineered our involvement there – and kept “upping the ante” when things didn’t go as planned.
If you’ve never read Robert A. Caro’s Means of Ascent, I’d strongly recommend you do so while you’re on this side of the dirt – regardless of your feelings about LBJ. In Chapters 13-16, Caro documents precisely how people working on LBJ’s behalf stole that election, and how they kept it stolen afterwards. And he makes a persuasive case that not only did LBJ know precisely what was going on, but also approved of it wholeheartedly.
Elections have consequences. Sometimes they’re not felt for decades.
Author’s Note: None of the ballot boxes produced in court during Federal Special Master Hearings investigating allegations of fraud during the 1948 Texas Senatorial Run-Off Election in late September 1948 were marked as was the one in the above photo. The ballot box depicted in the photo above was thus quite obviously not among those produced in court during that Federal Special Master investigation.
The box in the photo is believed to have been from Precinct 13 in Alice, TX, in Jim Wells County. That precinct was the one to which the 200 votes (some accounts say 201 or 202) that changed the election’s outcome were added days after-the-fact.
The individuals in the photo are known associates and political allies of George B. Parr, political Jefe of the local area. One of them is his cousin, Givens Parr.
Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County is known to have had two ballot boxes. Both were ordered brought to court during the Special Master investigation.
One box from Precinct 13 was indeed opened in court during the Special Master hearings. The second ballot box from Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County was either among those that remained unopened when the investigation was ordered halted – or was not present in court that day.
The ballot box in the photo above has never been located.
LBJ himself is known to have possessed a copy of the above photo. On at least one occasion during his Presidency, showed his copy of that photo to a journalist during an interview(1967).
Draw whatever conclusions from the above you desire.
Category: Historical, Military issues, Politics
Interesting.
I’m surprised you believed a word of Hondo’s post. He is anonymous after all, and therefore, according to you, lacks credibility.
Of course, consistency is not your hallmark.
Kinda like 2012, where precincts recorded ZERO votes for Romney, or where 140 percent turnout in other Dem strongholds was recorded.
Remember, as Comrade Stalin said, “It’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes.”
Hence why Soros and his ilk were pushing state elections via his Secretary of State Project.
http://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_Project
Given that the average precinct is made up of only 1000 or so voters and that some exist within strong blue areas, high poverty, welfare numbers etc, it’s entirely believable that the Governor didn’t get a single vote from those that did turn out.
Possible, maybe. Plausible is another thing entirely.
And that certainly doesn’t explain turnout in excess of registration totals.
I heard that rumor as well and as far as I know it was just that a rumor. I would love to read anything about it saying otherwise though. Just a bunch of babies who don’t want to admit the President won fair and square making them up.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/
Florida 2012 was but one example. King County, WA in 2006 was another example.
One precinct is one thing. An entire urban county is quite another.
Read the link I provided.
I’ll do you one better: read this one. It shows both Dem and GOP malfeasance, but in this case, it shows convictions, not just allegations or accusations.
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-Merged-3-2.pdf
Are any of the cases in that PDF related to your initial claim? If not sounds like generalization and trying to use the bad acts of others to make large leaps.
Or you’re just making excuses for the bad actors in your party.
Bottom line, those were CONVICTIONS. Not just charges that were never proven or taken to court because those investigating the fraud are all too often the ones perpetrating it.
Sound familiar?
My party? I would assume you and I have the same party.
Again I ask were any of those convictions related to the specific claims you made? I’m sincerely asking so I don’t have to read the whole PDF. It’s Saturday you know lol
Did I say the allegation was true? My comment merely highlighted the fact that you did not address that point in your reply. You did in your later follow-on comment.
Regarding the implausibility of Obama receiving 100% of the votes in a 1000-person precinct, Obama received 93% of the black vote nationwide in 2012. That yields a 7% chance of any given black individual voting for Romney.
Given a single-vote likelihood of 0.93, assuming fair voting the probability for Obama to receive all 1000 votes out of 1000 cast would be (0.93)^1000. That works out to a rather tiny number: 3.0405 x 10^-32, or 0.000000000000000000000000000000030405
That’s over one octillion times the odds of being struck by a meteorite. For each precinct.
According to the link you posted, that apparently happened 59 times in Philadelphia in 2012. Mathematically possible? Yes. Plausible? Without something else in play – hell no.
Voter fraud or intimidation are the IMO two most plausible theses for that “something else in play”. It’s a free country, though, so believe whatever you want.
You can’t use math like that because A. Not all precincts are the same size and B. Not all are of the same demographics.
You can’t use nationwide numbers to explain away small instances, it’s just dirty science.
Or, more likely, dirty politics.
