I’ve talked endlessly about lies but I want to talk about it again – because now more and more people are picking up on it. But not all. I still see all too many on the Right still saying things like “why would you say that?” or “do you not realize what you’re saying?” when they confront a Leftist or Never Trumper over a lie. That is, they aren’t just calling them what they are: liars.
You might remember the World Famous Expert, Tom Nichols: he was allegedly on the Right until the advent of Trump in 2015 and he’s now gone full Leftist Never Trump kook – he had a post on X saying, and I quote, “the people cheering the submarine attack on the IRIS Dena seem to forget that the US Navy has surface vessels that could have captured the ship, and held the crew (or allowed them to defect). But apparently, it was important to prove that the Navy can still torpedo a frigate”. Nichols’ claim to fame – his claim to be an Expert, that is – stems from his tenure at the Naval War College. In other words, he knows. He’s not some person with limited knowledge of naval affairs. You don’t seek to capture an enemy on the high seas. The capture of enemy vessels went out when ships went from sail to steam – you sight an enemy and you sink her, that is what modern naval warfare is about. When the Brits put down the Bismarck – and we put down the Yamato – the attack was merciless. The British fired 2,800 rounds at Bismarck scoring at least 400 hits…when her guns were silent, her decks awash and the crew trying to abandon ship, they fired one last torpedo at the hulk. For Yamato, we sent wave after wave of planes in to bomb, torpedo and strafe her…the only reason it was three waves is because by the time the fourth wave got there she had rolled over and exploded…more than 3,000 of her 3,300 man crew dying with her.
Keep in mind that both ships were pretty much helpless from the start – the Bismarck’s steering gear was jammed and so she could only steam in a slow circle: a complete sitting duck. Yamato had no air cover and our strafing massacred her AA gunners in their unarmored positions, allowing later waves to just come in, line her up in the sights and blow her all to hell and gone. That is modern naval warfare. The men on both sides didn’t ask for quarter and didn’t complain if they came in second. Guarantee you not one German or Japanese sailor who survived those actions had any rancor towards the British and American seamen. War at sea is a hard calling.
Nichols knows this. So, why did he say what he said? Because he’s a liar. Nothing more. And a paid liar, into the bargain. Perhaps even being paid – directly or roundabout – by foreign enemies to lie. And he is, of course, just one of thousands. People like him just pumping out lie after lie after lie. All designed to sap American unity and American will. To sow doubts. To get Americans fighting among themselves. To do anything but support America – and especially American victory. In Iran we have scored the most astonishing, lopsided victory America has had since Manila Bay in 1898. For very minimal losses, we have completely destroyed the enemy’s ability to impact the course of the war. How did we Americans view that? Like this:
Heroic. Resolute. Right into the fight without hesitation. You know: like Americans. Right now, we have the like of these men in battle…soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Of course, some women, too. But they are our heroes…we should be getting stories of their deeds…thrilling tales of how they took the fight to the heart of the enemy. What we get is lies…lies about bombed schools. Lies about closed straights. Lies about how wrong it is to torpedo an enemy.
And, my friends, it really has to stop. We’re robbing ourselves of our future by being nice to liars. The kids growing up today deserve to know their nation is great and is the home of heroes…and that we are the good guys, fighting for decency in a world gone mad.
I still do not know exactly how we do it…but until we find a way to make a liar pay – and I mean with the literal skin off his back – then I don’t know how we will survive.
Blogs For Victory 
The first segment of Coffee & Covid this morning ties right in to your lying liars theme, but the whole thing is worth a read.
Here’s what I’m waiting for – the Democrats and RINOs of course wanted Trump and MAGA destroyed…but outside the USA, the nations with the biggest vested interest in Trump failure are Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. How much of this originated in foreign money and intelligence? How much of it was sustained via social media by foreign money? Those really big accounts which pushed the Trump Russia Narrative…who paid for them? This could get very interesting.
