Memo to Democrats: Most European Governments Require Voter ID and Ban Absentee Voting

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by amberzen from Pixabay

The pandemic provided Democrats with the perfect excuse to loosen voting laws and to expand mail-in voting across the U.S. They were so delighted with the result, they’ve been on a crusade to make these dangerous measures permanent ever since.

The left claims the voting reform laws recently passed in Georgia and Florida to curb the abuses that many of us believe led to widespread fraud in the November 2020 election, as racist.

President Joe Biden has referred to Georgia’s requirement of voter ID for absentee ballots as an “atrocity.” He called the law “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “a blatant attack on the Constitution,” according to the BBC.

RealClearInvestigations‘ John R. Lott, Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. His organization recently put together a database of worldwide voting rules which quite clearly shows that U.S. voting requirements are among the most lenient. He summarized his findings in an article entitled, “America the Outlier: Voter Photo IDs Are the Rule in Europe and Elsewhere.”

Contrary to what the Democrats would have us believe, most countries require voters to show identification before casting a ballot. Lott found that “election integrity measures [voter ID requirements] are widely accepted globally, and have often been adopted by countries after they’ve experienced fraud under looser voting regimes.”

Furthermore, Lott learned that, in some countries, a driver’s license is deemed to be an insufficient form of ID. “The Czech Republic and Russia require passports or military-issued IDs and others use national identity cards. Others go even further: Colombia and Mexico each require a biometric ID to cast a ballot.”

“Of 47 nations surveyed in Europe — a place where, on other matters, American progressives often look to with envy — all but one country requires a government-issued photo voter ID to vote.” Lott notes that “The exception is the U.K., and even there, voter IDs are mandatory in Northern Ireland for all elections and in parts of England for local elections. Moreover, [UK Prime Minister] Boris Johnson’s government recently introduced legislation to have the rest of the country follow suit.”

In fact, Lott cites a recent comment from the deputy leader of the Scottish National Party, Kirsten Oswald, that sounds remarkably familiar to the attacks lobbed at Republicans in the U.S.

Oswald claimed that “Boris Johnson’s Trump-like plans to disenfranchise thousands of voters across Scotland and the UK are an act of blatant Tory voter suppression – and must be stopped.” She opined, “There is a very real danger that many lower income, ethnic minority and younger people will be prevented from voting to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. These laws are designed to suppress votes among groups that traditionally vote against the Tories. It’s a disgrace.”

And, like many progressives in the U.S., she would like to open up voting to 16 and 17-year-olds, “refugees and foreign nationals with leave to remain.”

The rest of the world views the practice of mail-in voting even more harshly than the U.S. Lott discovered that “74 percent of European countries entirely ban absentee voting for citizens who reside domestically. Another 6% limit it to those hospitalized or in the military, and they require third-party verification and a photo voter ID. Another 15% require a photo ID for absentee voting.”

Although voter IDs are not required in Japan, Lott explains the Japanese government “provides each voter with tickets that bear unique bar codes. If the voter loses the ticket or accidentally brings the ticket for another family member, polling staff verifies the voter’s name and address using a computer with access to the city’s database.” In that case, the voter would be required to show “government-issued photo identification.”

As I see it, having to present a ticket with a unique bar code is a variation on a voter ID requirement. It’s simply a different way to ensure that one citizen gets one vote.

New Zealand also provides its citizens with a unique code.

According to Lott, “Australia has by far the loosest rules. …  a photo ID is required to register to vote” only.

I would be willing to bet that before too long, after witnessing the problems created in the U.S. by lax voter ID requirements, the Australians tighten up their rules.

Most developed countries, Lott says, did not enact emergency voting measures because of the pandemic. Poland was an exception. They allowed universal mail-in ballots. “Poland’s rushed plan played out so poorly it dissuaded other countries from following suit.”

The Democrats’ argument that asking a voter to show ID is racist, as I see it, is itself racist, and I’m surprised that minorities don’t criticize them for it. It implies that minority voters are too dumb and too incapable to obtain an ID. How racist is that?

Asking a voter to prove that they are who they say they are is essential for election integrity. Those who oppose voter ID laws do so only because it opens up the opportunity for voter fraud. I am convinced that the unprecedented expansion of mail-in voting and the loss of accountability that followed, cost former President Donald Trump the presidency.

Democrats often point to the super progressive governments of European countries as something the U.S. should emulate. With the exception of the U.K. which is in the process of passing voter ID legislation, all European governments require voters to show IDs at the ballot box. There’s a reason for that – Europe values secure elections.

Next time a liberal begins criticizing voter ID requirements, show them Lott’s article.

Audit Fever! Pennsylvania Sends Delegation to Tour the Maricopa County, AZ Audit Site

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Reporting from the floor of the Maricopa County, Arizona forensic audit on Tuesday, OANN’s Christina Bobb told viewers a delegation from Pennsylvania had arrived on Tuesday and for a tour of the audit on Wednesday.

