Lying now or lying then?

Lying now or lying then?

The run up to the election was roiled with the debate; can the vote be rigged or not? We were deluged with TV, News Print and other sources that “rigging” was all but impossible. Why? Voting systems were “closed systems” and local; not tied to the internet where hacking occurs.

Now, for the last several days we are hearing a sudden alarm being sounded by some that we must have certain states conduct recounts. There is no claim of fraud or wrong doing. The rational is “...we must prove the votes are true and can be trusted….” What? What changed?

One point we all remember is the group (Democrats) that claimed Donald Trump would not agree in advance to accept the election results lost; they lost and lost big in the electoral college. Hmm!

So, again American voters are left scratching their collective heads thinking beware “…when experts say…”. It simply does not matter. The so-called experts change the narrative based on current events. In this case, they are not happy!

Census-taking or Voter I.D? The Electoral College threat…..

Census-taking or Voter I.D? The Electoral College threat…..

By Walter E. Williams

Voter ID laws have been challenged because liberal Democrats deem them racist. I guess that’s because they see blacks as being incapable of acquiring some kind of government-issued identification. Interesting enough is the fact that I’ve never heard of a challenge to other ID requirements as racist, such as those: to board a plane, open a charge account, have lab work done or cash a welfare check. Since liberal Democrats only challenge legal procedures to promote ballot-box integrity, the conclusion one reaches is that they are for vote fraud prevalent in many Democrat-controlled cities.

There is another area where the attack on ballot-box integrity goes completely unappreciated. We can examine this attack by looking at the laws governing census taking. As required by law, the U.S. Census Bureau is supposed to count all persons in the U.S. Those to be counted include citizens, legal immigrants and non-citizen long-term visitors. The law also requires that illegal immigrants be a part of the decennial census. The estimated number of illegal immigrants ranges widely from 12 million to 30 million. Official estimates put the actual number closer to 12 million.

Both citizens and non-citizens are included in the census and thus affect apportionment counts. Counting illegals in the census undermines one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy – namely, that every citizen-voter has an equal voice. Through the decennial census based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of illegal immigrants, such as California and Texas, unconstitutionally gain additional members in the U.S. House of Representatives thereby robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation scholar and former member of the Federal Election Commission, has written an article, “How Noncitizens Can Swing Elections: Without Even Voting Illegally.” He points to the fact that 12 million illegal aliens, plus other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House. Spakovsky cites studies by Leonard Steinhorn of American University, scholars at Texas A&M University and the Center for Immigration Studies. Steinhorn’s study lists 10 states that are each short one congressional seat that they would have had if apportionment were based on U.S. citizen population: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, states with large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens have congressional seats they would not have had. They are: California (five seats), Florida (one seat), New York (one seat), Texas (two seats) and Washington state (one seat). Moreover, the inflated population count resulting from the inclusion of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens increases the number of votes some states get in the Electoral College system, affecting the actual process of electing the president of the United States.

There is a strong argument for counting non-citizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. An accurate population count is important for a number of public policy reasons as well as national security – we should know who is in our country. But as professor Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, say in their Politico article, there is no “persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a crucial role in picking a president.”

Hans von Spakovsky concludes his article saying, “It is a felony under federal law for a noncitizen to vote in our elections because voting is a right given only to American citizens. It is a precious right that must be earned by becoming a citizen. Giving aliens (particularly those whose first act was to break our laws to illegally enter the country) political power in Congress and allowing them to help choose our president strike at the very heart of our republic and what it means to be an American.”

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AT RISK

INTEGRITY OF OHIO ELECTIONS AT RISK

MARY SIEGEL 

Guest columnist 

Mary Siegel is co-founder and co-leader of the Ohio Voter Integrity Project.


As one of the leaders of Ohio Voter Integrity Project, a nonpartisan voter education and research organization, I disagree with most of the op-ed “Ohio should focus on better voter access” (March 15). But author Sean Wright’s underestimation of the impact of non-citizens voting in our elections is particularly disturbing in light of President Obama’s recent Executive Actions on Immigration.

To date Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, in coordination with the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV), has discovered 453 non-citizens registered to vote in Ohio. Although this number may seem “miniscule,” it can still affect the outcome of our elections, especially at the local level.

Results from the Ohio November 2013 and May 2014 elections revealed that 63 races tied or were decided by just one vote. This demonstrates that every vote has the potential to determine the outcome of any race or ballot issue.

I believe most people would agree that every case of voter suppression is harmful and should be investigated. Since illegal non-citizen votes negate or suppress the votes of legitimate citizens, non-citizen voting is actually voter suppression and should be considered as damaging as any other form of voter suppression.

