HERE WE GO AGAIN: 588 Mostly Democrat Votes “Found” in Ohio Special Election

What’s a close election (or even not so close. See the 2016 Presidential Election.) without Democrats trying to steal it afterwards?  In the Ohio Special Election for CD 12, 588 “missing” votes were “found” after election night.  And most of them are for the Democrat Danny O’Conner, of course.

This reminds me of the Washington State stolen gubernatorial election in 2004 in which “missing” votes were “found” in heavily Democrat King County.  (Is there any evil Seattle hasn’t inflicted on the rest of that state?) Or, heck, it reminds me of LBJ’s Box 13 back in the 1948 Democrat Primary (which back then was pretty much the election in one party Democrat Texas):

…Box 13 in Duval County provided Lyndon Johnson the victory margin as the gangly congressman from Johnson City won a hotly contested Senate race by 87 votes.

Six days after election, authorities in Alice (now in Jim Wells County) “discovered” 202 additional ballots in precinct #13 that had not been counted.

Johnson received 200 of those votes. His opponent, Coke Stevenson, got two.

Stevenson’s razor-thin lead melted away and “Landslide Lyndon,” who believed that the 1941 Senate race had been stolen from him, was the winner in yet another deeply disputed election.

Later, it was reported that the ballots seemed to be written in the same ink. And the voters allegedly voted in alphabetical order.

Johnson never acknowledged that his allies stole the election. But former Texas Observer editor Ronnie Dugger told a story of visiting LBJ in the White House. The then-president whipped out a photo of five good ol’ boys from Alice with the infamous Box 13 sitting on the hood of their vehicle.

Dugger asked LBJ if he had stolen the election.

Laughter.

It’s not funny.  At least not anymore.

The Pope in the Waterloo Gallery

It is interesting what can stick in one’s mind during travel.  Pope Pius VII sticks in my memory from my visits to Windsor Castle.

That may seem odd given that the focus of Windsor Castle is the history and housing of the British Royal Family.  And the glorious Chapel of St. George certainly stands out as well.  So my focus on a pope may indeed be odd.  

Yet I remember him indeed thanks to a wonderful portrait in the Waterloo Gallery in the State Rooms of the castle.  As one may guess from the name, the Waterloo Gallery displays portraits of worthies who played a role in resisting and defeating Napoleon and in dealing with the aftermath.  Most of the subjects are in idealized stately and/or heroic poses.  But not Pius VII.

With Pius, the genius of the man who painted the portraits of the gallery, Sir Thomas Lawrence, is most evident. Pius VII is painted very honestly, in a remarkably informal sitting posture, and with few obvious trappings of the papacy.  He is elderly yet at the same time with a lot of life and personality.  His expression is almost mischievous as if saying, “Napoleon thought he had me beaten.”

An excellent video on the Waterloo Gallery with some focus on the portrait of Pius VII may be found here.

It is interesting that Pius VII is enshrined in this gallery; for he actually had a mixed record in opposing Napoleon.   His predecessor, Pius VI was dogged in opposing attacks on the church from the French Revolution and from Napoleon.  That did not work out well as he died a prisoner of Napoleon.  The papacy itself was in peril as well.

Pius VII understandably wanted a different result, so he was beyond reasonable in seeking accommodation with Napoleon. That included attending Napoleon’s coronation as Emperor in 1804, against the advice of some of his Cardinals, and enduring petty disrespectful treatment from the tyrant while in Paris for the occasion.  And it also included later agreements that reduced the papacy’s power.

But Napoleon was not nearly as flexible as the Pope.  When Pius was pushed to the point where he felt he had to say no – the appointment of bishops in the Papal States was a presenting issue, but who knows if Napoleon could have been appeased even if Pius VII gave in on that – then the furious Napoleon had him arrested on the night of June 9^th, 1812 with the intention of confronting him at Fontainebleau.

In poor health, Pius barely survived the trip.  But it turned out the health of Napoleon’s regime was even more precarious.  By the time the Pope made it to Fontainebleau, Napoleon was off to fight Russia where he would eventually lose most of his army.

But Pius VII did not know this, and when Napoleon returned, he was able to badger the isolated pope into an agreement that would have greatly weakened the papacy.  After deep regret, Pius later repudiated that.  And at that point there was little Napoleon could do about it.  He abdicated on April 14^th, 1814 (temporarily it turned out -- Waterloo was in June 1815). Pius VI triumphantly returned to Rome on May 24^th.

Thus for all Pius’ human frailty, miscalculations, and concessions, his imprisonment and twice saying no to Napoleon rightly turned Pope Pius VII into a symbol of resistance to Napoleon’s tyranny.

And Thomas Lawrence’s portrait captures well both the human frailty and the resilient strength of character of Pius VII. It captures the little old pope who outlasted Napoleon.

C. S. Lewis and Getting Ideas in Church

Ever get an idea while sitting in church (other than muzzling annoying children, perpetual conversationalists . . . or the preacher)?  C. S. Lewis did once. In July 1940, he wrote to his brother, Warnie:

Before the service was over – one cd. wish these things came more seasonably – I was struck by an idea for a book wh. I think might be both useful and entertaining.  It wd. be called As one Devil to Another and would consist of letters from an elderly retired devil to a young devil who has just started work on his first ‘patient’. The idea wd. be to give all the psychology of temptation from the other point of view.  

Many of you can already surmise that this was the beginning of The Screwtape Letters.  Lewis wrote that he had returned to church after a “many weeks” absence due to illness.  I am glad he felt up to going to church that day!