“They’ve expressed interest in the Arizona audit and possibly replicating this in Pennsylvania. … They are getting a behind the scene tour tomorrow. … They’re going to get to hear from the auditors exactly what is happening,” Bobb said.

“Of course, there’s been a lot of criticism of this audit. So, they have concerns that they want to see addressed, namely, is voter integrity maintained? Is the secret ballot maintained? Is there any way the audit could be disparaging to any demographic?”

“So, this is going to be an opportunity for them to get out exactly what’s happening in Arizona. If they like what they see, take it back to Pennsylvania.”

“I’ve heard a lot of rumblings,” she said. “We’ve heard from the senators that they are getting accolades from around the country and many other states are reaching out to them congratulating them on the work that they’re doing and thanking them for continuing the fight and staying in the fight. And I think that they realize the Senate was honest and real when they said, hey, we welcome any states to come look at this.”

This is good news indeed.

 

There were many allegations of election fraud in Pennsylvania. For starters, there were 202,377 more ballots cast than voters who voted statewide, and 170,830 more ballots cast than voters who voted in the presidential race.

Source: Pennsylvania State Rep. Russ Diamond’s website.

 

An organization called Audit the Vote PA, whose statistics I could not verify, presented some alarming irregularities including:

1,823,148 mail-in ballots were sent out and 2,589,242 were sent back

21,000 confirmed dead voters

Over 300,000 voter registrations removed from the SURE system after November 3

Canvassing effort in Montgomery County found 78,000 phantom votes

Over 10,000 people voted by mail whose ID doesn’t exist in the SURE system

Over 29,000 Duplicate Registrations

7,857 Registrations whose DOB changed in 2020

55,823 voters backfilled into the SURE system

15,000 mail-in ballots sent out of state

These are the same types of irregularities that have been reported in other swing states.

On November 25, 2020, a hearing was held before the Pennsylvania State Senate and President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to hear the stories of election observers who had allegedly witnessed fraud over the course of their service. It’s 3.5 hours long. I actually watched the whole video at the time and found it riveting.

If you have time to listen to only one testimony, listen to Gregory Stentstrom whose testimony begins at 46:45 in the video below.

Justin Kweder: attorney, Philadelphia (testimony starts at 31:20)

Kim Peterson: Philadelphia (testimony starts at 38:15)

Leah Hoopes: Delaware County (testimony starts at 40:50)

Gregory Stentstrom: data scientist, retired Naval officer, security expert, Delaware County (testimony starts at 46:45)  ***

No, Actually the 2020 Election Has NOT Been Resolved

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by heblo from Pixabay

While reading an article about Liz Cheney in The Spectator earlier, I came across the following:

“Liz Cheney erred neither in condemning the riot nor in castigating Trump’s Ahab-like obsession over his loss but in remaining stuck in January 6 as the calendar moved on for the rest of us. Cheney’s position that Joe Biden legitimately beat Donald Trump, as readers of this column and the Spectator A.M. newsletter know, found endorsement here back in November. Trump lost by 74 electoral votes, after all, not seven. But that argument took place in the media, in courts, and in Congress more than four months ago. Cheney, perhaps more so than Trump, needs to get over this as a resolved question.”

It is not a resolved question. In fact, it’s far from a resolved question. The argument took place in the media and for about five minutes in Congress, but former President Donald Trump was never given his day in court.

The anomalies in the days following the election quickly multiplied. Over 1,000 election observers signed affidavits stating they had witnessed wrongdoing. Judges refused to hear their cases. No court would hear Trump’s cases. Not even the Supreme Court.

Immediately, the media set the narrative that the election was settled. When over 90 percent of the media unites around the same narrative, a phenomenon we witnessed repeatedly during the Trump years, the power is overwhelming.

Before too long, anyone who questioned Biden’s legitimacy was labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Then it simply became taboo to mention it.

But it still wasn’t settled.

In reporting a February Quinnipiac poll which revealed that 76 percent of Republicans believed widespread fraud had occurred in the election, CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote “three quarters of Republicans believe a lie about the 2020 election.”

Stealing the presidency is a pretty audacious thing to do.

But, after watching the Democrats orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax, a bogus impeachment, then a second impeachment against Trump, and turn Gen. Michael Flynn’s life into a living hell for four years to further their political goals, it’s not crazy to believe they would steal a presidential election.

In November 2020, over 2.1 million people voted in Arizona’s Maricopa County. These votes represent over 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state. The Republican-controlled state Senate is currently conducting a thorough forensic audit of all ballots cast in the County which has put the election back into the national headlines.

Almost eclipsing the story of the intensive audit that’s been underway for two weeks is the Democrats’ fury over it. (I posted about those efforts here.)

One of the first to cover the topic again was Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, host of “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Bartiromo spoke to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton about the issue. “Let me switch gears and ask you about election integrity. This is a subject that has become taboo. We’re not allowed to question the 2020 election. We’re not allowed to question what is going on in Arizona or in Georgia. What do you say to what is going on in Georgia and how Texas is similar to that situation around election 2020?”