Instead, the op-ed minimizes the issue by disregarding the 453 cases as “Republicans’ alarmist” propaganda.

What Wright fails to mention is that 5 million potential new cases of non-citizen voter fraud are waiting at America’s doorstep. President Obama’s 2015 Immigration Order, granting Social Security numbers to approximately 5 million new legally present non-citizens, is the largest single threat to the integrity of today’s elections. While the BMV reports citizenship status to the Secretary of State’s Office based on drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, citizenship information related to Social Security numbers is held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is not shared with the 50 states. Some states are now trying to pass legislation requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. But for most states, including Ohio, the verification of U.S. citizenship through a Social Security number is not possible.

In response to the dangers of this “expanding loophole,” Husted sent a letter to Obama in January asking for the states to receive access to the names, date of birth and last four digits of Social Security numbers for all non-citizens who receive a Social Security number. On Feb. 12, Husted, along with the secretaries of state from Maine and Kansas, testified before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, reiterating the threat of the President’s Executive Actions on the integrity of state and federal elections. As of today, Obama has not responded to Husted’s request. Federal law mandates that any person who registers to vote must be a U.S. citizen. Providing a name, address, date of birth and citizenship information is neither a “trick” question nor racially biased. Every U.S. citizen regardless of race, religion or political affiliation should be alarmed at the potential for non-citizens to register and vote in our elections without being detected by the system.

If our federal government refuses to support Ohio and all states in their verification of citizenship on voter applications, then our government is promoting voter fraud and destroying our electoral freedoms.

Democrats use "Gangster Government" To Win Elections

Democrats use "Gangster Government" To Win Elections

By George Will

The early morning paramilitary- style raids on citizens’ homes were conducted by law enforcement officers, sometimes wearing bulletproof vests and lugging battering rams, pounding on doors and issuing threats. Spouses were separated as the police seized computers, including those of children still in pajamas. Clothes drawers, including the children’s, were ransacked, cell phones were confiscated and the citizens were told it would be a crime to tell anyone of the raids.

Some raids were precursors of, others were parts of, the nastiest episode of this unlovely political season, an episode that has occurred in an unlikely place. This attempted criminalization of politics in order to silence persons occupying just one portion of the political spectrum has happened in Wisconsin, which often has conducted robust political arguments with Midwestern civility.

From the progressivism of Robert La Follette to the conservatism of Gov. Scott Walker today, Wisconsin has been fertile soil for conviction politics. Today, the state’s senators are the very conservative Ron Johnson and the very liberal Tammy Baldwin. Now, however, Wisconsin, which to its chagrin produced Republican Sen. Joe McCarthy, has been embarrassed by Milwaukee County’s Democratic district attorney, John Chisholm. He has used Wisconsin’s uniquely odious “John Doe” process to launch sweeping and virtually unsupervised investigations while imposing gag orders to prevent investigated persons from defending themselves or rebutting politically motivated leaks, which have occurred.

According to several published reports, Chisholm told members of his staff subordinates that his wife, a teachers union shop steward at her school, is anguished by her detestation of Walker’s restrictions on government employees unions, so Chisholm considers it his duty to help defeat Walker.

In collaboration with Wisconsin’s misbegotten Government Accountability Board, which exists to regulate political speech, Chisholm has misinterpreted Wisconsin campaign law in a way that looks willful. He has done so to justify a “John Doe” process that has searched for evidence of “coordination” between Walker’s campaign and conservative issue advocacy groups.

On Oct. 14, much too late in the campaign season to rescue the political participation rights of conservative groups, a federal judge affirmed what Chisholm surely has known all along: Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago, the only coordination that is forbidden is between candidates and independent groups that go beyond issue advocacy to “express advocacy” – explicitly advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate.

But Chisholm’s aim – to have a chilling effect on conservative speech – has been achieved by bombarding Walker supporters with raids and subpoenas: Instead of raising funds to disseminate their political speech, conservative individuals and groups, harassed and intimidated, have gone into a defensive crouch, raising little money and spending much money on defensive litigation. Liberal groups have not been targeted for their activities that are indistinguishable from those of their conservative counterparts.

Such misbehavior takes a toll on something that already is in short supply – belief in government’s legitimacy. The federal government’s most intrusive and potentially punitive institution, the IRS, unquestionably worked for Barack Obama’s re-election by suppressing activities by conservative groups. Would he have won if the government he heads had not impeded political participation by many opposition groups? We will never know.

Would the race between Walker and Democrat Mary Burke be as close as it is if a process susceptible to abuse had not been so flagrantly abused to silence groups on one side of Wisconsin’s debate? Surely not.

