The Voting System IS Rigged – Part One
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
– Joseph Stalin
This is the first installment in a series of articles on election and voter fraud.
With all of the election fraud reported in California on Primary Election Day June 7th, it is particularly interesting that former President Bill Clinton met with California Governor Jerry Brown behind closed doors in California the week before the Primary. “They discussed foreign and domestic politics, and yes, the presidential campaign,” said Brown’s spokesman Evan Westrup, the Los Angeles Times reported.
I’ll just bet they discussed foreign and domestic politics… just the way Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she and Bill Clinton talked only of grandchildren, golf, and their respective travels, in a private jet on a tarmac in Arizona.
The electronic vote rigging in California appears to have been designed to keep Bernie supporters from electing him in the primary. And if they can steal an election in California, they can steal the Presidential Election.
Election fraud was widespread during the California Primary election June 7. Thousands upon thousands of California voters showed up at their designated polling stations only to discover that their party registration had been changed, or they were dropped entirely from the rolls. And it was evident this was done from within the state’s electronic voting system.
Many predict there will be massive election fraud during the general election, all to benefit Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (This is my SHOCKED face)
Harken back to the 2012 Presidential election. There were reports of voting machines automatically defaulting to a vote for Barack Obama… Reports of 120% voter turnout in far too many precincts… Bus loads of strangers showing up at polling stations… And there were precincts showing 100 percent of the vote for one candidate – Obama.
“One group from Princeton needed only seven minutes and simple hacking tools to install a computer program on a voting machine that took votes for one candidate and gave them to another,” The Hill reported in November 2014. “More whimsically, two researchers showed they could install Pac-Man onto a touch-screen voting machine, leaving no detectable traces of their presence.”
Since then it’s only gotten worse. Throughout the country, tens of thousands of people appear on the voter rolls more than once, dead people are registered to vote, and even convicted felons are on voter rolls. And let’s not discount the recent DNC delegate shenanigans – nearly every primary and caucus magically favored Hillary Clinton, despite the millions of winning votes going to Sanders.
There was Hillary Clinton’s unexplainable good luck in the Iowa coin tosses. Then there was the sudden and inexplicable poll worker shortage crisis, right before the Primary with hoards of untrained elections volunteers. Some of the untrained elections volunteers allowed Clinton supporters to participate in caucuses without first being registered.
These stories are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. But mainstream media pundits have no problem mocking our articles about election fraud. “Fraud of any kind is actually quite rare in elections, although you wouldn’t know it from reading the conspiracy-stoking fringe media,” wrote Robert Price, the Executive Editor for The Californian in Bakersfield, CA, after a reader wrote a letter quoting from our June 18 article, California Election Corruption Is Widespread.
Shout-Out to Gov. Moonbeam For His Help With Fraud
Federal law is unambiguous and says that only legal citizens may vote in an election for federal office. Immigrants, documented or not, do not have the right to vote in federal elections in the United states, until they obtain citizenship.
“The goal is to ease barriers to voting, but election-integrity advocates warn that the measure could inadvertently add millions of illegal voters to the rolls given that California allows undocumented aliens to obtain driver’s licenses,” The Washington Times reported in an article last year.
Is there any question how this was done?
First Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law allowing illegal aliens to obtain official California drivers licenses. He did this despite that the California DMV is unable to differentiate between U.S. citizen and non-citizens when automatically plugging them into voter rolls.
The real goal wasn’t to provide identification to those who are in California illegally; the goal was to automatically register them to vote. Studies have shown that new immigrant voters start out liberal, largely because they are dependent on government. But over time as they integrate and prosper more, they or their next generation tend to be more conservative.
The California New Motor Voter Program even protects ineligible voters from criminal prosecution with this Get Out of Jail Free Card: “if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered… (and) attempts to vote in an election… the person is presumed to have acted with official authorization and shall not be guilty of fraudulently voting… unless the person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.”
California was a crucial state for both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but the election was called for Clinton minutes after the polls closed, before millions of provisional ballot votes were counted. One week later, more than 2.6 million votes were still uncounted in California.
Adding to the suspicious outcome, based on pre-primary election polling, the media didn’t do any exit polling because the results would have shown that Sanders likely won California. A civil rights attorney had even filed a lawsuit before the primary to force the media to publish their exit polls. But the media instead opted not to even do exit polls, in order to get around the order.
HAVA and California
California only recently implemented its electronic voting system, while many other states have abandoned electronic voting machines.
Following the hanging chads incident in Florida in the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which mandated sweeping reforms, including a statewide voter registration system that would eliminate ineligible voters.
But California failed to comply, and for 12 years was the only state that was still not compliant with the act. In 2014, newly elected Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a Democrat, announced upon being elected that he planned to have California compliant within the year.
A 2014 report by the Election Integrity Project titled, The Doors Are Wide Open For California Election Corruption, found California’s election system had serious vulnerabilities, no centralized computerized, no statewide voter registration list, poor National Voter Registration Act list maintenance, non-compliance with statutes protecting lawful voters, and suspected voting fraud.
The report also found key election officials were roadblocks to election integrity. “Whether this stems from negligence or design, or a misguided central focus on ‘voter experience’, the result is the same: Corruption. The injury to lawful voters is patent,” the report said. We believe the problem is with Vote Cal,” Election Integrity Project co-founder Linda Paine said in a June interview. “It’s the same problems all over the state.
Liberal Judges Overturn Voter ID Laws
Very recently, three federal courts have overturned voter-ID laws, claiming the laws were racially discriminatory. They also claimed there is very little voter fraud.
U.S. District Judge James Peterson said the requirements that Wisconsin voters show either a photo identification or go through a special petition process had unfairly burdened minorities and needed to be reformed or replaced before the November presidential election. Peterson is an Obama appointee.
North Carolina’s voter ID requirements were eliminated by the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The ruling also erases provisions that prohibited same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional voting, as well as those that restricted early voting. “The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.” Motz is a Clinton appointee.
Texas Voter ID law was struck down by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos. She struck down the entire law, finding that its purpose was “explicitly discriminatory.” Ramos was appointed by President Barack Obama.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed previous rulings that the 2011 voter ID law — which stipulates the types of photo identification election officials can and cannot accept at the polls — does not comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Their ruling however, left a good deal of doubt about how much of the Texas law will actually be nullified after a new round of analysis that it ordered a federal trial judge to do, the SCOTUS blog reported. “The ruling by the Fifty Circuit left open the possibility that Ramos could again rule that the law was intended to discriminate, but that part of its ruling made quite clear that that would be a further reach for the judge. For example, the Fifth Circuit essentially barred her from basing a new discriminatory intent on discrimination that occurred in Texas years ago against racial minorities, in voting and otherwise. Any such evidence, to be considered, must be more recent, it suggested.”
Some of the dissenting Fifth Circuit judges wrote that “requiring a voter to verify her identity with a photo ID at the polling place is a reasonable requirement widely supported by Texans of all races and members of the public belonging to both political parties,”the Texas Tribune reported. “Seven of the court’s 15 judges backed the decision in full. Two other judges backed most of the decision. Dissenting judges wrote that the ‘en banc court is gravely fractured and without a consensus. There is no majority opinion, but only a plurality opinion that draws six separate dissenting opinions and a special concurrence.'”
It’s not over, but the Hillary campaign and the Democratic National Committee are playing politics in the courts, by using their own appointees to strike down reasonable voter ID laws.
Part ll next, by Megan Barth