The Boston Tea Party was based on “no taxation without representation.” The Declaration of Independence affirms that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. The Constitution lays out the formula to determine consent, through voting. The consistent underlying principle is that the people who will be affected by the rules imposed by the government ought to have a say in who makes up that government. And illegal aliens hiding in the city are affected by the rules adopted by the City Council as much as anybody else, so they ought to have a say in who sits on the City Council as much as anybody else.
And why should it end there? Citizens of foreign nations are affected by laws made in the United States Congress: foreign aid payments to their nations; wars waged in their countries; immigration encouraged or not. Why doesn’t every citizen of every nation get to vote for our Congress?
Why should they have to vote at all? That’s a heavy burden for someone who doesn’t read or speak the language, can’t complete the Request for Absentee ballot, can’t afford postage to send it back on time. Why not let US-based voter advocates cast ballots for them? They could bring ballots by the suitcase full, helpfully completed on behalf of all the citizens of the world.
And why bother with paper ballots for all those people? Think of the expense and wasted time, running them through the machines again and again until the right guy wins. Why not simply program the machine to give the desired result and be done with it?
It’s a slippery slope the court has chosen, this notion that only certain people should be allowed to vote. Probably a bunch of MAGA Trumpers on the court. Or worse, Open Borders Libertarians.
The headline is ominous. Without drastic changes….and that’s great for Conservatives, right? Well, it would be, if voting mattered. Does it? Do you really believe there won’t be a 4:00 A.M.pause in counting ballots, followed by a remarkable leap in Democrat votes? How will we counter that – vote harder? It doesn’t matter how unpopular Castro was, he always won the election because he controlled the counters. Likewise, all the indicia of election fraud we weren’t allowed to talk about for the past year are still out there, still indicating systemic election fraud, still a problem for the next election. Joe Doakes
Question: if we, the People , decide that the elections truly are rigged, what do we do?
On Tuesday, Axios reported that an aide to the speaker and a White House official tested positive for COVID-19 after attending a rooftop reception to honor the fugitive lawmakers. Both individuals were fully vaccinated, although a White House official downplayed the staffer’s illness.
“Yesterday, a fully-vaccinated senior spokesperson in the Speaker’s press office tested positive for COVID after contact with members of the Texas state legislature last week,” said Drew Hammier, deputy chief of staff to Pelosi.
The group of 50 Texas Democrats flouted federal regulations implemented by President Biden that require passengers on privately charted planes to wear masks for the duration of a flight. As of publication, no legal action has been taken against them, even though the Centers for Disease Control issued explicit warnings about not wearing masks. The Federal Aviation Administration did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon.
Since their arrival in Washington, D.C., six of the Texas Democrats have tested positive for COVID-19. The whereabouts of the Texas Democrats are unknown, and the public does not know how many people they infected during their trip to the nation’s capital. Texas state representative Gene Wu, a prominent member of the group who has shared news articles on Twitter about coronavirus strains entering the country while on the lam, did not respond to a request for comment.
Of course, their mission – gundeck the election reforms via foul means in a way they could never do via fair – remains accomplished.
While employed as an assistant principal at Bellview Elementary School in the same county, [Queen candidate’s mother Laura Rose] Carroll accessed the school district’s internal system to cast fraudulent votes for her daughter [Emily Rose Grover] so that she would win, officials said. The investigation began in November when the Escambia County School District reported unauthorized access into hundreds of student accounts, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Investigators found that in October, hundreds of votes for the school’s homecoming court were flagged as fraudulent, the news release said. There were 117 votes from the same IP address within a short period of time, the investigation found.
Ms. Grover and her mother face up to…
…are you ready for this…
…16 years in prison for rigging a high school homecoming royalty vote.
The FBI agent that presented false information to a FISA court, leading to a fraudulent FBI investigation that contributed materially to the rage that led to much of the electoral BS of this past eight months? He got probation.
And five’ll get you ten that school requires voter ID next year.
Democratic senators said Minnesota’s testing provider, Pearson Education, would not be able to develop a remote testing option in the next few weeks. It would be impossible to control the at-home environment like a classroom to monitor for cheating, they said.
“You can’t have anything on the board that would give a student an unfair advantage. How can we ensure that is going to happen at home?” said state Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton.
Gotta hand it to the DFL. They know the value of keeping institutions, the ones vital to democracy, un-sullied by essentially sending them home on the honor system.