You think a minute about how many people had to not just lie, but to commit the definition of perjury to get this going…and it was a conspiracy. If Trump’s people are good, we could get thousands of indictments. But can we get convictions? That is going to be the rough part…leftist judges and jury pools made up of Resistance Libs…
If Trump’s people are good, we could get thousands of indictments.
To be fair, I’d bet that the vast majority of people involved at the periphery probably didn’t think they were doing anything wrong. I’d be happy with dozens, or perhaps hundreds of indictments. Like you say, convictions may be the rough part, but when dealing with corruption in politics, the process is often the punishment. Look what they put Trump through, and he wasn’t even guilty of anything.
Look what they put Trump through, and he wasn’t even guilty of anything.
Ditto for Giuliani, Stone, Flynn, Powell, et al. Just look at the people whose lives were upended, whose finances were destroyed, whose peace of mind was shredded, just through the mechanism of using the power of the government to make accusations and use agencies to intimidate and humiliate.
I hope the old expression, what goes around, comes around, applies.
For any US constituents wondering about who they should elect in the next several election cycles, they should strongly consider the failed policies of the left and what it will mean to them for years to come. This article talks about California but NYC and other leftist enclaves are in a similar boat. Nothing is free and those currently on the receiving end of that false perception of free stuff should think about what happens when those actually on the paying end leave the snares of local government for better conditions elsewhere, without the likelihood of returning any time soon. Coupled along with the staggering costs of the lefts failed economic polices (fraud) are all kinds of increased crime and loss of freedoms. Unfortunately, some people will not learn until the damage is done.
https://amgreatness.com/2026/03/11/failifornia/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=act_eng&seyid=
This all comes back to the simple, ugly, fact that at least half the votes cast in this country are not cast based on the policies or even the basic philosophy of government represented by the party they vote for. The reasons/excuses given are always the superficial fluff they think constitute actual political reasons—“because I don’t think children should starve” ; “because I think everything should be more fair” : “because I don’t believe in kings” : and so on but usually boil down to a negative perception of an effectively demonized Invented Other.
Ask a Dem why he thinks the country should be governed by consolidating power in the hands of a few and creating a massively powerful Central Authority and he will indignantly deny that he believes in any such thing—as he votes to erode the state sovereignty created by the Constitution and override the 10th Amendment and shift power to the federal government.
It’s all Identity Politics, all the time. It’s the color of the jersey, and the weight of the emotions generated by propaganda. It’s raw unthinking tribalism, fueled by nonstop infusions of hate-generating rhetoric.
I’m kind of a compulsive reader (not bad for a dyslexic, right?) and have some favorite authors I respect for their obvious intelligence and skill. So it amazes me when they let a little of their Inner Democrat peek through. I would love to sit down for a beer with John Sandford (a nom de plume) or Robert Tanenbaum to ask, courteously, why they are Democrats.
Sandford’s main characters are law enforcement officers, and neither has ever, as I remember, made comments about political philosophy—but they support Dem politicians and every now and then there is a comment along the lines of how they sure wouldn’t want a Republican in office. They are in Minnesota, so that might explain that. (I have no idea where Sandford is from or where he lives, but he is very familiar with Minneapolis so I am guessing he has roots there. His original protagonist, Lucas Davenport, is a hard-ass take-no-prisoners-cop, and I can’t imagine him tolerating the dumpster fire that Minneapolis has become, which is why I said here one day that “Lucas Davenport has left the room”. The latest two books are set in New Mexico, which I guess is a way to avoid commenting on the disaster of Democrat governance in Minneapolis and Minnesota in general.)
Tanenbaum has deep roots in the NYC judicial system, having served as Bureau Chief of the Criminal Courts and running the Homicide Bureau as well as running the training program for the legal staff for the New York County District Attorney’s Office. His main protagonist, Butch Karp, is a total straight arrow who would never tolerate the shenanigans of the current DAs in NYC, often having to rein in DAs who want to stretch the boundaries of the law, or ethics, but never talks about politics other than brief comments on Identity Politics, wanting a Dem to win an office and dreading the idea of a Republican winning. Butch’s wife, Marlene, also a DA, becomes a vigilante, visiting wife beaters to have “conversations” with them to “discourage” their bad habits, and Butch, while being officially against this, understands and tolerates it.
