|Race Advantage: Conservatives||The GOP was formed to oppose slavery. President Abraham Lincoln emancipated slaves. GOP senators powered the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Conservatives favor the view of Dr. Martin Luther King that people should be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.||Socialists founded the KKK. President Woodrow Wilson supported the KKK and showed their movie in the White House. President Lyndon Johnson started the failed “War on Poverty” which trapped minorities in welfare dependency, resulting in fragmented families and declines in virtually all cultural index indicators. Presidents Johnson and Clinton referred to Blacks by the n-word. Socialists support critical race theory and the idea that America has been guillty of so-called “systemic racism” for 400 years. They have given billions of dollars to the Marxist organization Black Lives Matter and want to defund police.|
|Life Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives believe that human life is sacred and we are all made in the image of God. Therefore, life must be protected from conception to natural death.||Socialists believe that human life is expendable and favor abortion and euthanasia. Socialists’ campaigns are heavily funded by Planned Parenthood, which profits from killing pre-born children. Many Democrats believe in infanticide as well.|
|God Advantage: Conservatives||Most conservatives revere God, though there are non-religious conservatives.||Democrats went on record at their 2012 national convention as haters of God, overwhelmingly demanding He not be included in their platform, on a voice vote. Barack Obama is the only president on record for denouncing Christianity and waging war on the First Amendment’s religious liberty.|
|Religious Liberty Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives fully support the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. A large percentage of Conservatives are Christians.||Many Socialists are secular humanists who believe God is a myth and man is the measure of all things. Socialists in Congress have illegally applied religious litmus tests to judicial nominees and others. Socialists have duped the courts for decades by demanding that government treat Christianity with hostility.|
|The Constitution Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives believe in the original intent of the Founding Fathers in their writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Judges and justices should follow the intent of the Constitution.||Socialists disrespect the Constitution and twist its meaning to support abortion, same-sex marriage and government hostility toward Christianity though a so-called “separation of church and state.” None of these things appear in the Constitution and none were ever intended by the Founders. Socialists have infiltrated the courts and engaged in judicial activism to mandate policies they could not pass through the legislative process.|
|National Borders Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives believe that a country without borders is not a country at all. They believe borders should be secured with a wall to prevent drug and human smugglers from illegally entering the country. The border invasion has severely taxed America’s resources and resulted in many hospital closures.||Socialists favor wide-open borders and heaping free resources on illegal aliens in hopes of converting them to their voter rolls.|
|Gender Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives agree with biologists that there are two genders: male and female. It is unfair for males to compete on female sports teams. It is not compassionate for people suffering from unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion to be told to proceed in their personal pain when it can be addressed through counseling.||Socialists believe there are dozens of different genders and that males competing on women’s sports teams are actually “females.” Anyone who refuses to believe as they do is branded by Socialists as “homophobes” and “transphobes.” Socialists also benefit from vast amounts of campaign funding from LGBT pressure groups (who seek to punish and destroy anyone who doesn’t cave in to their demands and unscientific beliefs).|
|Science Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives believe that science is science, and its evidence cannot be twisted to support radical political aims. Science has proven that homosexuality is not genetic, the earth is young and global warming is without foundation.||Socialists incorrectly believe that science confirms evolution, an old earth, a genetic cause for homosexuality, global warming and more. These are all based on worldview — not sound science. Socialist influences on American government and education only allow research grants to be given, for example, to projects trying to prove evolution and global warming. Funding is not allowed, and socialist-dominated public universities forbid, research on non-evolution theories. This is academic tyranny, not freedom.|
|Government||Conservatives believe that government should be less intrusive on people’s personal lives. The smaller the government is, the larger the individual is. Personal freedom is paramount. Big Government needs to be held accountable and obscene government waste and corruption must be halted. There is a huge need for government accountability.||Socialists believe that Big Government should control every aspect of people’s lives. Big centralized government now controls everything and is responsible for corruption and government waste of unfathomable scales. Politicians routinely give huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to supportive organizations and individuals who in turn donate it to their election campaigns. There is no need for government accountability.|
|Taxes Advantage: Conservatives||Americans should be taxed less and allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money. Taxpayers should not be bilked so the government can purchase $700,000 sculptures or waste their money on frivolous grants and unjustified spending.||Socialists in government are over-taxing Americans. Much of this money is then either wasted or given to Socialist allies.|
|Crime Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives believe in a “commit the crime, do the time” philosophy. There are some bad police officers but overwhelmingly police risk their lives for a thankless crime dealing with dangerous criminals who need to be removed from the streets. Violent felons should lose their rights while serving prison sentences.||Socialists are more concerned about how many criminals are in jail than the crimes they’ve committed. Socialist organizations are raising money to bail violent criminals out of jail. They want to defund police, whom they say are “system racists.”|
|Elections Advantage: Conservatives||Conservatives are concerned about Socialist voter fraud, which is picking up in frequency and intensity. In order to vote, people must be able to prove that they are a registered voter and a U.S. citizen.||Socialists use the ruse of “voter suppression” to deflect attention away from their efforts to steal elections through voter fraud. They do not believe voters should have to submit ID, even though they require photo ID for delegates attending their conventions.|
Who stands to gain from stealing money from Democrats? Three guesses and the first two don’t count! And what’s to stop them from committing this crime in Arizona and every other state now that they know how to do it?
The Associated Press reported that hackers stole $2.3 million from the Wisconsin Republican Party’s account that was earmarked for President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign in this key battleground state.
The party noticed the suspicious activity on Oct. 22 and contacted the FBI on Friday, said Republican Party Chairman Andrew Hitt.
Hitt said the FBI is investigating. FBI spokesman Leonard Peace did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
“There’s no doubt RPW is now at a disadvantage with that money being gone,” Hitt said. The party and campaign needs money late in the race to make quick decisions, he said.
Hitt said the hackers were able to manipulate invoices from four vendors who were being paid to send out direct mail for Trump’s reelection efforts and to provide pro-Trump material such as hats that could be handed out to supporters. Invoices were altered so when the party paid them, the money went to the hackers instead of the vendors, Hitt said.
Hitt said it appears the attack began as a phishing attempt.
With Election Day just days away, and early voting already underway in many states, the election-related lawsuits have been piling up, and court decisions (and appeals) have been coming out at a dizzying rate.
