Democrats' argument gets blown apart... //

Here are these protesters coming out, in person, to argue why they need mail in voting in part because of the virus.

Pro tip, guys? When you are gathering in person to say why you can’t gather in person to vote, you tend to argue against your own point. //

Tony DeAngelo
@TonyDee07
These people are out already, why not vote in person while you’re out?? Protest are safe but voting for the most important elected position is not. 😂 😂 //

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci said this week there is “no reason” Americans can’t vote in person for the 2020 presidential election, so long as voters follow proper social distancing guidelines amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Sweetened pot.

Mail-in voting has too many issues to be trustworthy and one local reporter proves it. //

Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
In 2016, California Democrats made ballot harvesting legal

In 2018, Orange County—a longtime GOP stronghold turned blue.

Why? //

May 2016, CBS2 Los Angeles identified 265 dead voters in southern California. Many cast ballots “year after year.”

 The Heritage Foundation’s non-exhaustive survey confirms, since 2000, at least 742 criminal vote-fraud convictions.

North Carolina announced in April 2014 that 13,416 dead voters were registered, and 81 of them recently had voted. Among 35,750 North Carolinians also registered in other states, 765 voted in November 2012, both inside and outside the Tarheel State.

 South Carolina’s attorney general concluded in January 2012 that 953 people “were deceased at the time of their participation in recent elections.”

 The Public Interest Legal Foundation recently discovered that Virginia removed 5,556 non-citizens from its voter rolls between 2011 and last May. Among these non-Americans, 1,852 had cast a total of 7,474 illegal ballots across multiple elections.

Democrats themselves have proven why it's okay to go out and vote without the need for mail-in ballots.

What a mess this would be... //

One local news station was curious, so they decided to try an experiment to see what would happen if they did “mail in voting,” as CBS’s Tony Dukopil explains. They set up a P.0. Box to be their receiver and then went around to various locations all around Philadelphia and mailed 100 letters the size of a ballot and the same class mail to the P.O. Box. They then did it again a couple of days later with a second batch. All told, they sent themselves 200 ‘ballots.’

Needless to say, there were issues, as they found out.

First, the Post Office had trouble even finding them. Then when he finally got what they had, he found that 21% of the votes hadn’t materialized after 4 days and from the batch that they mailed the week before, 3 were still missing. So that’s 3% of that batch who were just disenfranchised. As they note, in a close election, 3% can turn the tide of an election.

This database contains all cases reported to News21 of alleged election fraud across America since 2000. Search it to find specifics about such cases by state, individual and category of fraud. Read our story and the methodology explaining how the data was gathered and its limitations.

The nation has 2,068 cases of alleged election fraud since 2000. By category, Unknown had the highest percentage of accused at 31 percent (645 cases), followed by Voters at 31 percent (633 cases). The most prevalent fraud was Absentee Ballot Fraud at 24 percent (491 cases). The status of most cases was Pleaded at 27 percent (558 cases). Responses to requests for public records varied from state to state. Some state and local officials were quick to respond by sending available records; others failed to provide a single document.

The justices refused to halt Florida’s poll tax on ex-felons—and didn’t bother explaining why.

U.S.
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
July 11, 2020 10:44 AM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard

Email this article

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Elena Kagan prior to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., February 4, 2020 (Leah Millis/Reuters)
The Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington seems sure to intensify the partisan fight over the Electoral College’s future.
Whither the Electoral College?

The Supreme Court had its say on the matter during the always-eventful last week of the term. To repeat a contention often made in these columns, the High Court has evolved into an essentially political institution, robed in the judiciary’s apolitical veneer. Given that we are a deeply divided nation, that the late-term cases are usually the most controversial, and that the four left-leaning justices — those appointed by Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama — tend to vote as a bloc in these cliffhanger rulings, one doesn’t expect many 9–0 decisions when the calendar reaches late June (let alone July).

Yet there it was on Monday: Chiafalo v. Washington. At issue was the question of “faithless electors.” Specifically, may a state enforce the pledge it compels electors to make to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the state’s popular vote? The Court’s holding that states have the power to do so was unanimous. Significantly, though, the Court was not of one mind about why.

The case is worth our attention because of what’s been going on under the radar. //

The Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington seems sure to intensify the partisan fight over the Electoral College’s future.

Whither the Electoral College? //

Among the Left’s many transformative projects is the drive to have presidents elected by a national popular vote. The project, known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, would effectively eliminate the Constitution’s Electoral College system. It would reduce the College to a nullity by requiring a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote — regardless of whether that candidate loses the state’s popular vote. As Hillary Clinton and Al Gore could tell you, that would radically change how presidents are elected, and ultimately how we are governed.

"I'm not sure if they're trying to register dogs, mice, and snakes!"

Ft. Bend County (Texas) Sheriff and Republican candidate for Congress Troy Nehls received a phone call from people who heard a noise and saw a U.S. postal worker walking away from a dumpster. The postal worker drove away. When the people looked into the dumpster, they saw a stack of Nehls’ campaign mailers on top.

I am not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly, tampering with the mail is a federal crime.

A large photo of a person in a jail cell is shown on the U.S. Post Office’s website, with the caption, “Tampering with mail will get you a new home, new friends and a new job.”

Interfering with an election is also a crime (18 U.S. Code § 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments).

Over and above tampering with the mail and interfering with an election is the statement this makes about mail-in voting.