“Yeah, so if you look at election results from four years ago, Georgia and Texas were very similar,” the Republican responded. “We fought off 12 lawsuits. We were sued 12 times over mail-in ballots. It was Harris County, it was Travis County, these big urban counties that wanted to mail out all of these mail-in ballots in violation of state law. Clearly what was not allowed by the state legislature. And so, we fought these off.

“They didn’t want signature verification. We were told by a federal judge that was unconstitutional. So we had state lawsuits, different counties, federal lawsuits, we had 12 of them. We won every single one of them.

“Had we not won every single one of those lawsuits, I’m convinced that those ballots would have gone out and we would have been just like Georgia, who decided to capitulate and sign consent decrees and say, ‘It’s OK. We’re going to let these mail-in ballots go out. We’re going to allow no signature verification. We’re going to allow drop boxes.’

All of those things had an impact, and instead of Georgia and Texas having similar results this time because we defended those lawsuits, Trump won. We’re able to have a Republican legislature here, and in Georgia, it was completely turned.”

“So, are you saying that, because of what we saw in mail-in ballots in Georgia, you’re questioning the results?” Bartiromo asked.

“I absolutely am questioning,” Paxton replied. “I know what would have happened here. They would have stopped counting, just like they did in those states, and they would have been counting mail-in ballots until they get the right number of votes and suddenly Trump loses and we lose the state House here. We lose some of our Supreme Court justices. And it wouldn’t have been a legitimate count because we wouldn’t have followed state law.”

“So are you questioning what happened in the 2020 election?” she said.

“Absolutely,” he said. “They didn’t follow state law in these states. It’s clear. Whether you think there was fraud or not … we do know they didn’t follow state law.”

(The clip can be viewed here.)

Desperate Democrats Descend on Arizona to Prevent Full Hand Recount in Maricopa County

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

Over 60 percent, or almost 2.1 million of the ballots cast in the state of Arizona in the November presidential election came from Maricopa County. Due to concerns about the integrity of the county’s vote, particularly regarding absentee ballots, the Arizona state Senate has pushed for a full hand recount. And Democrats have sent in the big guns to try to stop it.

According to a statement released in March by the Republicans in the GOP-controlled chamber, Senate President Karen Fann said they were planning a “preferred forensic audit“ which she indicated would be “broad and detailed.” She said, “The team will include, but is not limited to, testing the machines, scanning the ballots, performing a full hand count and checking for any IT breaches.”

You may recall Fox News called the state for President Joe Biden just before midnight on election night. At the time, Biden was up 9 percentage points over former President Donald Trump. The Associated Press called the state for Biden the next morning, and were immediately followed by NPR which gets its data from the AP. Biden was ahead by 136,000 votes and 80 percent of the vote had been counted.

No additional networks called the state over the next eight days as Biden’s lead steadily dwindled to just over 10,000 votes. Finally on November 12, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN called it for Biden, handing him the state’s 11 electoral votes.

Allegations of election fraud have lingered in the Grand Canyon state ever since.

My colleague, Richard Edward Tracy, who resides in Arizona, explained it succinctly in a recent post. He wrote, “The Arizona Senate Republicans recently got into more than just a contretemps with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (who also hold a GOP majority) over the 2020 election audit. Suits filed lawsuits. The Board appeared to want a quick and dirty audit while the state Senate wanted to dig deeper.”

Suffice it to say that the two sides have disagreed intensely and loudly over the Senate Republicans’ claims of irregularities in the election. The county’s Board of Supervisors have tried repeatedly to prevent the detailed audit the Senate is demanding. employing every imaginable tactic they can conjure up.

The Gateway Pundit’s Joe Hoft has followed this story closely and frequently provides updates on his site. Most recently, he’s reported that the Democrats have sent Washington, D.C. attorney Marc Elias to the state to try to stop the audit.

Elias is a partner at the Perkins, Coie law firm. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it was Elias who laundered funds from Hillary Clinton and the DNC through his firm to pay Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm owned by Glenn Simpson, to produce the infamous Steele dossier in 2016. More recently, Elias represented two House Democrats who hoped to overturn their November defeats. Fortunately, both efforts failed.

The first was New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi who lost to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. Ironically, Elias argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi. … In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”

More recently, he represented Democrat Rita Hart in her attempt to steal the seat from Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who was declared the winner in IA-02. Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Elias filed a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results. Elias was trying to get a House Committee with a Democratic majority to overturn the race.

That may have been too much detail, but I wanted to illustrate the type of man the Democrats have tasked with stopping the forensic audit in Arizona.

The stakes are high. In a recent post, Hoft pointed out that those who question the results of the November election all agree “that if just one of these swing states fall, they’ll all fall like a house of cards.”

“So, to prevent ‘this house of cards from falling’ and any election tampering and fraud from being exposed,” Hoft explains, “the Democratic hit team blew into Arizona, a top Democrat-run nonprofit at the helm, with three law firms in tow to shut this thing in Arizona down.”