Some are still trying to change the rules in the middle of the election that would make it easier to commit fraud and to manipulate election results—not unlike a college football coach persuading the referees to change the rules in the middle of a bowl game to make sure his team can win.
Challenges to election procedures in South Carolina (witness requirements for absentee ballots); Ohio and Texas (ballot drop-box locations); and Florida (registration deadline)—to name just a few—have all made the news as they make their way through the federal courts.
But wait, there’s more!
The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>
Absentee-ballot deadlines have been a major contention—especially when federal judges extend them well beyond Election Day. That raises many serious issues about the integrity of the election process and the possibility of ballots being voted and collected (or altered) by so-called “vote harvesters” after Election Day to shift reported preliminary results.
Here are eight such cases:
We previously wrote about the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to stay (or stop from going into effect) the order of a federal district court judge appointed by then-President Barack Obama that “extended the deadline for the receipt of mailed ballots from Nov. 3 (Election Day) to Nov. 9, provided that the ballots [had been] postmarked on or before Nov. 3 … .”
In doing so, the court of appeals chastised the district court judge, reminding him that “the Supreme Court has insisted that federal courts not change electoral rules close to an election date” and that “the design of adjustments during a pandemic” is not a “judicial task.”
On Oct. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the Democratic National Committee’s request for a stay of the 7th Circuit’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence explaining his rationale for why this decision differed from the high court’s decision in the Pennsylvania case (more on that in a moment), and Justice Neil Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence emphasizing that “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”
Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit’s election-related work didn’t end with Wisconsin’s case. The same court had to repeat itself only five days later when it stayed and “summarily reversed” an Indiana-based federal judge’s order “requiring the state [of Indiana] to count all absentee ballots received by November 13, 2020, ten days after Election Day.”
The court relied on the same rationale as in its previous cases and in some instances even said “[s]ubstitute ‘Indiana’ for ‘Wisconsin’ and the essential point remains.”
An important point to keep in mind that too many seem to forget or want to ignore is that, as the 7th Circuit said, “as long as the state allows voting in person, there is no constitutional right to vote by mail.”
The fact that there is a pandemic is still “not a good reason for the federal judiciary to assume tasks that belong to politically responsible officials.”
In other words, it is up to state officials, not judges, to decide what the rules are applying to voting and the receipt of absentee ballots.
3) North Carolina
Shifting gears, some plaintiffs have pursued their election-related claims in state courts and then entered into settlement agreements or consent decrees with state officials who refuse to defend their state laws as they are obligated to do.
That’s known as collusive litigation, in which state election officials use lawsuits filed by their friends and political allies to subvert laws implemented by state legislatures that they don’t like or that were passed by their political opposition.
Even more problematic, these consent decrees in turn often spawn their own rounds of federal litigation by state legislators and others who object to state laws being undefended and summarily changed through settlement agreements.
That’s what happened in North Carolina, where the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a six-day extension—from three days after the election to nine—during which mail-in ballots could be received and counted by election officials so long as the ballots were mailed on or before Election Day.
This extension was the result of a state court consent decree entered into between the state court plaintiffs and the North Carolina Board of Elections, which is controlled by Democrats, while both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.
A lower court judge found that the board had “secretly” negotiated the settlement without consulting the legislature and “showed little or no interest” in defending state law against the lawsuit.
Judge James A. Wynn, another Obama appointee, wrote the opinion for the entire 4th Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III and G. Steven Agee, with whom Judge Paul Niemeyer joined.
The central dispute between the majority and the dissent centered on what constituted the “status quo” when applying the Purcellprinciple, established by the Supreme Court in 2006. That’s the idea that federal courts generally should not interfere with a state’s election-related decisions close to an election.
Wynn and the majority said, “The state court issued an order approving the Consent Judgment on October 2. This October 2 order established the relevant status quo for Purcell purposes. Under this status quo, all absentee votes cast by Election Day and received by November 12 would be counted.”
The dissenters countered that “we are faced with nonrepresentative entities changing election law immediately preceding or during a federal election. In making those changes, they have undone the work of the elected state legislatures, to which the Constitution clearly and explicitly delegates the power” to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
As the dissenters pointed out, “The Constitution does not assign these powers holistically to the state governments, but rather pinpoints a particular branch of state government—‘the Legislatures thereof.’”
Foreshadowing Gorsuch’s concurrence in the Wisconsin case, they went on to say, “Whether it is a federal court … or a state election board—as it is here—does not matter; both are unaccountable entities stripping power from the legislatures. They are changing the rules of the game in the middle of an election—exactly what Purcell … counsels against.”
In fact, Niemeyer noted, the 4th Circuit majority was changing the rules when “well over 1,000,000” North Carolinians had already voted.
The court’s action “disrespects the Supreme Court’s repeated and clear command not to interfere so late in the day. This pernicious pattern is making the courts appear partisan, destabilizing federal elections, and undermining the power of the people to choose representatives to set election rules.”
Emergency appeals have already been filed with the Supreme Court by both the Trump campaign and North Carolina state legislators, no doubt encouraged by Wilkinson and Agee saying that they “are likely to succeed on their appeal.”
A federal district court in Minnesota recently confronted a similar issue with another collusive lawsuit. There—as in North Carolina—Steve Simon, the Minnesota secretary of state, a former Democratic state legislator, entered into a consent decree with certain groups, as a result of a state court lawsuit, agreeing “not to enforce Minnesota’s statutorily mandated absentee-ballot receipt deadline of 8:00 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, 2020.”
“Instead, the [state] court ordered [Minnesota officials, consistent with the consent decree] to count ballots that are postmarked by November 3, so long as election officials receive them within a week of Election Day.”
As a result, two Republican Party presidential electors brought suit in federal court challenging the collusive consent decree and the court order approving it as unconstitutional. Specifically, they argued the actions violated the “Electors Clause” in Article II of the Constitution, which grants state legislatures the authority to determine how to select presidential electors, and Congress’ power under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 to set the “[t]ime of [choosing] the Electors.”
However, the court never reached the merits of this case because it found that the electors did not have standing, or the ability to pursue these claims in federal court, because they had not been injured by the change in election procedures. But this seems like an odd result, given that it is presidential electors who are elected by voters when they cast ballots, not the presidential candidates themselves.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, that state’s intermediate appellate court, ruled on Oct. 16 that a lower Michigan court had incorrectly required the state to accept mail-in ballots up to 14 days after Election Day and that it had improperly prohibited the state from enforcing its laws relating to who, other than the voter, can handle and deliver his or her ballot.