Gangster government – Michael Barone’s description of using government machinery to punish political opponents or reward supporters – has stained Wisconsin, illustrating this truth: The regulation of campaigns in the name of political hygiene (combating “corruption” or the “appearance” of it) inevitably involves bad laws and bad bureaucracies susceptible to abuse by bad people.

Because of Chisholm’s recklessness, the candidate he is trying to elect, Burke, can only win a tainted victory, and if she wins she will govern with a taint of illegitimacy. No known evidence demonstrates any complicity in Chisholm’s scheme, but in a new ad she exploits his manufactured atmosphere of synthetic scandal in a manner best described as McCarthyite. Indeed, one probable purpose of Chisholm’s antics was to generate content for anti-Walker ads.

Wisconsin can repair its reputation by dismantling the “John Doe” process and disciplining those who have abused it. About one of them, this can be said: Having achieved political suppression by threatening criminal liability based on vague theories of “coordination,” Chisholm has inadvertently but powerfully made the case for deregulating politics. 

TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

 

#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.

 

#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.

 

#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

 

#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

 

#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.

 

#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

 

#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

 

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

 

#2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 

#1..… And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America.  We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries. 

Democrats complain there is no evidence of Voter Fraud; read on!

Democrats complain there is no evidence of Voter Fraud; read on!

Ever Wonder Why Republicans Want Voter ID.?

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters .

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

* The National SEAL Museum , a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County , FL had a 141% voter turnout .

* In one Ohio County , Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters .

NOTE: Obama "won" in every state that did not require a Photo ID and "lost" in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote .

Imagine that.....and they (Democrats) say VOTER ID is not required and is discriminatory and only hurts minorities....!

ARE WE THE DUMBEST NATION ON THE PLANET OR WHAT.?

It does not take a rocket scientist to see the flaw in that type thinking...i.e., "NO VOTER ID is needed to avoid voter fraud" ....REALLY.....!

Whistleblower: Obama blocking voter roll cleanup

Whistleblower: Obama blocking voter roll cleanup

'We actually have Obamacare because of fraud'

by Greg Corombos

With critical midterm elections less than four weeks away, the failure to scrutinize voter registrations and clean up voter rolls leaves our system vulnerable to voter fraud, and a Justice Department whistle blower says the Obama administration is actively trying to stop states from bringing records up to date and ensure only eligible voters are casting ballots.

J. Christian Adams further asserts that voter fraud does occur and is indirectly responsible for the passage of Obamacare.

Adams is author of “Crimes Against the Republic: How the Democratic Party’s Voter Fraud is Fundamentally Transforming America.” He left the Justice Department early in the Obama administration and has regularly spoken out about what he considers to be partisan actions by Attorney General Eric Holder on voting and other civil rights issues.

Two flash points he frequently mentions are the DOJ’s decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party on voter intimidation charges in 2008 and the battle between Holder and several states over requiring photo identification to be presented before being allowed to vote.

However, Adams said there’s a much bigger problem than either of those matters.

“We have millions of people on the voter rolls who are not eligible to vote, millions of people who are not actually valid registrations,” Adams said. “Absolutely nothing is being done about that from the government’s perspective. Only private organizations have done anything about it. Eric Holder, of course, is the attorney general who could do something about it but does not.”

According to Adams, there are all sorts of people influencing our elections who have no business casting a ballot.

“There are dead people. There are foreigners. There are non-citizens. There are people who are duplicate registrations. They registered in more than one state. Sometimes they even vote in more than one state,” said Adams, noting the case of Wendy Rosen, who ran for Congress in Maryland and voted in her own primary there and in Florida.

So why aren’t the rolls cleaned up? Adams said in many jurisdictions, there’s literally no scrutiny of voter registration forms.

“They just get put on the rolls,” he said. “They aren’t verified. When states like Florida tried to do the citizenship verification, or states like Georgia, all these groups, including Eric Holder sprung up to sue them to try to stop them from checking to see if they were really citizens. So the states that do try to check for verification frequently find themselves on the bad end of a lawsuit.” Adams added, “This is something the Justice Department seems perfectly comfortable with. The status quo is something the department is totally comfortable with. Why is that not something they do not have an answer to?”

While Adams said Democrats are especially resistant to cleaning up the voting rolls, Republicans bear their share of guilt as well. “Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller actually defended this,” he said. “He was sued by Judicial Watch and True the Vote for having dirty voter rolls. The state was sued and he put up a vigorous defense and fought back. So in many places, Republicans are part of the problem.”