One might say there is no such thing as the opposite. 🙂
Right, Hondo, you can’t use math to formulate a mathematical probability because Lars… er, Clong (I get them confused since they both spout the same BS) says you can’t.
Hey, you provided the “average precinct is 1000 or so voters” metric. So quit yer bitching about me using numbers you provided in debunking your claims. You ain’t real good in math, are ya, Long? Yes, you CAN use math like that. It’s simple statistics. VERY simple statistics. It provides the ability to do a quick check regarding the plausibility of something happening in an unbiased process. Yes, voting probabilities vary. So for the sake of argument, let’s assume voters in those 59 districts in Philly who “voted unanimously” for Obama in 2012 were 10x more likely to vote for him in 2012 than the national average for black voters. That makes the probability of each voter voting for Obama 0.993 vice 0.93 In that case, the probability of 1,000 independent voters all freely voting unanimously for Obama is (0.993)^1000 – or 0.00088971. That’s about 1 chance in 1,124. However, per the article you cited, there were a total of 19,605 votes unanimously cast for Obama in the 59 precincts that supported him unanimously. The chance of that under those assumptions? (0.993)^19,605 = 1.5889 x 10^-60 – or 0.(59 zeros)15889. Make the Philly voter in those precincts 100x more likely than the national average for black voters to vote for Obama, and it becomes about even money that a single 1000-person precinct would vote unanimously for Obama – a probability of 0.49646, to be precise. But all 19,605 who “did”? That probability still is still miniscule – less than 1 chance in a million. For even a 10% chance of all 19,605 of those voters to have voted for Obama, the individual probability of an Obama vote has to be slightly more than 0.999882558 – or, conversely, a Romney vote has to occur 1 time in about 8,500. Assuming a fair election, an even (50%) chance of unanimity requires the individual vote probability for Obama to be 0.999964645, or worse than a 1 in 28,000 chance of an honest Romney vote. Mathematically possible? Yes. Plausible, given known national voting data? Um, no. If you believe otherwise, I’d strongly suggest you… Read more »
You really don’t see your flaw do you?
There is no flaw. So no, I don’t see it.
How about you specify what you think the flaw might be, for our “education” – or, more likely, our entertainment.
And, unlike you, we’ll evaluate your idea on it’s merits, even if you won’t provide information about your background to prove your “cred”.
I’ve tried to formulate a response but I admittedly lack the necessary ability to use small enough words and speak slowly enough for you to get it. I suggest heading to Amazon.com or your preferred book seller and picking up a copy of Statistics for Dummies.
Heck make a gift registry and it’ll be my treat.
What a dick. So much for the free exchange of ideas, huh. You’re an ignorant asshole clong. Keep talking.
Here, Long – I’ll do that for ya. Here’s your appropriate response:
(C. Long speaking:) Ugh. He call my bluff. He show I am full of it, and not too smart.
I no have way to show he is wrong, ’cause he not wrong. Plus, me not know enough math to try and prove him wrong.
What I do now? Oh, I know. Now I change subject. I go on attack. I make false claim I am right when I know I am not. Then I use insult to try and make him mad. Maybe he make mistake.
Maybe I do all that and it make folks lose track of fact I not know what I talk about. Yeah, I try that.
Yeah Hondo, and you can’t use words either, because that’s a lawyer’s trick!
Or maybe they just used Chicago’s SOP for elections in determining the outcome?
“Vote Early, Vote Often!”
Nice job, Hondo. I thought you were writing about Chicago for a moment or two.
South Texas politics in the 1930s and 1940s made Chicago look honest in comparison. At least some precincts in Chicago were run honestly. Few if any in South Texas seem to have been during that time frame.
Bringing in “voters” from Mexico was reputedly common practice in some areas. An open question concerning political jefes there was, “Does he vote ’em, or just count ’em?” Because at the time poll taxes were legal, a border jefe could pay poll taxes for a number of people, keep the receipts, instruct them to stay home – and fraudulently record their votes for whomever he liked.
Exactly that was what allowed the addition of the 200 or so votes that put LBJ over the top in Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County. It also almost certainly happened in Duval County, where “adjusted” final figures put the final total at 99.6% of registered voters.
George B. Parr was the political jefe of a six-county area of South Texas, including Duval County, plus parts of others. He was commonly referred to as the “Duke of Duval” – with good reason.
Hondo, don’t feed the LLROT.
Here’s another interesting article based on Caro’s work. Looks like I need to go find the book. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2007/07/the_honest_graft_of_lady_bird_johnson.html
Yep. Nixon has the bad rep, but he was a piker, dishonesty-wise, compared to LBJ.