It made clear that “designing adjustments to our election integrity laws is the responsibility of our elected policymakers, not the judiciary.”
In fact, the court said:
Our legislature has addressed the expected increase in [absentee] voter ballots by empowering clerks to begin processing [absentee] voter ballots earlier in an effort to provide a final vote tally after polls close for the 2020 election … .
While plaintiffs may view these efforts as inadequate first steps, there is no reason to believe that these specific efforts are constitutionally required, even in the midst of a pandemic.
Instead, they reflect the proper ‘exercise of discretion, the marshaling and allocation of resources, and the confrontation of thorny policy issues’ that the people have reserved exclusively for our Legislative and Executive branches to exercise.
The court also acknowledged that “[i]mposing limits on whether third parties can possess or collect ballots simply reflects a policy decision by a duly elected legislature, where the Constitution places responsibility to regulate and preserve the purity of elections.”
Interestingly, one of the plaintiffs in this case is the Phillip Randolph Institute. This is the same radical organization that lost a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Husted v. Phillip Randolph Institute, in which it tried to prevent the state of Ohio from maintaining the accuracy of its voter-registration list by removing individuals who had died or moved out of the state.
On Oct. 19, an evenly divided Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 and thus left in place a ruling by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party that would require—according to that court’s interpretation of state law—state officials to count absentee ballots received up to three days after the election even if they don’t have a postmark showing they had been mailed by Election Day.
In a surprising move, it was Roberts who joined with the court’s liberals to refuse Supreme Court review of the state court’s decision.
Roberts didn’t explain his vote in this case. However, he did write a short concurrence in the later case out of Wisconsin in which he agreed to stop the extension of the absentee ballot deadline to try to explain why he voted differently in each case.
He claimed that because “the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations,” that case was different than “the federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes” in Wisconsin.
According to Roberts, because “different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations,” the circumstances require “that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania, but not Wisconsin.”
The fallacy of that argument is that the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election rules to state legislatures, not state courts.
On Oct. 24, however, perhaps in anticipation of possibly getting a better decision with the empty seat on the Supreme Court filled, the state’s Republican Party went back to the Supreme Court and asked it to decide the case on the merits, rather than simply asking it to stop the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order from taking effect while the litigation proceeds.
The outcome of that request remains to be seen.
The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court also ruled on Oct. 23 that election officials could not reject absentee ballots because the signature on the ballot does not match the signature of the voter on file, throwing out one of the most basic security protocols in place for mail-in ballots.
On Oct. 14, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a lower state court abused its discretion when it issued an Oct. 5 stay preventing the Iowa secretary of state from requiring that county officials distribute “only the blank Official State of Iowa Absentee Ballot Request Form … .”
While the decision turns largely on state law, the court said, “Clearly, reasonable people can disagree on whether sending out blank or prepopulated absentee-ballot request forms is better policy … [but m]ore importantly, it is not the role of the court system to evaluate the wisdom or fairness of policy choices made by other branches of governments.”
Contrary to the court’s comment about “reasonable people,” knowledgeable election officials understand that sending out absentee-ballot request forms that are already populated with a voter’s registration information—rather than requiring the voter to provide that information—cuts out one of the safety protocols for authenticating absentee-ballot requests.
And finally, we turn to Alabama. We previously discussed the 11th Circuit’s rulings that have repeatedly stayed a recalcitrant federal district judge’s order prohibiting Alabama from enforcing its witness and photo-ID requirements for absentee ballots, and the fact that this same decision did not stay the district court’s order telling Alabama state officials they could not stop local officials from providing curbside voting, something not authorized under state law.
As we noted before, federal appeals court Judge Barbara Lagoa—who was rumored to have been one of two finalists for the Supreme Court vacancy that ultimately went to appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett—would also have stayed the district court’s order with regard to curbside voting.
Well, Lagoa was right. Alabama officials sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, which it granted—meaning Alabama officials can run their elections as they see fit (within constitutional bounds, of course) and once again prohibit curbside voting.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined, that makes it clear that they would have no hesitation in substituting their “expert” judgment on how to deal with the health issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic for that of state and local officials.
All told, an avalanche of election-related litigation has been filed in courts across the country. The common objective in all of these cases seems to be to get rid of the deadlines and security measures in place for absentee or mail-in ballots by overriding the rules set by state legislatures to govern the election.
The quantity and complexity of these lawsuits so close to an election—after many votes have already been cast—emphasizes the importance of the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle that federal courts should not intervene at the last minute, upsetting expectations and creating even more chaos in the process.
Are globalists using Covid as cover for their real post-election plans?
Should we expect the Left to unleash a bloody cleansing of its political opponents?
October 23, 2020
After his stumbling performance in Thursday night’s debate, and the way in which his campaign seems to be hiding him from public view, it’s hard to imagine how Joe Biden wins the presidency on Nov. 3.
If Biden was seriously trying to win, he would be out on the campaign trail like President Trump, not in his basement.
The way Biden is acting, it’s almost as if he’s been told not to worry, the outcome is not going to be decided by vote tallies.
With that in mind, let’s think outside the box and examine some possibilities that may sound insane, until we detach ourselves from our normalcy bias.
From this vantage point, all roads lead to the same dark place — a second coronavirus lockdown, indeed a harder lockdown than the first one.
And it could be accompanied this time by a coup d’ etat to remove Trump from office. Look for the establishment [deep state supported by deep media] to conjure up some false pretense to justify his removal despite the fact that he will win re-election on Nov. 3, fair and square.
All the signals are pointing to this. And the latest came from Biden himself.
During the debate, Biden held up his black mask, looked straight into the camera and said “We’re about to go into a dark winter.”
Lest anyone dismiss Biden’s comment as the nonsensical ramblings of a washed-up politician, he repeated it.
We are in for “a dark winter,” he reiterated.
President Trump said we must learn to live with the virus. Biden countered that we will “learn to die with it.”
A slip of the tongue? Or a foreboding prediction?