Hoft details the organizations that are part of Elias’ operation which he describes as “massive, nationwide, well-funded, expertly planned and professionally linked-up, it is made up of a literal ARMY of righteously indignant, justice-seeking, Democrat activists secretly under his thumb.”

“This army could and did stop any attempts at proving the fraud and the steal and securing a fair and honest election,” he notes, “and they’re at it again in Maricopa County, Arizona.”

In a separate post, Hoft reports on an op-ed Elias published on the far-left site, Democracy Docket, on Thursday. In the piece, Elias discredit the Arizona state Senate, the firms they’ve hired to conduct the audit and the fact that they’re accepting outside donations to fund the audit.

Hoft notes that Elias neglects to tell readers the reason the Senate needs additional funding. In their latest attempt to derail the audit, “the corrupt Maricopa County Board of Supervisors won’t allow the Senate to perform their audit in the facility where the ballots are housed.” Therefore, it will be more expensive than they had planned. It didn’t need to be this way.

Elias directs readers to “an April 12 Tuscon.com article by a progressive-leaning reporter, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services.” According to Hoft:

[Fischer] has had a monopoly on progressive media output in this part of AZ for decades. With the honorary title of the ‘dean of the Capitol press corps‘ in Arizona, Fischer has been reporting since 1982, and “At last count, [he] has 24 separate publications, dailies and weeklies, plus provide audio to KJZZ.”

Fischer also regularly provides content to NPR radio stations in Arizona, whose content is “the furthest left” of any media source in the United States today, according to data from the respected investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson.

This demonstrates a smooth, seamless connection between attorney Marc Elias and his Democracy Docket and Four Pillars lawfare operation and its related, Democrat-progressive-co-opted nonprofit empire and Howard Fischer, the far-left, progressive media mouthpiece and his empire in Arizona, Capitol Media Services.

Elias controls the strings of not only a mammoth U.S. nonprofit cabal of 400+ NFPs, and a related U.S. progressive attorney network of 40,000+ attorneys, but he also has his finger on the pulse of the network of top progressive reporters which favorably cover Democrat-progressive issues in any states where Elias and/or Perkins Coie have got lawfare action going.

These Democrat-progressive weapons are all being pointed directly at the Arizona Senate and the four firms it has hired to conduct a transparent, accurate, and truthful audit of the 2020 Maricopa County election results.

They need to shut the audit down. What are they hiding?

The audit is scheduled to begin on April 22.

Schumer To MLB: Move the All-Star Game to New York Where the Voting Laws are…Stricter?

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Dr. Joel Holmes

Democrats came down especially hard on Georgia for passing the “Election Integrity Act of 2021,” a voting reform package designed to reduce election fraud. Although the left’s ostensible concerns centered on whether or not voters would have enough water to drink or if polling hours were sufficient, their real concern was the legislation’s requirement that applicants for absentee ballots provide their state ID number.

A voter requesting an absentee ballot will be asked for their state ID number. In order to verify their ballots, voters must furnish either their state ID number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

The new law will remove the Grand Canyon-sized opportunity for absentee ballot fraud that may have cost former President Donald Trump the state in the November election.

One of the biggest liars about the bill was our “good and decent” President Joe Biden. His remarks were so outrageous that The Washington Post, which has shilled for him repeatedly, was forced to issue a “Four Pinocchio” rating.

On Friday, after Biden had said he would “strongly support” such a move, Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred announced his decision to pull the league’s All-Star game out of Atlanta, Georgia in protest of the state’s new voting reform legislation.

The next day, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made a play for the game to be moved to New York. In the tweet below, Schumer writes that “racist voter suppression laws are now hurting Georgia’s voters AND its economy. Georgia Republicans should be ashamed.” He then invites @MLB to play the All-Star Game in his state.

Rarely does karma come so quickly to those who deserve it.

Unfortunately for Chuck, he forgot to check the voting laws in New York, which as it turns out, are more restrictive than Georgia’s new laws.

The Peach State’s governor, Brian Kemp, was only too happy to point out this inconvenient truth:

So were former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and conservative writer Guy Benson:

Nice try Chuck!

Watch: Fox Reporter Grills Psaki on Georgia Voting Law, Responds by Doubling Down on Lies

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki is a terrible liar.

During last week’s press conference, President Joe Biden was asked about efforts by numerous state legislatures to pass voting reform bills intended to prevent the widespread “irregularities” that have led so many of us to question the results.

“What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work,” replied the President.

The next day, Biden attacked Georgia’s new legislation again in a statement which said, “Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

A fact check of these obviously false remarks performed by The Washington Post earned the President “Four Pinocchios.”

At Thursday’s White House briefing, Fox Business News reporter Ed Lawrence summarized what Georgia’s new voting law actually requires and asked Psaki, “Is there going to be a correction? … Is the tone going to change out of the White House?”

