It makes sense now.
This comes up every couple of years. It usually founders when people remember how ghastly young people are – why “we” have raised age limits for drinking, buying tobacco and renting cars.
But determining the future of a democracy most of them don’t understand and many have been indoctrinated to hate?
Why, it’s almost like there’s a malicious plan…
This past weekend on the NARN I talked about Carson v. Simon – a case that’s been filed with the Supreme Court of Minnesota over the Secretary of State’s plan to allow up to a week work of counting of ballots, including mail-in ballots with no postmarks – which as we saw earlier this week, could scarcely be better-designed to facilitate fraud.
The case, by the way, went a little like this:
- A far-left advocacy group brought a suit…
- …against a far-left Secretary of State…
- …who, mirabile dictu, reached a settlement and signed a “consent decree”, that was…
- …approved by a far-left judge, mandating enforcement of the decree…
- …by the far-left secretary of state.
- All parties passed this at least tacitly as an “adversarial” process, although some previous, lamentably deceased DFL-leaning Strib columnists would have referred to it as a “circle jerk”.
Now, word comes that this same pattern – leftist activists getting sweetheart consent decrees from friendly judges and election authorities – intended to warp the election systems toward unrestricted, unverifiable mail balloting.
We’ll be talking about this on the NARN on Saturday.
I joke, fairly often, that satire is more like the news than the news is, these days – and that’s not necessarily a good thing.
But sometimes, actual journalism is the best journalism there is.
And it’s in Minneapolis.
This is what Republicans face in the Metro.
If this were a Republican plot to stuff ballot boxes, the Justice Department would have both Cities wrapped up in a consent decree faster than you can say “l’etat c’es mon mére“
Any bets on whether the Strib can be shamed out of its smug indolence?
I know, I know – there is no voter fraud.
All those phony registrations that election integrity groups uncovered between 2009 today? Just random demographic fuzz.
Nine people registred in a single small-town laundromat? What are you – paranoid?
Secretary of State Simon defying three court orders to turn over dox related to irregularities? Nah, nothing to see here.
It’s downright unpatriotic to question the election system.
A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.
Mail-in ballots have become the latest flashpoint in the 2020 elections. While President Trump and the GOP warn of widespread manipulation of the absentee vote that will swell with COVID polling restrictions, many Democrats and their media allies have dismissed such concerns as unfounded.
But the political insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears prosecution, said fraud is more the rule than the exception. His dirty work has taken him through the weeds of municipal and federal elections in Paterson, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, Hoboken and Hudson County and his fingerprints can be found in local legislative, mayoral and congressional races across the Garden State. Some of the biggest names and highest office holders in New Jersey have benefited from his tricks, according to campaign records The Post reviewed.
I know – anonymous source, NYPost, yadda yadda.
But at some point, even the undecided have to decide there’s “smoke”, here…
It’s been percolating about “prog” social media lately – the notion that Trump, should he lose the election, wouldn’t relinquish office.
Never mind how, or whether it’s remotely plausible. All that is necessary for the left-wing noise machine is to get the chatters chattering.
But as to “why would they be spreading such palpable poppycock?”
If you’re a regular reader, you know Berg’s Seventh Law.
And if you know Berg’s Seventh Law, you already have your answer.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emailed…er, mid-last week:
Governor Walz is set to announce a state-wide mask order. It’s
necessary, to prevent the spread of Covid-19 virus. He hasn’t said so
yet, but he’ll be cancelling the elections soon.
Why? Isn’t it obvious? If the Covid-19 virus is so deadly that we must
wear masks at all times, even standing in line outside a store with the
breeze blowing, then surely it’s so deadly that we cannot stand in line
outside a polling place with the breeze blowing.
Unless . . . maybe voting is like rioting? Maybe the virus doesn’t
spread during voting the way it spreads during singing, for example in
church, and more like the way it doesn’t spread during shouting, for
example at protests.