Biden, as I reported in my recent article, 8 Tenets of the New World Order, is a third-rate politician who has spent 47 years prostituting himself before his globalist puppet masters. He flip-flops all over the place on policy issues because he has no personal commitment to any particular policies, he simply says and does what he’s told.
That’s why fracking is cool before one audience, only to be condemned in front of the next. In his previous life as a U.S. senator, taxpayer-funded abortions were wrong, but we’re supposed to believe he woke up one day and changed his mind. Aborting a baby was suddenly a woman’s “fundamental” human right.
Enter the Dark Winter
After 47 years of working for his globalist masters, Biden’s conscience has been seared. His words are meaningless.
Until he puts policy aside and starts speaking in symbolic terms.
That’s where the Dark Winter comes in.
The federal government carried out Operation Dark Winter in June 2001, a simulation exercise focused on how to respond to a covert biological attack using a super-strain of smallpox from an unknown source. It involved draconian lockdowns, rioting in the streets, and military intervention to quell the chaos. You can read about it in an article that appeared earlier this year in the elitist magazine Foreign Policy titled America’s Pandemic War Games Don’t End Well. The magazine admits the current coronavirus pandemic “bears an eerie resemblance to the simulation.”
The Foreign Policy article on Operation Dark Winter ends by planting an ominous seed in readers’ minds.
“The issue is, after all, deeply political—as Dark Winter showed. And it is not just lives that are at stake. So, too, is the ability of the American form of government to respond deftly to a nationwide medical crisis. ‘In the earliest days of this crisis, it was clear that the response was insufficiently proactive at the federal level,’ argued Andrew Lakoff, professor of sociology at USC. ‘Over the last century, we have developed a system for governing crisis situations that has saved us from falling into dictatorship in times of emergency. We have shown that a democracy can respond as well as a dictatorship to emergencies. But I wonder if our system will hold up in the face of the current crisis. I certainly hope so.’”
Biden’s “Dark Winter” comment at the debate may have carried a deeper meaning:
Vote for me and avoid the darkness, vote for my opponent and we will unleash holy hell on you stupid people who thought you actually lived in a free country. How foolish of you to believe you actually have the power to elect the president of your choice. Either way, we win, you lose, because we control who you are allowed to elect and Donald Trump’s name has already been scratched off the list of approved candidates. Vote for him and enter the Dark Winter, where Trump-supporting resistors of our new globalist order, our Great Reset, meet their final demise.
Albeit, that’s reading a lot into one little two-word phrase used by the former vice president.
But is it? Maybe not if placed in the context of recent statements from other prominent Democrats.
Take, for example, the words of Gretchen Whitmer, the Marxist governor of Michigan. She said if residents of her state are tired of masks and want to go back to church, if they’re sick of seeing family-owned businesses fold, then they must vote for Biden. He’s your ticket to the restoration of normalcy.
Whitmer, after blaming every death and every “case” of COVID on Trump [forget that 80 percent of those testing positive have no symptoms or very light symptoms], said the following on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Oct. 18:
“This is a gravely serious moment for all of us and if you’re tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or wish your kids were in school in person, it is time for change in this country and that’s why we’ve got to elect Joe Biden.”
So Whitmer threatens to place Michigan residents in lockdown if they don’t vote the right way. What kind of leader makes such a statement? Only a communist!
But Whitmer is hardly alone in threatening dire consequences for those uppity subjects judged guilty of wrongthink.
A far-left outfit called Public Service Media Group Inc. has created an online database called Donald Trump Watch that identifies Trump donors and reveals their home addresses, setting them up for attacks by Antifa and BLM-aligned thugs.
As reported by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, users simply punch in the address of any location in the country and a map will show the name and address of any Trump donor in the area.
The website is using Federal Elections Commission data to place a target on the back of every Trump donor. It includes names, amounts of donations, and addresses according to zip code. They could easily target Trumpsters in a single state or locality.
The website boasts that it provides the names and addresses of “Americans that donated to a vulgar, lying, draft dodger and tax cheat” and blames Trump for “220,000 dead” Americans. An earlier message on the site accused Trump donors of giving “Money to Support a Racist.”
We see this same vicious mentality in the anonymous letters being sent to potential Trump voters in several swing states including New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Florida. The letters have threatened in no subtle terms to burn down the people’s homes if they pull the lever for Trump.
Kelly, a Milford, N.H., resident who asked to be identified only by her first name, said she received one of the letters. Her letter stated the following:
“Dear neighbor: You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter. Your address has been added to our database as a target when we attack should Trump not concede the election.”
Another leftist group called Shut Down DC plans to stop Trump from being declared the winner in the Nov. 3 election.
As The New American reports, it’s no longer merely a “conspiracy theory” if the conspirators are telling the world exactly what they plan to do.
And that’s what “Shut Down D.C.” is doing. The group states on its website it is preparing to launch mass gatherings in the nation’s capital beginning the night of the election in an attempt to stop what it claims will be an “attempted coup” by President Trump and a refusal from him to accept the results of the election.
According to Shut Down D.C., the “resistance” must begin amid the “muddied” legal and political debate over the election’s outcome.
“Trump will not leave office without mass mobilization and direct action,” the group says on its website.
In a document first reported by The Federalist, the Shut Down DC refers to its initiative as an “uprising” and suggest various maneuvers including blockading the White House, blocking traffic, shutting down government office buildings and cutting off Amazon fulfillment centers.
Shut Down D.C. reportedly held a training session in which it instructed participants in how to react to hypothetical scenarios, providing a timeline to a potential meltdown situation.
According to the event description: “Each team will work to develop action plans to respond to the scenario, anticipate how other movement actors will respond, and build capacity for collective action to build the world we want to live in.”
Presumably, the training is to facilitate mass protests and civil unrest planned for the days subsequent to Election Night.
According to Shut Down D.C., from Nov. 4-7, organized activities will include hitting the streets daily to “respond to rapidly changing events.”
“We may be waiting for votes to be counted or we may be responding to major attacks on democracy,” the group states. “Over the next few weeks we’ll use our Spokes Council process to plan actions that are flexible and can scale to respond to a lot of different scenarios.”
From Nov. 8-11, Shut Down D.C. plans to confront returning members of Congress, harassing them at train stations, airports, or even their homes.
“If Trump is trying to launch a coup, that’s no time for business as usual,” the website explains. “And if Trump has already conceded, then we can pivot and use these actions to demand COVID-19 relief and other essential legislation!”