I note this now because I just had a similar experience this past Sunday.  (And I beg your forbearance as I depart a bit from the subject of history now.) I don’t recall it being prompted by anything in the service of Holy Communion itself.  Nor was it as momentous as Lewis’ idea to be sure. Perhaps it was just my mind wandering as it is prone to do when it should be fixed on the Lord? Nonetheless I got an idea how better to put my history studies to use.  And I already consider it so much better than what I previously had in mind that I am very thankful.  (More on the guidance perhaps in due time.  But don’t worry; I intend to keep blogging here.)

So, yes, I do think God sometimes rewards attending to him in worship by very personally giving us good ideas as to how better serve him out in the world. 

Or at least that’s my excuse for my mind wandering in church.

“Lazy” C. S. Lewis

I’m continuing to read/skim The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis.  And last night I came across something I had to reread.  In July 1940, he wrote to Dom Bede Griffiths, “In fact I have recently come to the conclusion that a besetting sin of mine all my life has been one which I never suspected – laziness….”

I certainly would have never suspected that either.  When I read his letters and look at all the work he did then and throughout his life, about the last thing I would call C. S. Lewis is “lazy.”  When I look at his academic work only, as an Oxford student then Fellow, I sometimes wonder how he found the stamina and doubt I could have handled his schedule even in my younger days.  But he wasn’t just an academic, of course.  People often forget his work included maintaining a household which included the often difficult Janie Moore, the mother of his fallen friend from World War I, Paddy Moore, from a young age.  Lazy?

My opinion is that what we see here is that Lewis could be hard on people, including himself.  Some of his private comments on people he met and dealt with were less than charitable. He seems a snob at times. But he was perhaps hardest on himself.  He took self-examination and confession very seriously.  Some of his introspection even comes across as obsessive on occasion.  Perhaps that trait is one reason he wrote The Screwtape Letters so well.

In any case, if C. S. Lewis was the least bit lazy, I hate to think what that makes me! 

Democrats, Political Prisoners, and Double Jeopardy

If there was ever a case that cried out for a pardon it was Dinesh D’Souza’s.  Imprisoned for a relatively trivial campaign contribution violation that normally receives a fine, it is obvious that his real crime was his 2012 anti-Obama movie, 2016: Obama's America.  In short, he was a political prisoner sent up by Clinton appointee Judge Richard Berman and one Democrat U. S. Attorney Preet Bharara.  

Yet instead of praising Trump’s pardon of D’Souza or at least having enough shame to be quiet, some Democrats are doubling down, vociferously opposing the pardon and even advocating putting D’Souza in double jeopardy and trying him again, even though he has already served his time!  Imprison political opponents!  Then imprison them again!

Among these is the New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood.  I will let you read some of the legal details of that here.  But it is alarming how Democrats, even prosecutors who should know better, are openly eager to abuse their political power and to tear up basic Constitutional protections such as the prohibition of double jeopardy in order to attack and even imprison political opponents. 

Do you like having political prisoners?  Vote Democrat.

---

NOTE: Yes, I am aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that one may be tried for the same crime in both state and federal courts.  It is a very questionable ruling that decent prosecutors should not use except in extreme cases, such as when one court is clearly a kangaroo court rigged to free the perp. (Courts in some Southern states before the 1960s come to mind.)  And I doubt it is right to do so even then as it goes so much against the intent of the Fifth Amendment.

This is one of many instances in which prosecutors have been given too much power in this country.  I fear for our freedoms if too many Democrats like Barbara Underwood get ahold of that power.

Young C. S. Lewis Near the Beginning of WWI

I have begun to read/skim The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, edited by Walter Hooper (And be sure to get his edition.  Other collections may short-change you.).  And I am glad I have.  I am still in Lewis’ teen years.  But he was a pleasure to read even back then.

I also appreciate getting slices of life from the early 20^th Century, particularly during World War One.

Among the passages of his youthful letters that stand out is one from a letter to his closest friend Arthur Greeves.  He steps outside himself and observes himself remarkably well at age 15.  After some negative boarding school experiences, he is happy under the tutelage of W. T. Kirkpatrick even as The Great War begins:

So great is the selfishness of human nature, that I can look out from my snug nest with the same equanimity on the horrid desolation of the war, and the well known sorrows of my old school.  I feel that this ought not to be so: but I can no more alter my disposition that I can change the height of my stature or the colour of my hair.  It would be mere affectation to pretend that sympathy with those whose lot is not so happy as mine, seriously disturbs the tenour of my complacence.  Whether this is egotism of youth, some blemish in my personal character, or the common inheritance of humanity, I do not know.  What is your opinion?

So he asks Greeves in November 1914. 

How would you answer young C. S. Lewis?

R. W. Southern and Two Little Known Tidbits about Robert Grosseteste

I’ve been reading R. W. Southern’s Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English Mind in Medieval Europe.  And I have to ask, is there anything Southern wrote that is not excellent?  The vast scholarship of this late great historian combined with his ability to write very readable books from his storehouse of scholarship amazes me.

Having said that, two tidbits about Robert Grosseteste in this book stand out to me, one for its amusement, the second for its encouragement.

The first is a Royal Mandate of June 23^rd, 1234 that directed Grosseteste and two other Oxford worthies “to supervise the arrest of all prostitutes in Oxford who had disobeyed a royal order to leave the town.” As Southern put it, the king regarded the three men “as peculiarly qualified for this hopeless task.” (p. 71, 1986 edition)

The second is that Grosseteste’s career was obscure and is not very well documented until he reached about age 55 when he suddenly rose to prominence.  Southern thinks this might have occurred because he was among those who assisted the 15 year old Henry III in getting a papal declaration that he was old enough to rule on his own in 1223.  Henry immediately rewarded those who assisted him. (p. 80, 81)

In any case, being around 55 and still somewhat obscure, I find this aspect of Robert Grosseteste’s career encouraging, although I will never be as brilliant as the man . . . or as R. W. Southern.