Tag Archives: Election Day (United States)

One Of The Best Arguments For Voter Identification

Posted on by

Yesterday’s election did not go as many pundits expected. In North Carolina, there were some mixed results. There are also some questions about some of the results.

The Daily Haymaker posted an article today about some voter irregularities in Durham County, North Carolina. Yesterday I posted an article about the money poured into North Carolina by George Soros in order to prevent the voter ID law from being in place during the 2016 general election. We are probably seeing the results of that effort reflected in what happened in Durham County.

The Daily Haymaker reports:

Yesterday, Durham county had some “technical” glitches and got a court order extending voting hours.  They also –*Surprise!* — discovered 90,000 votes that had not been counted from early voting.

Holy Al Franken! (Yes, we’re citing the comedian turned US senator who won his seat mainly due to trunkloads of uncounted ballots mysteriously showing up after the polls closed.)

After all of that got added to the mix, a roughly 40,000 vote lead for Pat McCrory in the governor’s race turned into a 5000 vote lead for Roy Cooper.  Chuck Stuber’s lead in the auditor’s race turned into a 3000 vote deficit.  And Buck Newton’s 40,000 vote lead in the attorney general’s race turned into a 19,000 vote deficit.

You want all legitimately-cast votes counted.  But last-minute stuff like this tars the integrity of an election a lot like a last-second foul or penalty call spoils the integrity of a sporting event’s final score.

This sounds like Chicago in 1960.

Where The Real Money In Politics Lives

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article explaining the role George Soros‘ money has played and is playing in America’s electoral process. The article lists the specifics in detail. I will only highlight a few.

The article reports:

Below are some highlights of this expansive Soros-funded campaign to alter the legal environment and rules of American elections.

Litigation

  • Soros funded multiple attacks on state voter identification laws in places such as Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia. While not successful at the trial court in North Carolina and Virginia, the Soros litigation won a victory in the appeals courts resulting in North Carolina election integrity laws being suspended for the presidential election.  Worse, the litigation resulted in opinions by federal appeals courts which could potentially turn the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into a one-way political ratchet that helps Democrats, as long as Democrats can enforce racially polarized voting patterns.
  • Soros documents show funding for the League of Women Voters and their effort “to catalyze greater participation from Black and Latino youth in advocacy both before and after elections.” The LWV is currently in federal court trying to stop efforts by Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama to verify that only citizens are registering to vote. The same organization intervened in a lawsuit by the Public Interest Legal Foundation to clean voter rolls in a Virginia jurisdiction with more registered voters than eligible citizens.
  • Soros documents show funding of $250,000 for the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP before the group then sued to stop the use of voter ID in North Carolina.  Other groups in North Carolina that were on the funding documents include: “Action Institute NC – $75,000 over one year . . . North Carolina Latino Coalition – $75,000  . . .  New World Foundation – $300,000 over one year . . . North Carolina Fair Share Education Fund – $75,000 . . . School for Creative Activism – $75,000.”
  • Soros documents show that it funded efforts to attack the efforts of Tea Party organizations such as True the Vote to promote election integrity and triggered Department of Justice action. One funding document states that the Campaign Legal Center, [former John McCain lawyer] Trevor Potter, and the Brennan Center worked on “voter registration reform” and efforts to attack Tea Party groups. “CLC is focusing most of its efforts on the threat posed by these private ‘challenger’ groups and, to that end, has been gathering information on the activities of such groups, including Houston-based True the Vote. Working in partnership with Transparency Fund grantee Project Vote, CLC has pieced together a narrative that strongly suggests a widespread effort by True the Vote to suppress minority voting. CLC made Open Records Requests to officials in Houston to obtain all communications between True the Vote and Houston election offices, obtained and analyzed these documents and presented their findings to the United States Department of Justice last month. Following this meeting, the Justice Department sent federal officials to Houston to monitor the May primary elections. One other aspect of CLC’s work in this area is its Executive Director, J. Gerald Hebert’s role as chief counsel to a group of intervenors in State of Texas v. Holder.”
  • The funding documents name groups which received in excess of $500,000 each year from Soros. They include: “Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for American Progress, Advancement Project, Center for Community Change, Brennan Center.” Three of the largest recipients are engaged in litigation and strategic communications denying voter fraud and seeking to transform the rules of elections.
  • Soros money is moving away from pressing for “campaign finance reform” and speech regulations, and instead into election process areas.  The funding documents state “We do recommend shifts in a significant area of previous strategy. Historically, OSI played a leading role in promoting campaign finance reform models at the national and state levels. In recent years, changed conditions caused us to re-examine our approach, and our analysis led us to begin discontinuing our support to campaign finance reform groups.”
  • Soros money fought voter ID, everywhere.  The leaked documents state: “The 2012 elections proved that momentum is with the voting rights and civil rights community rather than their detractors. Not only was this field successful at blocking restrictive laws from being implemented in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina, but a strong coalition in Minnesota came from behind to achieve the first victory against photo ID on the ballot.”
  • Soros money was directed at the Advancement Project and Brennan Center to influence media coverage on election integrity issues and provide voter fraud denial propaganda.  Leaked funding documents state: “In a specific grant update, the U.S. Programs board-funded communications and messaging project was successfully led by the Brennan Center and the Advancement Project, and played an important role in the spike in media attention on voting rights this year. The groups developed affirmative voting rights messages and shared them widely in and beyond the field. The messages were used verbatim hundreds of times in sources ranging from The New York Times to the Philadelphia Inquirer, quickly and fully working their way into the media, national and local, and across social networking sites.”  Verbatim.
  • Soros funding documents reveal that the Brennan Center and Advancement Project, two organizations regularly opposing election integrity measures in court, were among the largest Soros funding recipients for the entire Soros program.
  • ERIC, the program seeded by PEW to allow states to verify voter identity which many states now use, was started with Soros money and an “anonymous” donor.