The group states that it plans to cease its activities only once President Trump concedes.
In another section of the website, Shut Down D.C. maintains that it wants to force the president from the White House:
As previously reported by LeoHohmann.com, former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo tweeted that certain capitalists would be the first ones to be “lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution,” while leftist media hack Keith Olbermann said Trump supporters must be “removed” from society after Joe Biden wins.
Do not dismiss these threats as too outlandish to be real
We ignore the new reality at our own risk: These threats are real. We should take them as a clear indicator that, either way, whether their man Biden wins or loses, they are coming after us. We must be prepared for that inevitability.
Do not ignore the symbolism in last night’s debate.
Biden is the child of darkness who answers to his puppet masters, who are globalist and Luciferian. Trump is the child of light who brings at least the hope of better days ahead.
If Biden wins, it’s lights out, literally and figuratively. Look at what’s been going on in California, where that state’s war on fossil fuels has left them over-dependent on wind and solar power that is insufficient to power their economy. Family residences and small businesses are routinely left in the dark as the state shuts off power to their properties.
The Dark Winter has already arrived for states like California, New York and Illinois and it may be too late for them to turn back the clock. They are at the mercy of their Marxist and technocratic overlords, who encourage sanctuary cities for the harboring of illegal-alien criminals and make it virtually impossible for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves by purchasing a firearm.
If Trump wins, it’s still going to be dangerous and treacherous on the road to recovery, with enemies lying in wait around every corner. The darkness will not be immediately vanquished by Trump or any other political messiah. As I reported previously, Chaos is Coming to Mayberry, and the war will not end on Nov. 4 with a Trump victory, it’s only just begun.
Trump, despite his skill in creating a prosperous economy, did not make any real headway in dismantling the deep-state globalist threat to America and that will be the real legacy of his first term in office. All he gave us was a temporary reprieve from the onslaught of a tyranny toward which America has been marching for seven decades since the end of World War II.
But don’t lose hope. Maybe, just maybe, we will have to hit rock bottom as a nation before we can see the world for what it really is, as opposed to how it is presented to us in the establishment media. Only then, armed with the discernment of Christ, can we pick ourselves up and feel our way through the fog of war to emerge at the other end a stronger and better people. A people who learned to put our trust not in man-made systems but in God’s glorious roadmap to ultimate salvation.
Leo Hohmann is an independent journalist providing news and analysis for such a time as this.
By John Semmens — Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Recent revelations indicating a long-running influence peddling operation involving Biden family members—including the former Vice-President—would strike most people as being newsworthy. However, most of the mainstream media have been avoiding the topic. However, taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) has gone even further down the road of denial by declaring it a “waste of time.”
Kelly McBride, NPR’s public editor, explained that “unlike commercial media we’re not in this business for the money. As a publicly-funded operation it is our duty to protect the listening audience from hearing unworthy stories. Trump supporters are touting the actions taken by Hunter Biden and his father as some sort of extraordinary instance of corruption. The reality is that the exchange of money for political favors is a long-standing practice. The majority of the major figures in both parties have had a hand in other similar sordid dealings. It is Trump who is out-of-step.”
“The turmoil we are seeing around the nation has been sparked by Trump’s attempt to sweep aside norms that have stood since FDR’s New Deal,” McBride insisted.“The whole point of an active federal government is to open up new ways of handling money. The Great Depression proved that the free market system is an inadequate method for determining the distribution of wealth. Allowing members of the governing class to alter the inequitable situation resulting from capitalism is a necessary step toward social justice. Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden should be smeared by undue scrutiny of how they’ve seized the opportunities opened to them by a more active federal government.”
In related news, Joe Biden praised the media “for standing up for truth against the lies being told by Trump. No one has ever said me or Hunter did anything wrong in our dealings with Ukraine or China. The laptop data that indicates Burisma paid for me to help oust the prosecutor looking into their business dealings proves nothing. If this was wrong the media would’ve jumped all over me. But they didn’t. That’s my ‘get out of jail free card.’ Trump’s foaming at the mouth over my so-called ‘corruption’ shows that he knows this. Once I get to appoint the next Attorney General of the United States those who have persecuted Hunter and I will pay the price.”
Biden Nails Trump on Fracking Issue
In Thursday’s debate President Trump accused Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden of threatening to ban fracking. Eager to demonstrate that he is not the demented shell of a man that some have feared, Biden referred to the IPOD concealed beneath his yellow note pad, read the words sent by his staff, and flatly denied that he said any such thing and dared Trump to “show the video.”
Trump promised to post the video on his campaign web page after the debate. Encouraged by this tepid rebuttal, Biden proceeded to clarify his position on fracking by pointing out “it is my intention to totally phase out all fossil fuels by 2025. The clean energy sources that I will mandate—wind and solar—will make fossil fuels unnecessary. There’ll be no need for fracking, drilling, refining, and transporting oil or gas.”
“My opponent says this will be bad for the economy,” Biden recalled. “What he is hiding from voters is the fact that by making fossil fuels illegal a great demand will be created for replacement energy sources and the machines that use them. Your gasoline-powered automobile will be obsolete and need replacing. Gas and oil heated homes will need overhauls to shift to solar and wind power. This will massively stimulate the economy and demonstrate the superiority of greater government regulation and control as the path to prosperity.”
“That’s a strong statement,” Trump replied. “I doubt that forcing a transition to the highly expensive and unreliable so-called clean energy of wind and solar will be the economic dynamo you envision. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. In states like California where your ideas have already been tested there are frequent power outages. Imagine how much worse this will get without the possible rescue by outlawed fossil-fueled power. Maybe you look forward to the day when cars are fitted with masts and sails, but I don’t think the American people will feel themselves well-served by such lunacy.”
In later related debate exchange, Biden rebutted Trump’s contention that millions lost their health insurance under Obamacare by pointing out that “they didn’t lose their health insurance. They were transitioned to new plans with higher premiums and deductibles and denied the privilege of choosing scaled down plans that failed to cover services like abortion and sex-changes that government determined were essential. Trump spent four years trying to undo these crucial augmentations. I will be building on Obamacare so that no one will be denied the medical treatments that the government decides they need.”