Anyway, it’s too late now to switch to on-line voting or mail-in
ballots. And despite the endless tinkering with the dials to perpetuate
the terror, the DNC’s internal polling numbers show Trump doing
surprisingly well in Minnesota. Voters simply aren’t blaming Trump for
No, there’s just too much risk. We can’t take the chance of something
going disastrously wrong.
The elections are canceled.
Who needs elections when we have hundreds of thousands of fraudulent registrations to do our voting for us?
From the American Heritage dictionatry, the word “Distillation”
- n.The evaporation and subsequent collection of a liquid by condensation as a means of purification.
- n.The extraction of the volatile components of a mixture by the condensation and collection of the vapors that are produced as the mixture is heated.
- n.A distillate.
So then you will ignore the Canadians:
For months, young people on university campuses across Canada have gathered to call and text American voters in the hopes of convincing them to support Sanders as the 2020 Democratic nominee.
“I see this as really a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, not just in American politics, but for left-wing politics around the world,” said Vancouver student Quentin Rowe-Codner.
The 22-year-old Sanders supporter did some research and discovered foreigners are allowed to volunteer for any campaign.
“I decided to start making calls and texts and I found that to be good and rewarding,” said Rowe-Codner. “But I started a little bit isolated just doing it on my own.”
If the left didn’t have selective indignation, they’d have no…
…well, no. They’d just have undiscriminating blanket indignation.
Hey, Mitch – why are Democrats and Big Left pushing to scrap the Electoral College and make the Senate a popularly-elected body?
Oh, why do you think?
SCENE: Mitch BERG is out mowing his leaves – using the lawn mower to chop and bag them. Taking a (what else?) left to right pass across his lawn, he is unaware of Avery LIBRELLE riding up the sidewalk behind him on reclining bike.
BERG: Er…hey, Avery.
LIBRELLE: You say that there’s rampant voting fraud!
BERG: I do indeed.
LIBRELLE: You mostly point to voting registration fraud! That doesn’t mean they actually vote.
BERG: So people manufacture thousands of bogus registrations just for the fun of it?
LIBRELLE: You can’t prove that’s not why they do it!
BERG: Huh. OK. Well, then, it appears some of them go on to manufacture the actual votes.
LIBRELLE: But if you suppress illegal ballots, you will inevitably suppress legal ones.
BERG: That makes no sense.
LIBRELLE: “Sense” is a social construct!
(Before BERG can reply, LIBRELLE motors on).
A friend of the blog sent me this; it’s a map showing the most-common birth country for immigrants, by state, excluding Mexico.
And with most states, you see either what would appear to be the effects of random distribution according to economic forces (the fairly even spreading of Indians, driven heavily by immigration of engineers, academics and other technicians), proximity (Philipinos in the West, Canadians in the North, Cubans in Florida), one that stumps me (Germans in New Mexico?)…
…and Somalis in Minnesota.
Why, it’s almost as if a political movement decided to import an entire class of voters and concentrate them in a swing-y state, and indoctrinate them into a multi-generational voting bloc or something.
A friend of the blog writes:
I worked briefly in a nursing home. Election judges would come around with absentee ballots and nursing home residents had the opportunity to vote. That was good, I thought. Then, I saw children “helping” their parents vote. Parents that couldn’t tell you where they are, what they had for breakfast, etc. They had no idea they were voting. Even if those children tried to vote the way they thought their parents would want, they were only guessing. Is that right?
So, I thought of that experience when I read this tweet.
There are so many responses that imply the Texas Senator does not want people to vote. To me, it sounds like he doesn’t want activists driving people to vote and influencing their vote. It sounds like you can still ask your friend, neighbor, son, brother to drive you. And if you are cognizant enough to ask someone to get you to the polls, then you probably are not going to allow someone else to make the choice for you. Seems fair enough, given the gravity of the right to vote.
Jamming uninformed, or push-informed, people to the polls is a feature, not a bug, for at least one major political party.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Bernie Sanders wants to let felons vote while in prison.