“As more and more efforts are made across the country to mandate voting by mail, True the Vote is committed to ensuring Americans’ constitutional voting rights are upheld, that their option to vote at polling places is not taken away, and that proper security measures are in place to guarantee that all eligible votes are properly counted,” said Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of True the Vote. “All Americans should be concerned by the radical changes being made to our election processes under the guise of public health related to the COVID-19 outbreak. The sudden shift to all-mail ballots is only part of what’s happening. They are stripping essential security measures, like Voter ID laws and signature verification; sending ballots to inaccurate addresses and ineligible voters; and counting ballots received after Election Day. While implementing appropriate public health safeguards is a priority, so too must be protecting the integrity of our elections.” //

As I said in the beginning of this article, Democrats are desperate and will use whatever means at their disposal, legal or illegal, to defeat president Trump. We must stay vigilant and informed to stop the Democrats undemocratic coup this November.

California, Michigan, and New Hampshire expanded mail-in voting for the 2020 election, while Democrats in Congress want a universal, all-mail system.

Democracy Live, which appears to have no privacy policy, receives sensitive personally identifiable information­ -- including the voter's identity, ballot selections, and browser fingerprint­ -- that could be used to target political ads or disinformation campaigns.Even when OmniBallot is used to mark ballots that will be printed and returned in the mail, the software sends the voter's identity and ballot choices to Democracy Live, an unnecessary security risk that jeopardizes the secret ballot. We recommend changes to make the platform safer for ballot delivery and marking. However, we conclude that using OmniBallot for electronic ballot return represents a severe risk to election security and could allow attackers to alter election results without detection.

There are lots of very smart people doing fascinating work on cryptographic voting protocols. We should be funding and encouraging them, and doing all our elections with paper ballots until everyone currently working in that field has retired.

Russia's attack on the 2016 election was novel in its scope and its methods, but the underlying principles were old, writes David Shimer in an important new history.

On Tuesday, Twitter began censoring Trump's tweets less than a year after a federal court ruled that the president is barred from blocking other users. //

Hey Twitter, fact-check this…a member of my staff received THREE mail-in ballots, addressed to three different individuals, to the same address! And they say your claims of ballot-fraud are “unsubstantiated” @realDonaldTrump. //

In 2012, the New York Times headlined a piece, “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.”

“There is a bipartisan consensus that voting by mail, whatever its impact, is more easily abused than other forms,” the Times wrote. “Votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistic show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.”

A 2005 commission chaired by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III also found that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of voter fraud” and is “vulnerable to abuse in several ways.” Ballots can be sent to wrong addresses and “voting schemes are far more difficult to detect.”

Marc Thiessen points out in the Washington Post that there is a major difference between mailing ballots to a small fraction of the electorate that requests one rather than to every registered voter in the country, as Democrats have proposed. //

Trump therefore, under current circumstances can’t block other users from viewing his posts on a platform that censors his own content. Is that legal?

Nevertheless, she persisted. //

McEnany explained in a two-tweet statement noting there was a difference between absentee voting where the voter requests a ballot vs. mail-in voting, where the state just mass mails ballots to the names and addresses on their voter rolls, the latter of which is what President Trump and other Republicans object to.

In an appearance she made on Fox and Friends this morning, McEnany put an exclamation point on the distinction after being asked about the Tampa Bay Times “report”, and specifically referenced a Real Clear News write-up on how 112% of Los Angeles County is registered to vote.

Judge Fred Biery’s order that Texas state officials allow mail-in voting for all eligible voters reads like a manifesto from a wannabe philosopher-king. //

Biery brushed aside the concerns of state officials over potential voter fraud, stating in colorful language, “The Court finds the Grim Reaper’s scepter of pandemic disease and death is far more serious than an unsupported fear of voter fraud in this sui generis experience.” He went on to say, “Indeed, if vote by mail fraud is real, logic dictates that all voting should be in person.”

Hold on.

He acknowledges that between 2005 and 2018, there were 73 prosecutions in Texas for voter fraud, but he buries in the endnotes that “[a]lmost half of [these fraud] cases involved the improper use of absentee ballots, where voter fraud occurs most often.” That’s consistent with information compiled by The Heritage Foundation in its election fraud database.

So, if half of the recorded voter fraud incidents in Texas involved absentee ballots, and research shows that is where voter fraud most often occurs, why reject the state’s concerns that incidents of voter fraud will increase when the use of absentee ballots increases? //

This lone federal judge wrote that “‘We the People’ get just about the government and political leaders we deserve, but deserve to have a safe and unfettered vote to say what we get.” He’s right. But it raises the question: Who voted for him?

Biery’s job was to call balls and strikes. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened here.

Federal and state law enforcement say the voter fraud investigation is “active and ongoing.” //

The judge of elections is an elective office and a paid position in Pennsylvania municipalities responsible for supervising the local election process.

“DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear,” U.S. Attorney William McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said. //

During his guilty plea hearing, DeMuro said an unnamed political consultant gave him directions and paid him money to add votes for certain Democrats who were running for judicial office. Their campaigns had hired the consultant.

DeMuro also admitted to casting illegal votes for other candidates for federal, state, and local offices at the consultant’s request.

We must as conscientious citizens oppose mail in voting, not because we oppose every citizen’s right to their vote, but because mail in voting is ripe for fraud and undermines the integrity of the voting system. //

markvol
2 hours ago
It had been a tradition since the beginning of our country to show up at the poll and cast your vote. //

If you can't hold an honest and fair election, the rest of society has little basis in justice.
We should fight any variants to showing up and voting in person, with an ID, as hard as possible.

It has been obvious who does the bulk of the fraudulent voting, for as long as I can remember. When you have to cheat to win an election, the cheater can't win the argument, so, the cheater must pay a price, not the legitimate citizen seeking free and fair representation in a republic.