who put original art in the mail and once the post office realized who was mailing it they stole it? Nope. It happened to other cartoonists. I'm not going to name names but there's a well-known cartoonist who couldn't mail his work because the post office stole it every time.

Now I once had, years before there were GoFundMes, I wrote a story about somebody who was having trouble on a newsletter I used to do years and years ago. And I think I asked people to, I don't know, send if they wanted to donate to this person who was in a bad situation they could send money to this post office box. Now what I didn't realize is that people wouldn't send it necessarily checks. So something like 80% of the people who sent some money to that post office box put cash in it. Now of course they tried to disguise it. You know you put paper around the cash or whatever. But as soon as the post office realized that any cash, there must have been at least one that you could sort of tell there was a dollar in there or something, as soon as the postal employees realized that the mail going to this one post office box had cash in it, how much of the cash got through after the day that they realized it was cash? None. None. They stole every bit of it. You know there were like empty envelopes that would show up and it just like stopped one day. The moment they realized it was cash they stole it all.

So the Democrats are trying to sell you the most ridiculous notion that the post office could take a 30% hit to their traffic and given the current amount of efficiency that we would have something like a credible election that way. There is not really any chance of having a credible election with massive mail-in votes. It's just not a thing. And it doesn't matter who wins and it doesn't even matter what happens. It is not credible as a system. In other words there's nothing you can do between now and then. There's just nothing you can do. There's not enough time.

Now let me test out a, I need you to fact check this for me. I saw a claim that you can tell by the barcode and some codes on it on the outside of your ballot if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Can somebody confirm that that's true or not true? And the claim is that under the barcode there's this what looks like a long series of random numbers and letters but one of the letters is either a D or an R indicating whether you're registered Democrat or Republican. I don't know if that's true. Can somebody fact check that for me? Because again remember the rule: if something's a little bit too on the nose it's probably not true. So if you hear that the mail-in ballots have some kind of indicator on it, subtle one but if you knew what it was you could look for it, that the indicator will tell you if you're Democrat or Republican, that is too on the nose. Meaning if that's true, well that would be amazing. So usually things that if they're true that would be amazing are usually not true. So somebody needs to confirm that this is true to me before I will believe it.

But there's a report out there that you can tell just by looking at the envelope. If that's true there's really no chance of a fair election. No chance.

And this is the funniest part. If you want to know how dumb the post office is, and again I can say this because my father worked for the post office and he was one of the dumbest guys I've ever known. True story. I hate to say that. He's no longer with us so I can say that. But the postal union decided to endorse Biden. That's right. While we're having this big national debate about whether the post office can be a major element of a fair election, the postal union just endorsed one of the people running. Now that should have been the end of it. The moment the postal union endorsed one of the candidates, that was the point when the Democrats should have said, "Oh okay, that really just changes everything. I see we can't use the system anymore because now it's not only biased but it's announced a bias." They announced a bias. That's really the end of it.

If we were any kind of a competent country we would just say, "Oh well there's still a debate about whether it could be done fairly but there's no longer a debate about whether it can be seen as credible." And if you think those are the same debate, they're not. So let me say that again because it's the most important thing. There's a debate about whether it can be accurate and that's separate from whether the public can ever see it as credible. And once the postal union has picked a side, that's it. That's the end of any real chance it could be seen as credible. It can't be because the people delivering the damn mail just told you who they want to win. I don't think it could be any clearer than that. That you can't overcome that hurdle. That is a mountain that no amount of hard work can overcome. You can do anything you want. You could put a trillion dollars into making sure that the actual mail delivery was accurate. It would make no difference at this point because the postal union picked a preferred candidate. It's over. This question is absolutely over.

But the fake news will try to conflate those two things and act like the credibility and the actual performance are really the same thing. And then there's another bit of magic where they have to act as though the post office does a good job. Now as somebody who is bad at analogies said on Twitter, "Oh sure," because by the way you can tell that this is a Democrat talking because they only use sarcasm instead of reasons. So don't look for the reason. It's just sarcasm. "Oh sure we don't trust the post office to deliver the ballots but we do trust it for our Social Security checks." Well I think they do those electronically. "But we do trust it for all of our important other stuff. Oh no, the only important thing we don't trust it for is the election. Yeah all these other important things we trusted it for just not this one thing, right?" So that's a Democrat argument. It doesn't say anything. It just says it in that tone. So there's no actual thinking or rational anything. It's just that tone.

Now here's what's wrong with it. Of course if somebody sends you a check and you don't get it because it got lost in the mail or it comes a few days late that doesn't change too much does it? There isn't too much that's going to go wrong if your check is a couple days late or even if it gets lost. You can always call the person who sent it, as I have. Let me tell you how many times that I've not gotten a check that was mailed to me. 25 times maybe in the course of my professional life. Something like 25 times I've had to put a stop on a check or ask somebody to put a stop on a check because the mail didn't deliver it. Probably 25 times.

And so the next thing that the news will try to convince you is that they're actually good when you have a time constraint. So the reason these analogies are not appropriate is because these are low risk things that don't have a timing element to them. Whereas the election is the highest of all risk. It's literally the highest risk in the country. If you get that wrong everything else falls apart. It doesn't matter what you're doing right with your economy or anything else. If the election doesn't hold as credible everything else falls apart. It's all dependent on that. That's the way the system is designed. So we're going to have a non-credible result and the news will try to convince us that it was credible. It's the most incredible, the most amazing act of brainwashing you'll ever see.

You notice that there are riots and massive shootings and gun deaths and stuff in Chicago and Portland and Seattle. I don't know if New York is still doing it. And they're getting pre