I feel so stupid. I completely fell for the tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory that the election was stolen. But as this article makes clear, the election actually was SAVED.
All those unsubstantiated Republican claims that an informal alliance of left-wing activists and business titans got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding; fended off voter-suppression lawsuits; recruited armies of poll workers; successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line; helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks; and after Election Day, monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not challenge the result including pressuring state legislators to certify dubious election results – they’re all true. They did all those things and more. But that’s a Good Thing. Because they saved the election from Trump winning.
I wish I’d understood this last Fall. I wasted so much time fretting over laws of statistics and suitcases of ballot and cardboarded-over windows but none of it mattered. Things went exactly as planned.
So I’m embarrassed at my credulity but one good thing came of it – I won’t have stand in line to cast my vote ever again, not when the big-shots have decided what the outcome should be and taken steps to ensure it. So that’s nice.
Last week on his podcast, Ben Shapiro noted something I’d picked up when late, long-banned, forever-exiled commenter Dog Gone was trying to act as this blog’s “fact checker” – the difference between “true” and “false” usually boils down to whether a conservative or a progressive said it, regardless of the veracity of the fact itself.
No, not Trump. Myanmar (formerly Burma) where military officers have seized control, declared a one-year state of emergency, plan to hold fresh elections under supervision, and pledge to turn over control to the winner.
Apparently, their senior military leadership believes supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some fraudulent electoral ceremony. When they see the electoral process so blatantly corrupted that it robs the people of their right to self-determination, the military takes their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution seriously enough to intervene and force a do-over to vindicate the people’s Constitutional right.
I confess, I am often tempted by those click-bait ads. This site advertises the 10 Greatest Sports Cheaters.The authors act as if it’s a big deal, as if the cheaters were some kind of villains and the people who called out the cheaters were some kind of heroes.
Who cares? You lost. Whether you lost fair and square or the other guy cheated to rob you of victory, what difference does it make? Move on. Try harder next time.
Besides, you have no proof, and even if you did, we don’t want to hear about it. Questioning the result only undermines public confidence in the sport. In fact, your continued harping about it is so tiresome, we’re shutting down your social media account and if you don’t zip it, we’ll get you fired from your job.
Nobody likes a sore loser. That’s not who we are.
To suggest otherwise is seditious. Maybe even Treason.
A few people have asked me why those wacko idiot Trump supporters don’t believe Biden won the election fair and square. I can’t speak for other wacko idiot Trump supporters, only for myself:
An election is announced. Voters cast ballots in person and by mail. Election observers gather to watch the ballots being counted, to ensure it’s done fairly. Election officials order observers out of the counting room. Election officials put cardboard over the windows so observers can’t see in. Election officials secretly count the ballots by machine and announce a result. The losing candidate doubts the result. The losing candidate requests a manual recount with ballots individually verified. Instead, election officials run the same ballots through the same machines again. The losing candidate requests access to the software to verify the result. Election officials order the software logs wiped. The losing candidate requests access to the paper ballots to verify the result. Election officials order the paper ballots shredded. Citizens post videos and swear affidavits that election fraud occurred. Statisticians and computer techs give expert opinions that election fraud occurred. The court declines to review any evidence from the losing candidate for lack of ‘standing’ meaning he can’t bring his case until the Secretary of State certifies the election results. The Secretary of State certifies the machine results. The court declines to review any evidence from the losing candidate on the grounds of ‘laches,’ meaning he waited too long to bring his case. The state legislature de-certifies the machine result and sends its own result to DC. Bureaucrats in the National Archives decide to accept only the machine results. Congress accepts the machine results and declares the losing candidate lost. The ‘losing’ candidate and his supporters exercise their First Amendment rights to protest. Violence breaks out, which is blamed on the ‘losing’ candidate despite his calls for peace.
After seeing these events, millions of Americans join the ‘losing’ candidate in doubting the machine results and suspecting the ‘losing’ candidate actually won the election but his victory was stolen from him by fraud committed by Election Officials. Liberals declare people who question the machine results are obtuse, they’re dumb, they’re idiots and retarded. People who question the machine results are banned from Facebook, Twitter and Instagram; blocked from Google ads and YouTube videos; accused by prominent politicians of plotting to overthrow the government; a national media figure declares the government should take away their children to be sent to re-education camps; a congresswoman demands they be blacklisted from future employment; and the media calls for the ‘losing’ candidate’ family to be criminally prosecuted, their assets confiscated, their business forfeited.