Biden Regrets Supporting Muting Microphones
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden expressed his regret that “the muting of the microphones at the debate didn’t go as I thought it would. Before the debate I thought it was a good idea. Giving the moderator the opportunity to cut off my mic when I started to wander off topic could save me from embarrassing myself. It was only later that I realized that Kristen wasn’t doing this. She was focused on muting Trump’s mic. This saved him from making a fool of himself, but left me dangling in the wind.”
“My people are now telling me that I said some dumb things,” Biden admitted. “They counted eight times when I used the phrase ‘pay the price.’ They say this reminds voters of the deals Hunter was making in China on my behalf. Not good. I also apparently promised to eliminate the oil industry and predicted a dark future for America. It seems I really could have benefited from some timely muting of my mic, but Kristen let me down.”
A contrite Kristen Welker apologized for “misunderstanding my role. I was concentrating on drowning out Trump’s hateful rhetoric. I thought that was what we all agreed on before the debate. At least, that’s what Joe’s people told me my job was. Judging from all the praise I got from virtually all media outlets after the debate I imagined I had handled things well. If I wasn’t, why couldn’t Joe have used the same code words ‘my time is up’ that he used when he recognized he was lost in the Democratic debates? Then I could’ve cut his mic without fear of being blamed later for interrupting what he was saying.”
In related news, Twitter and Facebook have censored the Trump campaign 65 times compared to censoring the Biden campaign zero times during the time both have been running. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey maintains that “we are only trying to level the playing field. Joe Biden is obviously mental impaired. If we were to take a hands-off approach or to equally censor both campaigns Biden would be at a tremendous disadvantage. The election would be no contest. That would be boring. So we did what they do in handicap horse races and gave the Trump team a heavier load to carry. This way Biden can stay in the race and maybe win it. Anyway, since most of the twits using our platform want Biden to win it’s also good for business.”
Clapper Makes a Fool of Himself
Former Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper and 50 other former intelligence officials have signed a letter asserting that the disclosure of the emails and videos on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop is “Russian disinformation.”
“The fact that these emails and such have been verified to have been authored or received by Hunter Biden doesn’t change my opinion,” Clapper asserted. “After all, Hillary Clinton’s emails were real, but we all concluded that the Russians were involved in making them public. They could just as easily be orchestrating the events leading up to the laptop being discovered and its contents revealed.”
“Here’s how I think they did it,” Clapper continued. “First, they get Hunter high on crack. He later spills his beer on his laptop. He takes it to a repair shop and signs a work order authorizing the repair. After the repairman calls to say the work is done the Russians convince Hunter not to pay the bill by giving him a new and better laptop. They know that under the terms of the work order failure to make payment within 90 days will result in forfeiture of ownership. The repairman is then free to do whatever he wants with it. The Russians call him and suggest that he turn it over to Rudy Giuliani, which he does. Logically, I think I’ve presented an airtight case. My 50 co-signers agree.”
“The bottom line is that the knowledge of the Biden’s misdeeds has been illicitly discovered,” Clapper concluded. “As such, all knowledge of these crimes must be expunged from the record. This is how the crimes committed by Hillary Clinton were expunged by the Mueller investigative team. Deviating from this tried and true protocol at this late date would harm national security by exposing too many high-ranking members of the ruling elite to public scorn. The damage to the nation’s reputation would be severe. The laptop should be destroyed and every person privy to its contents must be ordered to forget whatever they have seen.”
Current DNI John Ratcliffe called Clapper’s letter and reasoning “a ridiculous and harebrained theory. I’ve seen the contents of the laptop. They are a genuine and damning trove of evidence detailing numerous improper actions on the part of several in the Biden family, including former Vice-President Joe Biden. Further investigation and, potentially, prosecution are warranted.”
Schumer Threatens FBI
In a bid to ensure that the FBI continues to cover up the Biden scandal, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) warned Director Christopher Wray “to resist the temptation to take the case too seriously. Your Agency has been loyally sitting on Hunter Biden’s laptop since last December. We appreciate that. Now this Bobulinski character has turned over cell phones he says he used to communicate with the Biden family and that these phones will verify his testimony contradicting Vice-President Biden’s profession of ignorance and non-involvement in his son’s business activities. We are at a critical juncture in this year’s elections. Your next move is of crucial importance.”
“Let me remind you that Jill Biden has clearly stated that ‘the American people don’t want to hear these smears,’” Schumer wrote. “Within a few months Joe Biden will be president. I urge you not to be stampeded into any hasty moves you will later regret. It is okay to give public reassurances that the FBI will handle the matter as it deems best. But there must be no public statements contradicting Biden’s assertion that neither he nor any member of his family did anything wrong. As you are no doubt aware, our media allies are in unanimous agreement that this is a non-story. Twitter and Facebook have endeavored to suppress this story from being circulated on their platforms. You don’t want to break ranks with this powerful united front. The rule of law is at stake.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called Schumer’s letter to Wray “suspicious. His contention that the rule of law is at stake is true, but not in the way he thinks. My staff and I have independently confirmed some of the content of Hunter Biden’s laptop. At best, the transactions described between the Bidens and several foreign businesses and governments raise serious concerns as to their propriety. That the former Vice-President would be involved in schemes to turn his position of influence in the Obama Administration into monetary gains for himself and his family members appears to be an illegal abuse of power. It is Schumer’s demand that it be swept under the rug that is the real threat to the rule of law.”
Interestingly, the Bidens weren’t the only high-ranking government officials participating in the influence-peddling schemes detailed on Hunter Bidens laptop. Luminaries such as Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY), Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC), and former Gov. Terry McCauliffe (D-Va), among others, were also implicated.
Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski says he left the partnership once he realized that “the Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist-controlled China. I want the Biden family to address the American people and outline the facts so I can go back to being irrelevant.”
Omar Dodges Debate
Lacy Johnson, the Republican challenger to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn), complains that “Rep. Omar has been dodging all of my requests to engage in a debate to help voters view both candidates answering questions about the policies they support and how they will affect Minnesotans. She is one of only two holdouts among the state’s eight-member congressional delegation—both of them Democrats—who have refused to participate in a debate.”
Omar brushed off Johnson’s complaint, calling it “the mewling whining of a loser. The fact is that our campaign has discovered that debates are an inefficient method for interacting with voters. We have found that a simple offer of cash in exchange for each vote bypasses the meaningless chit-chat that occurs in debates and gives voters a real and more substantial reason to support my reelection.”