The point of voting is to choose wise leaders to make sensible laws. The point of restrictions on voting is to ensure the people doing the choosing are, themselves, wise people. Children, the mentally infirm, and felons are, by definition, not wise people. Felons have already demonstrated they’re not willing to follow sensible laws so they no longer get to participate in choosing who makes the laws. This isn’t a new concept – it’s been the law for thousands of years for the simple reason that it works.
Watering down wise peoples’ votes by extending the franchise to unwise people, can only result in decisions that are less wise. And that’s how we get Democrats in office: dumb voters making bad decisions. This can’t end well.
It’s not intended to.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
When Richard Nixon’s re-election team wanted to know what the opposition was up to, and needed some dirt, they broke into a psychiatrist office in the Watergate apartment complex. The subsequent investigation brought down the president and tainted the Republican party for decades
When Hillary Clinton’s election campaign wanted to know what Trump was up to and needed some dirt, they laundered some money through their Law Firm to pay for a phony dossier, which they shopped to friendly agents in the FBI who used it to get a warrant to wiretap the candidate. The wiretap transcripts were given to the White House, where Susan Rice unmasked the participants in campaign discussions. Everyone who believes that she scrupulously kept that information away from Hillary’s campaign, raise your hands.
Everyone involved knew they were using the national security cover story as a fig leaf to hide their attempt tp play dirty pool in the election. When they got caught, they had no choice but to continue running with it, and got some cover from Never Trumpers to get a special investigator appointed. But it was always a lie, from the very beginning, And everybody knew it except the voting public.
They shouldn’t get away with it.
Modern “progressive” politics is always about telling the low-information emotion-driven voter whatever it takes to give you power.
House Democrats can’t bring themselves to oppose illegal immigrant voting, even in the most meaningless way possible:
Nearly every House Democrat on Friday opposed a measure condemning voting in U.S. elections by illegal immigrants, as part of a sweeping election reform bill.Oh nooo, Fox News
The GOP-backed measure would have added language to the “H.R. 1” election proposal stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for federal office. But the GOP motion referenced how San Francisco is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections.
Bear in mind – it’s the same language that passed without controversy six months ago.
The entire Democrat conference seems to think the entire nation suffers from Pauline Kael syndrome.
A friend of the blog writes:
I don’t necessarily think it should be easier to vote. I think people should respect their right and make informed decisions. But, I do think it would be beneficial if more people did take their right seriously and voted.
With that, I laugh every time someone declares that voting day as a holiday will make it easier for people to vote. Easier for whom? Most poor people working for minimum wage in service industries will still be working. Healthcare workers will still be working. The list could go on.
Let’s look at the announcement by the city of Sandusky, Ohio, who will be making voting day a holiday. They’re swapping out Columbus Day. (I don’t think that I have ever had Columbus Day off let alone holiday pay for working it, so is this going to be helpful for people?) Some decision makers were concerned that they were losing a 3 day holiday, but we’re swayed because this would be for the greater good. Of note, per this article, this would only affect 250 residents out of 26,000. The city manager admits it is “a small gesture, but an important one.”
Not sure if it is even a gesture of any import. How many of these 250 were already voting?
It might be a cheap shot to say “Progressives benefit by driving lots of ill-informed people to the polls”.
It really might.
I’m not sure “cheap shot” and “accurate” are mutually exclusive.
Arthur Chrenkoff on election reform, Australian style.
Tired of non-citizens enrolling (and voting Democrat (allegedly))? Or counties where more people end up enrolled (and voting) than are actually eligible to vote? Easy – to enrol to vote in Australia you need to present a driver’s licence or a passport or have someone who is already enrolled confirm your identity. This last option potentially opens the door to mischief, since you could make a chain of fraudulent enrolments based on the first, genuine link, but even with that proviso, the Australian system seems to me a lot tighter than the American seemingly free-for-all.
It could hardly be worse.