My response my questioner is: seeing the chicanery, the coverup and the vicious vindictiveness toward all who seek to verify the election results, how can you believe Biden won the election fair and square?
The usual answer is “why are you a Nazi”.
Let’s see how the usual suspects in the comment section manage.
The cure for election fraud is scrutiny. Make sure every ballot is legitimate, then count all legitimate ballots. The process takes place in two parts.
First, scrutinize the paper ballots, same as we did in the “hanging-chads” count in Florida. This requires three steps:
Step A: segregate ballots where the chain of custody is unclear. If the elections officials can’t prove that the ballots in this box were slid into the voting machine at the Como Precinct, transferred to a locked box by John, transported to the County Elections Office by Stephanie, opened there by Roger, scanned by Trudy and re-locked, then stored by Darlene until the recount; then we cannot be confident they are legitimate ballots. They might have been fraudulent ballots smuggled in under cover of darkness. Segregate them for separate counting when and if the court decides to include them.
Step B: segregate ballots that lack procedural compliance: missing signature, spoiled ballot, arrived late, back-dated, etc. They might have been accepted in violation of the law. Some of these might be allowed, some might be rejected, but they cannot be dumped into the general mix. Segregate them for separate counting when and if the court decides to include them.
Step C: make the court decide which ballots to count, which to exclude. It’s critical to do this BEFORE the counting begins, to avoid influencing the decision. The last thing the public wants to hear is: “It doesn’t matter because it won’t overturn the results of the election.” We don’t know that yet; we haven’t done the manual recount. Make an impartial decision on the merits of the ballots, not the results you anticipate.
I’m not a computer programmer and don’t pretend to be; therefore, this is a serious request for an answer from a person who was a knowledgeable computer programmer BEFORE the election (not an instant expert on computers today, the Constitution last week, and epidemiology the week before).
The State of Michigan admitted 6,000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden in one county. They explained it was because the county clerk failed to install a software. The ballots were properly counted when scanned, but vote totals were incorrectly reported.
My question: if the software is a simple addition program, totalling up the number of votes for each candidate, what kind of a programming “glitch” could make it switch votes from one candidate to another, but not all of them, only some of them?
Also, if the software knows how many ballots were scanned, how can some of them be omitted from the total?
I ask because some people are claiming there are algorithms available to generate Switched and Lost ballots, which may have been present in the software used in the voting machines. Is that even possible?
I won’t claim to be an expert – but I’m trying to imagine the JAD session (because you just know it was a JAD session, amirite, geeks?) where they described the requirement for the system to be able to finesse totals for weighting, estimates of lost ballots, and other inputs derived from, er, modeling.
Democrats in the Senate couldn’t get President Obama’s judicial nominations approved under the old rules, so Chuck Schumer changed the rules. Republicans saw the rule change and used it to President Trump’s judicial nominations approved. Rule changes cut both ways.
Democrats couldn’t get Joe Biden elected using legitimate ballots, so they kicked out poll watchers and dumped half-a-million phony ballots in key counties to steal the election. Democrats refused to play by the old rules in this election. Republicans, seeing this . . . what? Will keep playing by the old rules in the next election? That means losing for certain. Even die-hard RINOs like Pierre Delecto and Susan Collins aren’t that stupid.
In 2022, if Republican activists block polling places armed with AR-15’s, burn down Democrat poll watchers’ homes, storm into vote counting centers to throw ballots on the floor amidst thousands of fake ballots . . . who can complain? The old rules no longer apply, remember?
And if Democrat activists try to do the same but Republican activists resist and innocents are killed in the cross-fire . . . is this truly how we want future elections to run?
Will there even BE future elections? Will President Harris allow them? The rules have changed . . . .
It’s only “paranoid” until it comes true.
“Anti”-Fa and the parts of BLM that are more forthright about their Marxism make no bones about the fact that it’s a revolution they want.
With or without, they are clearly fine either way.
Whenever we discuss election fraud, Liberals are quick to point out the lack of convictions. No convictions = no fraud. They are using the wrong measurement and therefore reach an incorrect conclusion.