In late September Project Veritas released an undercover video showing a ballot harvester for Omar’s campaign offering $200 to a voter in exchange for his absentee ballot. The ballot harvester explained that “the honest purchase of votes is very popular among the thousands of Somali immigrants in Rep. Omar’s district.” He went on to justify the clearly illegal scheme on the grounds that “reelecting Rep. Omar is our only defense against Jews taking over the world.”
Whitmer Imitates Gangster
There is a scene in many gangster movies where a mobster threatens an honest citizen in order to extract a payment. This week in an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press,” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Mich) threatened her state’s voters, saying “If you’re tired of lockdowns, or you’re tired of wearing masks, or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or your kids were getting in-person instruction, it is time for change in this country, and that’s why we’ve got to elect Joe Biden.”
“I know some people will consider my proposition unpleasant and harsh, but in these perilous times the country needs strong leadership,” Whitmer explained. “The argument against Biden is that his policies will wreck the economy, raise everyone’s taxes, and reduce freedom. They think that by reelecting Trump they will avoid these risks. Well, whether Trump or Biden wins I’ll still be here for at least another two years. I can make the lives of people in this state inconvenient, irritating, expensive, and miserable no matter who wins. The deal I’m offering is to go easier on everyone if voters do as I ask and elect Biden as president. So, the question each person needs to ask himself is whether he wants me to really unleash my nasty or whether he’s learned enough about how bad I can be over the last seven months that he knows it’s better to do what I want him to do.”
Todd praised Whitmer’s “courageous leadership. Most politicians try to sweet talk the voters, but you tell it like it is. Giving the people the discipline they need rather than giving them what they want takes guts. Trump preaches the anarchy of letting individuals have the freedom to choose how they want to live. You and many other Democrats are showing the people that obedience to the directives issued by government will lead to a more healthy and socially just way of life.”
In related news, a Stanford University report: The Cost of Bidenomics found that Biden’s tax, health-care, energy and regulation proposals would lower median household income by $6,500 a year by 2030. The Biden campaign called this “a reasonable price to pay for the superior public benefits of the kind a more centrally planned and directed economy and society that a Biden Administration will provide. The added $6,500 that would remain in private hands if Trump’s policies are allowed to continue beyond this election would most likely be wasted on frivolous personal spending.”
California to Crackdown on Thanksgiving Celebrants
Concerned that the fading severity of COVID might lead residents to disregard common sense safety procedures, Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced strict new rules for Thanksgiving Day celebrations.
“Ideally, people should stay away from each other until COVID is no longer among us,” Newsom said. “Individuals dining alone at home would be optimal. However, I am not without mercy. Families and friends may gather for Thanksgiving Day provided the following rules are observed. First, no more than three different households may gather in any one place. Second, gatherings are limited to a maximum of two hours. Third, all gatherings are restricted to outdoors. Fourth, masks must be worn at all times. Fifth, there must be a minimum distance of six feet in all directions between each participant at all times. Sixth, singing and loud talk are forbidden. Seventh, vegan turkey is advised, but not yet required for this year. Participants may go inside to use the toilet, but it is preferred that they relieve themselves outdoors as many residents of San Francisco have been doing for years.”
“These rules will be enforced by a vigorous program of police patrols, drone surveillance, and neighborhood tattle tails,” the Governor warned. “If multiple cars are seen at a residence, but no one is seen outdoors near the home a presumed violation will be logged and officers dispatched to break up nonconforming gatherings. Failure to disperse will be cause for arrest. Resistance will be met with all due force. We will not allow the people of this state to lapse into a state of disobedience and anarchy. If everyone behaves, I see no reason why we cannot have as joyous a Thanksgiving as is possible during these grim times of the pandemic.”
San Francisco Loses Another Walgreens
The Walgreens at Van Ness and Eddy in San Francisco will close November 11. This will be the seventh Walgreens to go out of business in the city since the state decriminalized shoplifting. Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso says “the shoplifting is so frequent and brazen that we can’t keep the shelves stocked for paying customers. There are a lot of elderly in the neighborhood who have relied on this particular store for their meds and other heath products. But thieves have driven the cost of doing business too high for us to be able to survive in this location.”
Mayor London Breed acknowledged the loss, but expressed the opinion that “we shouldn’t be too quick to condemn the changes to the law that made it possible for the homeless people that are doing most of the stealing to improve their lives. They are humans too. They also have needs and shouldn’t be punished for fulfilling them in the only way they can. I, for one, am glad to see that they can live as they like without having to go to jail for taking whatever they need wherever they can find it. Though, I will concede that a better system would be for the government to redistribute property to overcome the inequities of our current capitalistic system.”
Mr. Avakian, who has led the party since 1979, says he doesn’t particularly like Mr. Biden, but that electing him is necessary for “the overthrow of this system, as the fundamental solution to the continuing horrors this system causes for the masses of humanity.”
That “system” is our self-governing republic with its constitutionally guaranteed rule of law, property rights, the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly, and free market economics. All of this has produced the freest, most prosperous and most generous nation in history. It’s got to go.
The street mobs of Black Lives Matter and Antifa, plus the radicalized “progressives” around Mr. Biden want to saddle America with central state socialism that looks a lot like communism, so Mr. Avakian’s endorsement shouldn’t be that surprising.
In contrast to America’s leadership of the Free World, communism has killed more people and created more misery than any other ideology. The death toll alone from communist regimes during the 20th century is at least 100 million (“The Black Book of Communism”).
Citing other scholars, including Hoover Institution’s late Robert Conquest, historian Paul Kengor says the figure should be closer to 140 million dead. The killings are not over, he notes in his new book, “The Devil and Karl Marx.” They’re still murdering dissidents in China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any other places unfortunate enough to come under the commissars’ boot.
How anyone could have a benign view of communism in the face of its staggering evil is mind boggling. It rivals Holocaust denial as a form of insanity.
The better-known Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has yet to endorse a presidential candidate, but its website calls for passing the “Heroes Act,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s $3 trillion COVID-19 relief bill stuffed with leftist provisions. When the Communist Party enthusiastically supports something, it’s time to throw it out and start over.