She repeated the lies that Biden had just been publicly rebuked for and added, “The tone for a bill that limits voting access? That makes it more difficult for people to engage in voting in Georgia?”

Lawrence pushed back. “No, that’s actually not what the governor of Georgia has said.”

“Well, I think that is not based in fact, what the governor of Georgia has said,” Psaki replied. “So, no, our tone is not changing. We have concerns about the specific components of the package including the fact that it makes it harder and more difficult to vote by limiting absentee options, by making it not viable, not possible for people to provide water to people who are in line, by not standardizing longer hours, so if you’re making it harder to vote, no we don’t support that.”

The only item on Psaki’s list the left is truly upset about are the limitations on absentee ballots, because the explosion in mail-in voting (arguably) handed Biden the White House.

The “Election Integrity Act of 2021,” as the new Georgia law is called, requires applicants for absentee ballots to provide their state ID number. The state offers a free ID Card to those who cannot afford one. In order to verify their ballots, voters will be required to provide either their state ID number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

This measure will go a long way to ensuring election integrity, something that was sorely lacking last November.

In the following clip, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, in his inimitable style, eviscerates an article written by liberal Jemelle Hill in The Atlantic in which she attacks Georgia’s new law as voter suppression. She runs through all of the Democrats’ talking points and Shapiro expertly bats each one down.

“‘Jim Crow explicitly created a separate system of law for black Americans and treated them as inferior.’ There’s nothing in the law like that. That’s not only an overstatement. It’s an outright lie.

But, says Jemelle Hill … ‘The law imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots.’ Well, clearly that’s racist. I mean you really have to show that you are who you say you are when you vote absentee? If you can explain to me how that’s racist, I’m willing to hear it. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

‘It limits the use of ballot drop boxes.’ Oh, you mean like ballot drop boxes where people could just stuff the ballot box or take ballots out of the ballot box?

‘It hands the state officials more power over local elections. Even before the legislation passed, many voters of color in Georgia faced hours long queues at the polls.’ By the way, voter suppression doesn’t involve long lines, any more than long lines at Disneyland are ride suppression. You know what voter suppression is? Voter suppression is where you don’t get to vote.

‘Making those waits even more arduous, the new law makes giving food and water to people in line to vote.’ That’s not even true. It bans giving any gift to people in line when they are within 150 feet of the polling place. You can bring water with you, there are people outside who can give you water. It’s just not true.”

Biden, Psaki, Hill and the rest know what they are saying is false. They also know that the new law will address many of the problems encountered in November with duplicate voting, dead or otherwise ineligible voters, and custody issues; in other words, much of the chicanery that went unchecked in November.

Democrats oppose anything having to do with election integrity. They do not want secure elections. And they will lie about whatever they need to, to advance their agenda.

Pelosi Weighs Decision to Steal Iowa House Seat: It’s My Right to Seat or Unseat Any Member of Congress

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by David Mark from Pixabay

The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the Nov. 3 election, the lead changed hands several times in a statewide recount until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes, and the state certified the results on Nov. 30.

“Hart’s team alleges that there are 22 ballots that should have been counted in the election and that if they had, she would have won by nine votes. Hart’s campaign has cited examples including five absentee ballots cast in her favor that were not counted because they were not properly sealed,” according to NPR.

Rather than going through traditional channels, which would have meant an appeal through Iowa’s court system, Hart’s team went on to file a “Notice of Contest” with the U.S. House Administrative Committee seeking to overturn the results.

The House committee voted along party lines to review Hart’s challenge and “attorneys for the two candidates submitted initial legal briefs … on Monday. In a terse 23-page brief, Miller-Meeks’ counsel broadly denied Hart’s claims and said the burden was on Hart to prove that a state-certified election should be overturned,” NPR reported.

Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn in in January.

Asked about this case at a press conference, Pelosi replied, “If I wanted to be unfair, I wouldn’t have seated the Republican from Iowa, because that was my right on the opening day. I would have just said, ‘You’re not seated,’ and that would have been my right as Speaker to do.”

Actually, the Speaker’s job is to seat the lawmakers whom the states have certified as the winners.

This woman seems to lack any sense of right and wrong.

Reportedly, even many House Democrats are balking at the thought  of overturning a state-certified election.

From The Wall Street Journal:

More House Democrats are expressing concern over potentially having to vote later this year on whether to overturn a Republican congresswoman’s razor-thin victory in Iowa.

The House Administration Committee opted on party lines earlier this month to review a challenge from Democratic candidate Rita Hart disputing her loss by six votes to GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks. The Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified Ms. Miller-Meeks’s narrow win following a recount of the full district. But the legal team of Ms. Hart, who is challenging the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act, said there are 22 valid ballots that were never counted, which could reverse the outcome.

Some House Democrats have recently shared their concerns with Democratic leaders over having to potentially vote to overturn a state-certified election in Iowa and conveyed to them that they might not have enough votes to prevail, according to lawmakers and aides. Democrats currently hold a narrow 219-211 majority and can lose no more than three votes on measures opposed by all Republicans.