Please follow the link above and read the entire article. It is chilling. George Soros made his money by destroying the currency of various countries and betting on that failure. We don’t need to give him an opportunity to do that in America. He does not have the interests of America in mind at all–he is a globalist with a one-world government agenda. America needs to find a way to keep him from meddling in our political affairs.

Voter Fraud Is A Problem

Posted on by

One of the easiest ways to commit voter fraud is through the use of absentee ballots–numbers of people can be registered at one address and their ballots mailed in–whether they actually live there or not. In Florida absentee ballots were stolen, voted, and returned without having ever reached the people they were supposed to go to.

On Thursday, Breitbart posted a story about a problem with absentee ballots in California.

The article reported:

California resident Jerry Mosna found 83 unused 2016 voter ballots at his home over the weekend — each ballot had a different name but were all addressed to his neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment — causing concern and serious suspicion of voter fraud.

The office of the Registrar stated that they believe this is an isolated incident caused by a system error that issued duplicate ballots. They are working to correct the problem and have stated that the U.S. Postal Service has returned all improperly addressed ballots to the Registrar’s office.

When True the Vote investigated voter fraud in Texas (story here), one of the things they did was check for duplicate addresses. In one case, they found forty people registered at an eight-bed halfway house.

In 2011, I reported some of the results of their investigation:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

There were 22,000 plus invalid registrations. That’s enough to change an election result. It’s time to make sure our election process is secure.

 

 

All I Want Is An Honest Election

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a story today about a problem in Florida with voter fraud.

The article reports:

By mid-October, Susan Halperin became concerned that she and her husband hadn’t received their absentee ballots in the mail.

So Lawrence Halperin called the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Office to find out what was going on. He was stunned to learn their ballots had already been cast. Someone had stolen the Halperins’ ballots, faked their signatures and voted.

“He was just floored,” said Susan Halperin, a registered Democrat. “To think that someone would actually steal my ballot and fill it out is creepy.”

The Halperins, who live in the Spring Valley neighborhood of Altamonte Springs just south of State Road 436, weren’t the only victims. Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel said they were among five voters in three homes in Spring Valley whose absentee ballots were stolen and then fraudulently submitted with votes cast by someone else.

Voter fraud is a problem. It was discovered in this instance because someone inquired about their absentee ballots. The article points out that local officials have found five instances of voter fraud in this area because of voter complaints. There is no general checking of absentee ballots, so officials really have no idea how many absentee ballots have been stolen.

The article concludes:

For a problem which I’m regularly assured doesn’t exist, it certainly does a good job of acting like it exists on a regular basis. Early voting leads to problems. A lack of voter ID leads to problems. And absentee ballots need to be monitored far more closely.

At this point, all I want is an honest election.

Unfortunately Voter Fraud Is Real

Posted on by

These two videos are from YouTube.

This is a picture of a voting machine that wants to vote for you:

This is a short video commenting on the problems with the machines:

Our county uses paper ballots. I didn’t understand why until yesterday when I talked to a person who had the machine change his vote in the 2010 Primary Election. He had to touch the square five times before it registered on his candidate. The first four times, the machine switched his vote to the other candidate. There is a county is Texas that has switched to paper ballots for early voting because voters complained that the machine was changing their votes. This is totally unacceptable. We need an honest election.

When You Vote, Make Sure The Machine Gets It Right

Posted on by

There are numerous stories floating around the Internet today about voting machines changing the votes of the people voting. Breitbart posted a story today about a Texas county that has switched to paper ballots until they get their voting machines re calibrated.

The article reports:

Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne told Breitbart Texas Tuesday morning that all electronic voting was temporarily halted until her office completes a “software update” on ES&S machines that otherwise “omit one race” when a straight ticket option is selected for either major party. The Texas 14th Court of Appeals race was reported to be the contest in which voters commonly experienced the glitch.

