The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Legal Election Fraud

A lot of times when we talk about election-related fraud, we are talking about dead people voting, dogs voting, people voting early and often and similar kinds of outright criminal conduct.  And all of those are rightfully considered to be serious issues, but there is another kind of election fraud we have to worry about.  This story has been making the rounds, but I wanted to talk about it in my return from bogging haitus:

White guy wins after leading voters to believe he’s black

HOUSTON -- Dave Wilson chuckles as he talks about his unorthodox political campaign.

"I'd always said it was a long shot," Wilson says. "No, I didn't expect to win."

Still, he figured he'd have fun running, because he was fed up with what he called "all the shenanigans" at the Houston Community College System. As a conservative white Republican running in a district whose voters are overwhelmingly black Democrats, the odds seemed overwhelmingly against him.

Then he came up with an idea, an advertising strategy that his opponent found "disgusting." If a white guy didn't have a chance in a mostly African-American district, Wilson would lead voters to think he's black.

And it apparently worked. In one of the biggest political upsets in Houston politics this election season, Wilson -- an anti-gay activist and former fringe candidate for mayor -- emerged as the surprise winner over 24-year incumbent Bruce Austin. His razor thin margin of victory, only 26 votes, was almost certainly influenced by his racially tinged campaign.

(Read the whole thing.)  I am a little skeptical at the margins.  In all the repetitions of this story, has anyone actually checked with the voters or do we take it as a given that the voters were a little racist?  I suppose with a margin of victory of only twenty six votes, it might seem like a safe assumption that at least twenty seven people were motivated by race, but I just don’t like assuming things about people that way.

But regardless of what objective reality is, certainly Wilson subjectively believed he was pulling a fast one on the people.  It is utterly despicable.

And utterly legal.

First, why is it despicable?  Because it is fraud, duh.  Or at least attempted fraud.  If a person tells a material lie when trying to sell a product, that is a criminal act and will land that person in jail.

So, was it material?  Well, certainly Wilson thought so.  Now, we might rightfully think it is disgusting in any case to vote for a person based on what race you think that person belongs to.  But in our system, we don’t make any attempt to regulate why a person votes for this person or that.  They can vote for a person because they think s/he is the most qualified for the job, has the best proposals… or because s/he is attractive, because s/he is charming, or even because they are the right race to you.  However sublime or stupid one’s reason is for voting for a person, it is up to you.  We can encourage, by gentle persuasion, people to vote for people for good reasons and I think the vast majority of Americans do vote for substantive reasons—even if I don’t always agree with those substantive reasons.  But we do not attempt to regulate why a person votes.

And I think it isn’t because we necessarily want people to vote based on appearance (whether it is attractiveness or racism), or any other stupid reason to vote for or against a candidate, but rather the alternative—requiring people to justify their vote and requiring other government officials to approve or disapprove of their reasoning—is just too noxious to contemplate.  We do not have a Mullaharchy like they do in Iran and for good reason.

So he plainly attempted to defraud those people in that election and the only question is whether he actually did convince at least twenty seven people to vote for him who wouldn’t have if they knew the truth.

And certainly Wilson, if he had any sense of honor, would immediately resign.  But of course the same article contains this self-justification: "Every time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters.”

This is no justification for him behaving equally deceitfully.  The answer to deceit in the election is to call it out and hold it against your opponent.

And what makes it despicable is that the entire idea behind democracy (including our system of representative democracy) is that the people are supposed to decide these things.  In this case it was who will get a position in a local community college and it was the people who were supposed to make that decision.  When you win a vote by lying or deceit, you disrespect their right to make that decision.  You disrespect our representative democracy.

I mean only a true scumbag would win election to office on false pretenses, right?  Right?

Oh, you thought I was just talking about Wilson?  No, I am talking about Barack Obama, too.

Obama over and over promised that under Obamacare if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, all the while conspiring to cause millions of American’s to see their insurance canceled.  Let’s be clear.  The insurance companies want to keep selling people their old plans for the most part.  And people want the option of being able to keep it.  Maybe the Obamacare-approved plans will be a better value, but they would like to see the options before they change.  But because some bureaucrat decided that the plans are “not good enough” insurance companies are being forced to cancel it.

Now, you might say, “a promise is not necessarily fraudulent if it doesn’t come true, if you sincerely intend to keep it.”  And that is true, but does anyone think that as of November 2012, Obama didn’t know his promise was about to be broken?  He knew: he just didn't want to tell us.

And the insult to ordinary Americans is in fact two fold.  First, Obama doesn’t trust you to tell the truth about what his law will do.  Second, he evidently doesn’t trust you to figure out what you yourself want in an insurance policy.  And it is this double insult that is making this situation so poisonous to Obama.

And unlike Wilson deceiving people about his skin color, this was factor we think is rightfully important.  It is normal, albeit wrong, to say to those Wilson might have fooled “if you vote according to race, you get what you deserve.”  But if people “deserved” to be fooled by Obama it is only by the Flounder principle: you screwed up, you trusted him.  That is certainly what Wilson thought and I suspect Obama feels the same way.  These days too many people, particularly on the left, believe they know what is best for the people better than they do, and they will use any dirty trick they can to get their agenda through.

But if you throw up your hands and cynically say, “we cannot trust politicians and we should not expect them to be trustworthy” then that’s the end of democracy, period, just as much as if ballot boxes are stuffed with false votes.  What’s the point of letting us choose our leaders if we aren’t able to make an informed one, knowing what they are really about, and what they really stand for?  People may have screwed up by trusting Obama, but it should not have been a mistake to have done so.


My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.


  1. I agree that it is dishonest despicable and it casts him and what his voters can expect from him in a bad light. The only purpose it serves is to point how how readily people will vote by skin color and perceived association with a name they know rather than being informed on the actual candidate's positions on things. It is illustrative of a fact of human behavior and has little redeeming value beyond that.

  2. Where does the aphorism "The people deserve the candidate they elected." come into this argument? Or more succinctly, Caveat Emptor.

  3. Having read the details of his advertising campaign, no fraud was committed. Period. Conscious decisions were made to shape advertising. For example: mailers covered with African American persons claimed "he's one of us." They're American, he's American. Perfectly fair, and at no point did he actually claim "I'm Black". For another example, he wrote that he was endorsed by his cousin. The disclaimer explicitly stated that the person in question was his cousin. Now, his cousin happened to share the name of a prominent African American politician, but at no point did he claim his cousin was that politician. Again, who-he-was-endorsed-by makes no false claim about his race. There is no fraud here, as at no point did he say "If you like having an African American representative, you can keep having an African American representative. Period." I have no sympathy for people who are fooled... not by the actual content of what they read... but by their own personal racist ignorance of what they read. People who flunk astronomy because they think "black hole" is an insult DESERVE what they get, and claiming the professor committed fraud is absurd.

  4. Something else to ponder... it used to be that blacks would "pass" as whites to circumvent the roadblocks instituted by a racist electorate and political institutions. Were they also "disgusting" "fraudsters", or were they pioneering heroes of civic rights?