To obtain a conviction for voter fraud, the County Attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific individual cast a specific ballot with full knowledge that it was against the law to do so. That’s a high burden and in cases of massive fraud, would take years to clear up all the trials plus it would cost a fortune. No prosecutor wants to spend time and money on paper crimes over violent crimes. In contrast, to find election fraud, we look for evidence that not all of the ballots were legitimate. A ballot cast by a person who’s been dead for years, cannot be legitimate, and there were lots of them cast. A normal voter marks most of the races. A ballot that only marks one race, a highly contested race, is not normal. Is it possible that it’s a valid vote? Sure, but when you get tens of thousands of them, all voting for a single race, all voting for the same candidate, the candidate who was losing until those ballots showed up . . . you begin to wonder.
Further evidence that not all ballots were legitimate comes when we see the supposedly neutral election officials violating established procedural safeguards. Election judges count ballots while poll watchers observe. Both sides having poll watchers is a quality control measure to ensure fairness. But when the election officials kick out poll watchers but only one side’s watchers are expelled, that increases the likelihood of fraud.
Does this prove there was serious and widespread election fraud? It does for me. There’s just too much evidence to ignore. If I had a Facebook account, I’d be changing my background.
The hard part, of course, is proving it in court, in blue states where the election laws were written to protect ballot-stuffing.
The real answer, of course, will be to take the Presidency in 2024, and clean out the leadership at the DOJ, and then go after Blue city election authorities the same way they went after Klan-run boards in the sixties and seventies.
I have been confidently assured there is no ballot fraud. I’m dubious.
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion in DSCC v. Simon, court file A20-1017. It’s eye-opening.
Minnesota law has long allowed a voter to have someone help them mark their ballot. It’s historically been used by the blind or disabled, given by a friend or family member, and done inside the polling booth. The opportunity for fraud or mistake exists, but it’s a single vote. The law allows one person to help no more than three voters.
The Democrat party asserted they had the right under federal law to “help” an unlimited number of voters mark their ballots off-site, and then to deliver all those marked ballots to the polling place. Democrats asserted the Minnesota law that allows one person to “help” no more than 3 voters, and to deliver the ballots of no more than 3 voters, was a violation of federal voting rights law.
The Secretary of State disagreed (amazingly). The Republican party joined the suit to object. The trial court agreed with the Democrats and issued a temporary order allowing the practice. The Supreme Court disagreed, slightly.
Democrats can “help” an unlimited number of people mark their ballots, but no one person can deliver more than three of the marked ballots to the polling place. No more bringing in boxes full of marked ballots from the trunk of your car. Instead, Democrats must recruit more runners to deliver all the marked ballots.
It’s probably just me, but if I were of a mind to cheat the vote, I could think of a way to do it under this system. Able marks hundreds of ballots in the names of blind, disabled, elderly, dead, and non-English speaking voters. Baker, Charlie, David, Emily, Frank and many more, earn a few bucks delivering three ballots to each of Ramsey, Hennepin, Dakota, Carver, Wright, Sherburne, Anoka, Isanti and Washington counties. Better still, they earn no money, they get class participation credit for their college Political Science course. The odds of counties comparing names is nil. Multiply by 86 counties and the chance to influence the results is . . . significant.
Good thing there is no ballot fraud.
Strap in. This next two months may well make us pine for the good times back in 2000.
That’s the sound of DFLers realizing they’re going to have to jam ten days worth of fraud into one evening.
And they’re not happy about it.
The 8th Circuit returned a decision in Carson v. Simon yesterday. The presser from the Minnesota Voters Alliance explains:
The 8th Circuit reversed a lower court decision which authorized the Minnesota Secretary of State to accept ballots seven days after the election, and required an injunction against Simon for extending the statutory deadline for election day for receipt of absentee ballots.
In our view, this was a scheme concocted by Secretary Simon in the first place, where he identified and encouraged his allies to file a lawsuit against him, knowing all along that he would enter into a consent decree with them just to circumvent the legislature and the will of the people. We can not prove that of course, but in our view, that is exactly what happened.
To sum it up:
“Progressive” “group” “files” a “suit” against a “progressive” Secretary of State.
The SOS “settles out of court”, signing a consent decree with his allies signed off on by a “progressive” judge.
Presto change-o. Law changed by executive fiat (under cover of a convenient bit of “litigation”), without any pesky “checks and balances” or “legislatures” getting in the way.
It’s an end-run around state law, and due process.
And it’s a foreword to what we can expect – well, expect much more of – if the Democrats win on Tuesday, or whenever the actual decision is announced.
The DFL PR nomenklatura are doing their best to obscure the facts:
Could Murphy have gotten anything about the story less right?