[…]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday it was Ms. Hart’s right to contest her narrow loss.

“If you had lost a race by six votes, wouldn’t you like to say ‘there must be some way that we can count this?’” she said to reporters. “We are obligated under federal law to follow the process and the facts.”

Last month, Politico reported that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”

Hart’s lead attorney is Marc Elias of the Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because it was Elias who laundered funds from Hillary Clinton and the DNC through his firm to pay Fusion GPS, an opposition research firm owned by Glenn Simpson, to produce the infamous Steele dossier.

Elias also represented New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi’s recent (and fortunately unsuccessful) effort to overturn his loss to Republican Claudia Tenney in the state’s 22nd Congressional District race. Brindisi conceded to Tenney last month.

Ironically, Elias argued, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi. … In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate.”

Then why was it ridiculous when Trump’s attorneys made the same argument? Obviously, this is a rhetorical question. We know why.

In addition, according to The Washington Times, Elias “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts.”

“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” Politico reported. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey.”

“A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”

It looks like the House might be headed for yet another acrimonious affair.

Black Leaders Take Aim at Sens. Sinema, Manchin Over Refusal to Nix Filibuster; ‘They Are, in Effect, Supporting Racism’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by mjimages from Pixabay

The Senate website defines the filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” This device is meant to prevent the party in the Senate minority from being completely overpowered by the majority party.

Prior to the election, the Indivisible Project, a movement dedicated to advancing the election of progressive candidates, explained why the filibuster is bad news for Democrats:

“It’s simple: none of the progressive issues that Democratic candidates and congressional leaders are discussing today will become law unless we do something about the filibuster.”

“If [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell expects to be the Grim Reaper of progressive policies, the scythe he’ll use is the Senate filibuster. Unless we change the rules.”

With a 50-50 balance of power in the Senate, Democrats control the upper chamber by the slimmest margin possible.

Current Senate rules require a minimum of 60 votes to pass legislation. Some Democrats have hoped to abolish the filibuster so that only a simple majority of 51 votes (50 Democratic senators plus Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote) would be necessary to advance their progressive agenda.

Their latest challenge is that two Democratic Senators, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have both quite strongly announced their opposition to abolishing the filibuster.

Just two months ago, a representative for Sinema told The Washington Post’s White House reporter, Seung Min Kim, that “Kyrsten is against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”

Up until then, conservatives had been counting on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia to save us from being overrun by leftist lesiglation. Manchin won re-election in 2018 in a state that went overwhelmingly for former President Donald Trump by nearly 40 points in 2020 and over 41 in 2016.

Shortly after the announcement from Team Sinema, Politico reported that Manchin was “emphatic” that he “will not vote to kill the filibuster.” Asked if there were any scenario in which he would change his mind, the senator replied: “None whatsoever that I will vote to get rid of the filibuster.”

Protecting the filibuster is essential to protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Even with the filibuster in place, Democrats can do and have already done a lot of damage. But their major radical initiatives, such as the Election Reform bill which passed the House earlier this month, granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stacking the Supreme Court, can be blocked by the Republicans.

Naturally, Democrats are trying to exert maximum pressure on Sinema and Manchin to change their minds.

Politico has interviewed several black civil rights leaders to find out what they plan to do about this. According to Politico, “top [civil rights] officials framed the choice as existential for a party that depends on Black and brown voters — and they are planning pressure campaigns privately and publicly to make that clear.”

Rev. Al Sharpton plans to hold town halls and rallies in Sinema’s and Manchin’s home states. He said, “The pressure that we are going to put on Sinema and Manchin is calling [the filibuster] racist and saying that they are, in effect, supporting racism. Why would they be wedded to something that has those results? Their voters need to know that.”

Sharpton cautioned Democrats that if they fail to end the filibuster, then “civil rights leaders might have less reason to help generate enthusiasm and turnout in the 2022 midterm elections without being able to point to actual laws Democrats passed.”

Sounds like a threat.

He added, “Many of us, and certainly all of us in the civil rights leadership, are committed to policies and laws and causes, not to people’s political careers. We’re not into that. We want to change the country. And if there is not feasible evidence that we’re doing that, it is not in our concern to be aggressively involved.”

Sinema and/or Manchin may yet flip, but I would be willing to bet it wouldn’t be because Al Sharpton and his merry band of civil rights leaders come to their states and call them racists.

Although politicians are famous for flip-flopping, after putting out such a strong statement of opposition as her representative did in conversation with the Washington Post reporter, I would be surprised if Sinema caved. Sharpton’s actions might just make her dig in her heels a little deeper.

Manchin, on the other hand, strikes me as less resolute than Sinema. However, he did say he was “emphatic” he wouldn’t vote to end the filibuster.