Hawthorne explained that she expects the technical difficulties to be completely addressed by end of business Tuesday. In the interim, regular paper ballots will be used. The county clerk told Breitbart Texas that before the machines were pulled, poll workers were instructed to alert voters to the glitch and double-check their selections.

There have been reports of similar incidents in other states also. Hopefully, the problems will be corrected, and votes will be counted accurately.

I Guess I Am More Than A Little Naive

Posted on by

The following story was posted at DaTechGuyBlog on October 14th:

This is exactly what happened:

Yesterday afternoon in sunny and hot Miami my friend answered the doorbell. I kept an eye from the window.

An average-sized man in his thirties, wearing a pink polo shirt and khakis, holding a clipboard, immediately said hello in Spanish, and asked her if she was [her name], registered at that address. She said yes.

At that point I moved closer to the entrance but he could not see me. I could hear the conversation very clearly. The entire conversation was in Spanish. He spoke very clear, native-speaker quality Spanish.

The man did not identify himself nor did he declare any affiliation with any political party or committee, polling organization, or business of any kind.

He handed her a cell phone with questions that he claimed were “on the issues affecting our community”, but the list of five questions in English were all negative statements about Donald Trump, “I do not like how he treats women,” “I do not like his stance of immigration,” among them. The statements were in large enough bold print she could read them without her reading glasses. He asked her to check the ones she agreed with.

Her reply was that she does not answer political questions, and gave him back the phone. She had to repeat this a couple of times, until the guy finally realized he was getting nowhere.

He then asked her if she would prefer that no further polls be conducted at her house. She said yes.

The man, still speaking Spanish, pulled a sheet of paper from his clipboard and asked her to fill in a form, telling her that, if she signed that form, she would not be approached again with any polls.

My friend was not wearing her reading glasses so she took the form indoors. I went to the door (this is the first time he saw me), excused myself and locked the door.

I did not stop long enough to see whether the man carried or wore any ID tags or anything showing any affiliation. None were apparent at first glance. I just wasn’t going to leave an unlocked door unattended.

I looked at the paper my friend was holding. It had three copies on one page of a form saying, in English,

I PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON,

followed by some more text in English, and three lines for the respondent to fill in their name and address.

Again, I repeat, the entire conversation was in Spanish.

But the form was in English. Only in English, with no Spanish translation anywhere.

I read it to her aloud, returned it to her and she opened the door, gave back the form to the man, and told him she did not appreciate being mislead. He asked her what she meant, and she told him that the form was a pledge to Hillary, not a do-not-call request.

He had the nerve to ask her why wouldn’t she pledge to Hillary, to which she curtly replied that she would not pledge for any political candidate since her vote is private. “Even for the best candidate?” he asked. She again said, “my vote is private.”

At this point, the guy thanked her, said good-bye and left.

I don’t know – and certainly I’m not about to ask – who she’s voting for, but Hillary did not make any friends there yesterday.

Parting questions: If there’s no intention to deceive, why no translation on the form? Why no disclosure of who he works for? Who is behind that survey?

To be very honest, this entire event would have gone entirely over my head, but DaTechGuy is considerably more savvy about these things than I am. His closing comment:

UPDATE DTG: I just read this piece and I don’t think Fausta gets what’s going on here. The reason for the form is obvious and that reason is fraud.

  1. Step 1: Go door to door in the spanish community for the purpose of getting signatures on a form pledging the non english reading voters for Hillary Clinton with the name and address and an authentic signature
  2. Step 2: Submit absentee ballots in the name of the above person for Hillary Clinton.

If the voter doesn’t show at the polls, perfect, they’re absentee ballot is counted for Hillary no questions asked.

If they show up the vote and attempt to vote causing said ballot to be questioned for any reason the signature sheet is produced.

This is actual fraud straight up and every person in that neighborhood is being targeted, and you can bet if it’s done at your friends house it’s being done everywhere else.

Fausta your friend needs to call the Florida AG and the local media STAT.

Wow.

In North Carolina, People Voted

Posted on by

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about the mid-term voting in North Carolina. Some of the pundits on the American left have blamed the Republican victory on the “disfranchisement” of likely Democratic voters.” The actual numbers tell a different story.

The article reports:

Francis Barry of Bloomberg, having looked more closely than Weiser at the numbers, concludes that North Carolina’s voting law changes did not determine the outcome of the Senate race. He notes that even with seven fewer early voting days, early voting in North Carolina increased this year by 35 percent compared with the 2010 midterm.

Moreover, statewide turnout as a whole increased from the previous midterm election, from 43.7 percent to 44.1 percent. And the share of the Black vote as a percentage of the total increased from its 2010 level.

We will be hearing more about discrimination against black voters as 2016 approaches and the left tries to undo voter identification laws. However, the numbers prove that making changes to improve the cost, integrity, and efficiency of elections does not lower voter turnout. I would also like to note that almost half of the people in North Carolina voted in a midterm election. They wanted to make their voices heard. That is a good thing.