Before an election, every person on the electoral roll is mailed a little card by the electoral commission with the voter’s details and a unique barcode. To be able to receive a ballot at the polling station you need to either present the card to be scanned or if you have forgotten to bring it with you you need to show a valid ID for your name to be marked on the voters’ list. Failing either, you can query your absence on the electoral roll and lodge a provisional vote, whose validity will be carefully assessed as part of the overall count, but it is a relatively rare occurrence. To an Australian, an argument that requiring an ID to vote is tantamount to “voter suppression” seems pretty ridiculous. Virtually everyone has got some sort of an ID; the tiny remainder can be accommodated separately.
It seems to make sense.
The DFL will fight it to the death.
Florida candidate tweets out an explicit solicitation to election fraud:
Tweet was removed. Of course.
When Dems talk about “vote suppression?” They’re projecting. Every f*****g time.
A friend of the blog writes:
This story, which will likely be explained away as a harmless anomaly, hints at what is likely a much larger issue.
A dozen invalid ballots? I would like to know if the full dozen were all witnessed by the same ineligible person or if its a dozen ineligible persons. I would also like to know the reason for their ineligibility (i.e. out of state resident, suspended civil rights, or simply failure to register to vote). Given that CD1,CD2 & CD8 are all in play for possible Republican takeover and CD5 has media darling Omar who, like Ocasio-Cortez, must be supported at any cost to keep the millennial voters interested enough to vote, it is not unlikely that the ineligible witness is an out of state operative associated with the DNC or one of the Soros based groups. I would also like to know what subgroups those ineligible ballots came from (black, Asian, Hispanic, etc). If Omar loses out to Keliher then she’s out of office/politics for at least a couple years
Greater Minnesota seems to be getting redder, so the DFL needs its bulwark in the metro to be as strong as possible.
No matter how many shenanigans they need to pull.
You will practice your so-called “freedom” the way your betters decree you shall, peasant:
“Sure – indulge in your so-called freedom of speech. The authorities will have you on record”.
Hennepin County doesn’t recognize the authority of the First Amendment, much less the ‘Supreme Court”.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The State of Minnesota will be printing election ballots soon. The more candidates, the more voter confusion, the greater the risk the wrong person will be elected by mistake. The State has a legitimate interest in keeping elections fair and transparent. One method would be to limit the number of candidates. We already do that tto some extent, by requiring a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot, but there still are too many candidates who qualify. It’s reasonable to restrict the number of candidates for voter convenience. But not in a random or discriminatory manner; instead, the restriction should apply to candidates that have the fewest number of likely voters and therefore the least likelihood of being elected. Eliminating them from the ballot won’t affect the outcome of the election – they weren’t going to get elected anyway.
As it happens, those sure-loser candidates mostly are Republicans, who haven’t won elective office in the Twin Cities for decades. Republican candidates serve mainly to confuse and mislead voters which threatens the integrity of the elections. Henceforth, Republican candidates are banned in Minnesota.
It’s a restriction that is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and therefore passes the “rational basis” standard of review for infringements on liberties protected by the Constitution. It’s every bit as Constitutional as this law:
And if the DFL manages to pass it, the Supreme Court of Minnesota won’t dream of challenging it.
Joe Doakes from Como Parks emails:
Liberal: There is absolutely no voter fraud; therefore, we do not need an investigation or voter ID law and you’re a hateful racissss for saying so.
Liberal: There is voter fraud; but we do not need an investigation or voter ID law and you’re a hateful racisss for saying so.
As always, Monty Python anticipates real life, in the “Expedition to Lake Pahoe” sketch:
“ . . . there is no – I repeat, no – cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none. And when I say none, I mean that there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they’re to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up.”
I think it’s hilarious that George Orwell’s 1984 has re-entered the best-seller list – since it was written about the Western far-left. And it still may as well be; the ease and fluency with which the left’s chanting points bots went from “Our electoral system is perfect, and you’re a racist misogynist transphobe traitor to suggest otherwise” to “our electoral system is a shambles” after November 8 would have beggared Orwell’s imagination.