There is another option. The Senate could potentially create a carve-out specifically for voting rights legislation, a measure they’ve taken before. The Senate has created exceptions to the filibuster in the past for confirmations of Supreme Court nominees and for budget reconciliation (which is how the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill was passed).

Manchin is currently the only Senate Democrat who is not a co-sponsor of the voting reform bill known as S. 1.

On Wednesday, Manchin told reporters, “I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to voting rights.”

But if the bill were to be limited to votings rights, according to CBS News, “it would strip provisions related to campaign finance and ethics reform, which are key priorities for progressives.”

In a Tuesday statement, “Manchin expressed concerns about S. 1, and said that he would support bipartisan legislation on voting rights.” The statement said:

As the Senate prepares to take up the For the People Act, we must work toward a bipartisan solution that protects everyone’s right to vote, secures our elections from foreign interference, and increases transparency in our campaign finance laws. Pushing through legislation of this magnitude on a partisan basis may garner short-term benefits, but will inevitably only exacerbate the distrust that millions of Americans harbor against the U.S. government.

He issued another statement on Thursday in which he reiterated his opposition to creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule specifically for voting rights. He noted that would be “like being a little bit pregnant.” You either kill the filibuster or you keep it.

Let’s hope that both he and Sinema stand by their pledges not to abolish the filibuster. All Republican senators, even those whose votes can’t always be counted on, such as Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, are unanimously opposed to ending the filibuster. They are also opposed to the voting reform bill.

Sinema and Manchin are the only thing standing between us and the enactment of the Democrats’ entire radical agenda.  Let’s hope they stand strong.

Former DOJ Prosecutor Wants Every U.S. Business Owner to Sign Document Stating Biden Won Election ‘Fairly’

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by 愚木混株 Cdd20 from Pixabay

At the top of his blog, Front Page Magazine founder and editor David Horowitz highlights the following quote: “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”

This true statement is reaffirmed on a daily basis by America’s increasingly intolerant, irrational left.

Over the weekend, the far-left Huffington Post published a story about a former DOJ prosecutor, Glenn Kirschner, who seeks to have every business owner in America sign what he refers to as a “Democracy Pledge.”

According to the Huffington Post’s S.V. Date, Kirschner “has launched a campaign to press American businesses to openly reject the core assertion that former President Donald Trump and many in his party continue to make, that the 2020 election was somehow illegitimate.”

Here are several excerpts from the article:

“The 2020 presidential election was free and fair, and produced accurate, reliable results,” reads the explanation behind the “Democracy Pledge” that  hopes to put before “every company in the country” in the coming months. “Those who sought to undermine or otherwise refused to acknowledge these results, share responsibility for the civil unrest after the election, culminating in violence at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

The pledge includes a declaration of “valuing, affirming and supporting democracy,” and of affirming “that the election of Joseph R. Biden and Kamala Harris was free, fair and legitimate.”

The final piece asks companies to “not support, donate to or endorse politicians, political campaigns or political action committees that promoted false conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential elections (or otherwise acted in ways contrary to a representative democracy).”

“What we’re trying to do is force companies’ hands so they can’t be agnostic,” Kirschner said.

Yet Trump and many top Republicans have never apologized for spreading the lies about the “stolen” election and “massive voter fraud” that fueled his followers’ anger in the first place.

Kirschner told Date that business owners who do not respond will be placed on a list. “And then we’re going to provide that information to consumers. And they can make their purchasing decisions accordingly.”

The fact that this man spent 24 years as a prosecutor in the District of Columbia’s U.S. attorney’s office is astonishing and terrifying.

There’s more:

As to what would constitute spreading conspiracy theories: having signed onto the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that tried to overturn the election by claiming fraud in other states would be a good qualifier, Kirschner said. A total of 18 state attorneys general and 126 Republican lawmakers supported that effort. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz even volunteered to argue the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in the end, summarily rejected it instead.

Even more GOP members of Congress voted, just hours after their lives had been put in danger by Trump’s violent mob, to reject the Electoral College vote tally showing that Biden had won. But Kirschner said that vote, by itself, would not consign someone to the anti-democracy list. Members of Congress had made similar arguments in previous elections, and it would be unfair to punish the 147 Republicans who did the same this time, he added.

He said he could also understand a company wanting to add its own language into the pledge to clarify statements to their satisfaction. “We’re not trying to be jerks about it,” he said. “Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

Supporting Trump himself now, though, is another matter, Kirschner said. “You can’t support Donald Trump and argue that you are in favor of free and fair elections. … If you’re supporting him, you’re just not supporting democracy.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the substance of Kirschner’s “Democracy Pledge” is the opposite of democracy. He’s attempting to coerce business owners into agreeing with a statement they may or may not believe or else they will be put on an anti-democracy list that could potentially harm their livelihoods. Good job, Kirschner. That’s the American way!

Is he out of his mind?

I suppose I should save my outrage because this isn’t a proposal from the Biden Administration, but only the pipe dream of a far-left Democrat.