More evidence that communists — not merely “democratic socialists” — are hijacking the Democratic Party [was] the emergence of California Rep. Karen Bass on Mr. Biden’s short list for the vice presidency.
A long-time leftist, she has visited communist Cuba 16 times, according to author and filmmaker Trevor Loudon. When Fidel Castro died in 2016, she issued a statement saying, “the passing of the Comandante en Jefe is a great loss to the people of Cuba.” After surfacing on the Biden list, she told Fox News’ Chris Wallace that she had not been aware at the time that Cuba was a “brutal regime.”
If she’s that clueless, she has no business being in Congress, much less a heartbeat from the presidency. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she’s not dense but is a liar, a Marxist identifying as a liberal.
The fact that Democrats take her seriously as a national candidate speaks loudly about how far left they’ve veered. So does their cheerleading for the BLM/Antifa riots, their embrace of the “cancel culture” war on free speech, their increasingly ruthless enforcement of sexual anarchy and their hatred of law enforcement.
Ms. Bass has been throwing pixie dust around, insisting she’s just a Democrat and counting on the media to engage in their ongoing cover-up of radicalism in the Democrat Party. But she can’t outrun her public record.
In 2017, Rep. Bass eulogized “my friend and mentor, Oneil Marion Cannon.” Mr. Cannon was the Southern California district education director of the Communist Party USA and on the National Central Committee, according to an obit in the communist newspaper People’s World.
The glowing account, with a photo of Cannon in an Obama T-shirt and a beret with a red star on it, notes that he helped to elect California Democrats Augustus “Gus” Hawkins, Tom Bradley, Ed Roybal, Diane Watson, Maxine Waters and Karen Bass, and in 2008 worked to elect Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama, who turned civil rights icon John Lewis’ recent funeral into a partisan assault on election integrity and the Senate filibuster, was himself mentored by Communist Party “journalist” Frank Marshall Davis and the Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
All of the top-tier possible Democratic vice presidential nominees have extensive ties to far-left figures like George Soros and Marxist organizations like Democratic Socialists of America and the Democracy Alliance. California Sen. Kamala Harris, for example, is on the VP short list recommended to Mr. Biden by leftist billionaire Steve Phillips, who was active at Stanford in the League for Revolutionary Struggle, a Maoist group. In a 2012 blog post, he said, “I come out of the Left. I’ve studied Marx, Mao, and Lenin.”
The liberal leadership clearly has given way to Bernie Sanders and the “Squad” of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. They were joined by Cori Bush, a Black Lives Matter activist who last week beat Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., a 10-term incumbent Democrat, in a Missouri primary.
Ms. Bush, who was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, cut her activist teeth during the Ferguson, Missouri, riots, which occurred in 2014 and 2015. Mr. Clay is Black and reliably leftist, but apparently not radical enough.
Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times. His website is roberthknight.com.
In a Tuesday fundraiser for lefty Mark Kelly, Kamala Harris praised his “gun control” efforts to make Arizona more like her socialist home state of California.
This is a ringing endorsement for lefty Kelly from Senator Harris, who ranks as the most liberal and partisan Democrat in the Senate. She knows Kelly would vote in lock-step with her radical left-wing agenda if she’s elected vice-president because he has the sorry record to prove it.
As Sen. Martha McSally noted Monday at the Trump Prescott rally, Kelly’s gun control group gave California an “A” rating for its gun control policies, while giving freedom-loving Arizonans an “F.”
It’s further proof that Kelly wants to turn Arizona into another failed California-type of state and he simply does not represent Arizona values.
Democrats are talking a big game about so-called “voter suppression.” It’s just a cover for their shenigans — voter fraud on steroids.
The Heritage Foundation reports:
A shocking new report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation shows:
The foundation’s report, “Critical Condition,” highlights the severity of the problem: inaccurate voter rolls, duplicate registrations, dead voters, and incomplete registrations—all of which allow fraud by those willing to exploit vulnerabilities in the system.
The foundation discovered more than 140,000 instances of potential election fraud in the 2016 and 2018 elections, ranging from individuals illegally voting in multiple states to someone voting in the name of a deceased person.
The foundation obtained voter registration and voter history data from 42 states. It had to sue three states—Illinois, Maine, and Maryland—to get what is supposed to be public information after they refused to comply with their own laws.
There are currently 349,773 deceased registrants on the voter rolls in 41 states. The worst states in this regard are Michigan, Florida, New York, Texas, and California, which account for roughly 51% of the dead voters who are still mistakenly registered.
Even worse, state records show that 7,890 of these deceased voters cast ballots from the grave in the 2016 presidential election and 6,718 did so in the 2018 congressional elections.
If that weren’t bad enough, the foundation also found that:
— 8,360 individuals registered and voted in two different states during the 2018 election.
— 43,760 individuals were registered more than once at the same address and cast second votes in the 2016 election, while 37,889 individuals appeared to have voted twice from the same registration address in 2018. (Thousands of these apparent double votes were exclusively mail-in ballots.)
— 5,500 voters cast ballots twice in the same state from two different registration addresses in 2018.
— 34,000 voters appeared to have used nonresidential, commercial addresses—such as gas stations, casinos, and restaurants—to register to vote.
That last problem—registering at a commercial address—is a serious issue. In fact, Rep. Steve Watkins, R-Kan., was charged with election fraud in July for claiming a UPS store as his residence when he registered to vote, and then voting in a 2019 municipal election in Topeka, Kansas.
In 2018, the foundation’s research found that 17 ballots were cast from a self-storage facility in Compton, California, and four ballots were cast from the NPR headquarters in Culver City, California.
The Heritage Election Fraud Database of almost 1,300 proven cases of fraud is just a sampling and not a comprehensive list of election fraud cases. As we note, it “does not capture reported instances that are not investigated or prosecuted.” Those reported cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg.
As the Public Interest Legal Foundation’s report shows, there are 144,117 other potential cases of election fraud, just from the last two federal elections. These should be investigated by election officials and prosecuted by law enforcement officials if the information it uncovered is correct.
As the Heritage Election Fraud Database and the latest Public Interest Legal Foundation report show, the threat of vote fraud is real—and it could make a difference in a close election.
The Heritage Foundation database of voter fraud includes:
1,298 proven instances of voter fraud;
1,121 criminal convictions;
48 civil penalties;
Arizona convictions of voter fraud can be found at: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search?state=AZ