IMO LBJ was not only incompetent and misguided as POTUS. He was also easily the most thoroughly dishonest and corrupt person ever to hold that office – by a wide margin. And his conduct in his personal life apparently made JFK’s philandering seem tame by comparison also. JFK was reasonably discrete; LBJ had a series of bimbos on the White House payroll.
And if you want a real laugh, Google “LBJ” and “Jumbo”. (smile)
Or just use this link. I guess flashing his scar for the photographers wasn’t the worst that could happen.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18945_6-presidential-secrets-your-history-teacher-didnt-mention.html
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE045550/president-johnson-shows-surgical-scar
Without lbj, we would also have not had the “Great Society” war on poverty which has been going on for 50+ years and cost us trillions of dollars. Every measure of success shows that we are losing the war and are worse off than if we had never done it at all.
Ah, yes, I remember when Medicare was taken out of my meager paycheck for the first time. That was good ol’ LBJ’s War on Poverty. I guess I should be somewhat grateful for it.
The problem is, LBJ’s means of buying votes through welfare checks didn’t get him re-elected. He had to walk away from his war.
I have been a county election commissioner since 2003, prior to that a election poll judge, a state election commissioner since 2012 and represented the United States as an international election observer seven times in former Soviet Republics in West-Asia and Eastern Europe. Suffice to say I know and understand elections and particularly election fraud as I have witnessed several times overseas. There are several ways to commit election fraud in our country with the current favorite being with absentee ballots because electronic voting replaced paper ballots in many places. Paper offered more of an opportunity for fraud then the electronic audit trail. Regardless, if you have corrupt election officials it is going to happen and you should have seen some of the crap the Democrats in Arkansas pulled in 2014 to keep the Republicans from winning the state. We still won. Elections are getting better but with a Justice Department that does not pursue election crimes to the extent they should, it is going to continue.
Yep. NBPP, anyone?
And yeah, that was in Philly. Coincidence that 59 precincts there all voted “unanimously” for Obama?
Maybe, maybe not. But in the words of the Russian stand-up comic, Yakov Smirnoff: “Eye . . . don’ tink zo.”
THIS IS A SERIOUS COMMENT – unload and store your weapons before reading this!
Speaking of stolen and or hijacked electtions … posted at Drudge in the headline:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216
I wonder just how much bull-shit is going to be said when we put our best man in the White House. “Mr. President Donald Trump. Like I said once before in one of my blogs, My money is on Trump, and I can’t think of a better place to put my money. Laugh as you may, like I said before, It’s a free country.
Doesn’t surprise me any more who we are willing to elect to public office but gosh I hope not.
Biden’s your man as I recall. Because he has character or some bullsit….
Pay no attention to the serial plagiarism behind that VP . . . .
Once again King Clong (that’s just too awesome not to use) turns the thread into something about himself, rather than the posted issue.
That needs to be “Kong sChLong”.
Hey you said it not me 😉
As I recall, the King Kong character in the original movie – as well as in the Japanese “Kong v. Godzilla” and the later remake of the original – had no visible schlong. Since the Kong character is naked in all of those films, that implies its “man region” must have been too small to be apparent to the naked eye.
Alright. I’m more than willing to stipulate that you know more about penises and their sizes than I am.
Dunno if I do or not, Long.
But I do appear to know more about Kong than you do. Otherwise, you’d not have implied above that having a “Kong Schlong” was something laudable.
On the contrary: it seems to me that having a “Kong Schlong” might well have been the reason that giant ape always seemed to be angry at the world. Might also explain his penchant for constantly screaming unintelligibly, too. (smile)
Maybe. I’ve never seen the movie. 🙂
Statistically possible. But rather implausible. (smile)
O. K. Schlongster, now you have me wondering if you are some failed shrink who doodles on web sites daily just to keep an argument going. C’mon Schlong, I’d guess you know the phallic symbol much more than you’d like to admit. And the answer to the yes or no question starts in…..how many minutes, hours, or days? Slack off on your fantasies and answer the question. Might end up feeling like you have come out of the closet finally. Your personal sexual choices are really of no interest to this site. Your military past is our only inquiry.
Read Caro’s book years ago (in fact, I still have the book). If I recall, there was also questions as to how LBJ “earned” his Silver Star during WWII.And if I am not mistaken, the 1960 election was stolen as well, with deceased folks voting and folks being paid by one of the candidate’s rich Daddy to vote for that candidate…
After returning from Nam in early 1970, I was stationed at a small auxiliary landing field (NALF Orange Grove) near Alice, Texas in the county east of Duvall County. I also worked the ER nite shift in the hospital in Alice. On the nite of the national election, I asked one of the Hispanic nurses if she had voted that day. He reply was “No, daddy votes for all of us”. I asked how many were in her family, and she replied “ten”.