I wouldn’t sign the pledge. Democratic judges and intimidated or anti-Trump Republicans refused to give the Trump campaign the opportunity to present their considerable evidence of improprieties that took place on and around Election Day. Not even the Supreme Court has allowed them to make their case.

None of this means that the charges have been settled as they would have you believe. The Democrats won’t allow the evidence to see the light of day which makes it impossible to know the truth.

On Sunday, my colleague Richard Edward Tracy, reported (here) that the Arizona state Senate, will be conducting a thorough audit of 2.1 million votes from the Grand Canyon State’s Maricopa County, absentee ballots included. That’s a start.

There are too many allegations of fraud outstanding – including over 1,000 sworn affidavits from poll observers – for this matter to be settled.

And Kirschner’s democracy pledge is the type of totalitarian tactic one might expect in Russia. And anyone who supports it opposes democracy.

Judge Considers Unsealing Absentee Ballots In Fulton County, GA Following Credible Allegations of Fraud

Advertisements

In the age of technology, it’s almost impossible to get away with a crime. There are 100 ways to get caught and a criminal may think of 99 of them. But somewhere in the paper or the digital trail, resides the one item that was overlooked. And a diligent, persistent investigator will find it.

In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, over 1,000 poll watchers in swing states signed sworn affidavits stating they had witnessed irregularities on and in the days immediately following Nov. 3.

One of the complainants, Garland Favorito, is the co-founder of the Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia, a conservative government watchdog group.

RealClearInvestigations‘ Paul Sperry recounted Favorito’s story. “A curious thing happened as Fulton County, Ga., election officials counted mail-in ballots at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena in the days after the election. In the early hours of Nov. 5, a surge of some 20,000 mail-in votes suddenly appeared for Joe Biden, while approximately 1,000 votes for President Trump mysteriously disappeared from his own totals in the critical swing state.”

Favorito observed this “suspicious shift in votes while monitoring the interim election results on the Georgia secretary of state website.”

In the affidavit Favorito had filed with the secretary of state’s office, he wrote, “I concluded from looking at these results that this was an irregularity, since there was no obvious reason for President Trump’s totals to have decreased while former Vice President Biden’s totals increased dramatically.”

Favorito’s claims, along with virtually all of the other allegations were quickly dismissed by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.

Refusing to be rejected so easily, he filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court. At a court hearing held on Monday, Henry County Judge Brian Amero appeared to take his case seriously.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Amero may unseal absentee ballots in Fulton County so a government watchdog [Favorito’s group] can investigate allegations of voting fraud in the November election.”

Amero said he’s “inclined to order the ballots to be unsealed and reviewed by experts hired by Favorito.” The ballots are currently under seal in the Fulton County Superior Court Clerk’s Office.

AJC reported:

At Monday’s hearing, Amero said he’s willing to order the absentee ballots to be unsealed if he’s assured their security will not be compromised. He requested a detailed plan, including who would review the ballots, how they would analyze them and how they would secure them.

The judge also discussed a protective order that would prohibit Favorito’s experts from disclosing their work without permission from the court. And he plans to appoint a special master — perhaps a retired superior court judge — to oversee the analysis. If Amero allows it, the review of ballots could begin in late April.

“I can’t sign an order until such time as I’m satisfied that the manner and method (of review) proposed by the petitioners is reasonable,” the judge said.

“We want to do this in such a way that dispels rumors and disinformation and sheds light,” Amero said at the hearing. “The devil’s in the details.”

Favorito is seeking to review absentee ballots in Fulton County. He says county workers fabricated ballots and counted some ballots multiple times on election night. As evidence, his lawsuit cites video of the counting, as well as sworn statements from people who were present.

The observers were suspicious of ballots that were printed on a different stock of paper than regular ballots, appeared to have been printed instead of marked by ink in a voter’s hand or were not creased, indicating they had not been placed in an absentee ballot envelope and mailed.

Naturally, state and county election officials dispute Favorito’s allegations. According to the AJC, these officials have explained that many ballots had been damaged and had to be duplicated before their scanners would process them. The scanners sometimes jam and when that happens, officials said, all of the ballots from a particular batch must be rescanned.

AJC quotes Gabriel Sterling, chief operating officer for the secretary of state’s office, who declared that “the witness statements in the lawsuits are wrong.”

Sterling told a reporter last week that, “It’s not people who are lying, they don’t understand what they’re saying.”

Of course.

Obviously, none of us know what happened with the ballots. But there seems to be too much smoke here for there to be no fire. And taking the Georgia election officials at their word is akin to taking the word of your teenager who swears he didn’t have a party when you were away, even though several bags of beer bottles were found and there’s a huge cigarette burn in the carpet.

Except that the stakes are exponentially greater. In fact, they have already changed the course of America’s future.

The majority of Trump voters, including myself, believe that fraud occurred in the election. We need to pursue each and every one of the allegations made in the sworn affidavits.

I am convinced that somewhere there exists that one detail that was overlooked. We need to find it.