The following article appeared on the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association page in the County Compass, a local newspaper:
I understand that this video is long. However, it is well-worth watching. It explains how an election can be stolen right under the eyes of the voters. The video explains how the results of the North Carolina 2016 election have some very questionable numbers. This video and others like it can be found on YouTube:
The article reports:
A federal appeals court has found that a North Carolina voter ID law was enacted “with discriminatory intent” and must be blocked.
How in the world does the appeals court know the intent of the people who passed the law? The law required photo identification to vote. The law also provided a way for people who did not currently have photo identification to obtain it free of charge. I few political groups in the state offered to provide transportation to those seeking photo identification. The supposedly ‘disenfranchised voters’ are the same people who use photo identification to cash checks, buy alcohol, enroll in government programs, etc. No one is being disenfranchised.
The article includes a quote from Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute:
North Carolina’s common-sense voter ID law was passed to preserve the security and integrity of our elections process. North Carolina’s voters deserve the confidence that their votes will not be diluted by fraud. Just before a crucial presidential election, the liberal judges of the Fourth Circuit are once again legislating from the bench and seem to be looking for opportunities to overturn North Carolina law at every turn. The continual overreach of the courts like the Fourth Circuit undermines the belief in self-government through elected representatives and our democratic republic.
It is simply outrageous that the court cites race as a reason for overturning North Carolina’s voter ID law. No one has been able to point to a single example of a voter being disenfranchised as a result of this law. In fact, voter turnout has increased since the law was enacted.”
If voter fraud is prevented in North Carolina, Donald Trump wins. If voter fraud is allowed, Hillary Clinton wins. It seems as if the court has already voted.
The following quote from the article echoes that sentiment:
Rep. Tim Moore, N.C. Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore Sen. Phil Berger also disagreed with the ruling and issued a joint statement saying that the ruling will allow “Democrat politicians” to steal the upcoming election.
Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election. We will obviously be appealing this politically-motivated decision to the Supreme Court.”
This is a link to a list of a sampling of election fraud cases across America. If you think election fraud does not happen, feel free to look up the cases in your state.
The article reports:
Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.
I am glad that the people involved in the fraud have been convicted, but I think the important thing here is to learn from the experience. President Obama and Hillary Clinton could have easily gathered the necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot–there was no reason to cheat. Our election officials need to get into the habit of routinely randomly checking signatures on petitions. If one of two signatures on a page don’t match, further investigation is needed. If five random signatures on a petition match, things should be okay.
I wonder about the integrity of our election system when we have a party leader who casually cheats when he could get the same result honestly.