So as I read these books—-and there are a lot of them, more than 40 in both series—-I never turn off my politics radar (I don’t think it has an Off switch) and I can’t remember a single word from any of the many characters over the years in any of these books expressing an opinion on expansion of federal authority beyond that of the Constitution, collectivism, socialist ideas, etc. On the contrary, the Sandford characters are emphatically individualistic, and Karp is passionate about the letter of the law without any deviance or expansion. Karp, who supports Democrats in office and makes fleeting comments about the need to defeat Republican challengers, would make a great Supreme Court justice because of his dedication to the law as written.
Yet deep in the hearts of these men, who write these stories about these brilliantly portrayed men, runs a vein of allegiance to the Democrat Party. They don’t preach it, they don’t even proclaim it, but a little leaks out every now and then. The thing is, I don’t think they can write so vividly about such clearly defined characters whose very essences are contrary to the core character of Leftist governance without sharing those principles and worldviews, which to me is a total disconnect from what appears to be their support for the Democrat Party.
This is why I wish we would step away from the well-worn path of Identity Politics and start to present our side of the political spectrum in ways that might penetrate these shells of unexamined allegiances. We have seen this happen a couple of times in Congress—Manchin is one example, Fetterman another, though neither has been willing to take the next step and actually side with the opposition. (Which I understand—I had abandoned the Democrats and turned to conservative political views a long time before I could bring myself to actually vote Republican—it was a surprisingly difficult step.)
Nothing is free and those currently on the receiving end of that false perception of free stuff should think about what happens when those actually on the paying end leave the snares of local government for better conditions elsewhere, without the likelihood of returning any time soon.
And when those who can afford to go somewhere else where government is less intrusive and taxes are lower vote with their feet, the Left’s solution is ALWAYS to raise taxes on the rich who are still there, rinse and repeat. I have three words for them: NOT. VERY. BRIGHT.
The criminals running this operation in San Francisco have a list of names, likely from the Registrar of Voters, and have paid people to sign multiple petitions in the name of a registered voter, usually living in another part of California.
This is the same principle by which actual votes have been stolen in California by people impersonating voters.
Voting places used to be required to show a “street register” of people in a precinct who were on the registration list. Those who had already voted were designated on the register. It was quite easy, therefore, to determine who still hadn’t voted. People would be dispatched to vote that person’s ballot.
It’s easy to impersonate mail-in voters as well. Lists are kept and accessed by political parties, and by any group that wants them, to determine which voters have voted and which have not.
For years in California, before COVID-era universal mail-out ballots began wildly distorting the match between vote and voter, 40% of all provisional ballots in America were “voted” in California, and most of those were in L.A. County. That’s because people impersonating actual voters who hadn’t voted yet would be given the details of the voter and, in the case of federal elections, would be handed a provisional ballot to vote. Some of those votes counted. Maybe even most of them.
And so it is with mail-in ballots. That’s why the Save America Act would require ID to vote and proof of citizenship to register. It would also require the states to allow the Department of Homeland Security to check voter rolls versus Social Security rolls to determine how many dead people are on the rolls and scrub their names from the list. In Washington state alone, there are 700,000 voters without Social Security numbers attached to those voters rolls, which isn’t required, but state officials swear they check. They don’t. Of those, 25,000 “voters” have ZERO identification attached to their registration. And that’s only a partial survey.
It is my contention that the Democrats have not won a complete fair and free election in decades. Keeping in mind they have always cheated – the party was founded to ensure a cheat would get their man (Andrew Jackson) into office in 1828…1824 being the last election held as the Founders intended…with most States choosing their Electors via something other than popular vote within the State. After 1824 went to Adams, the Democrat party was formed to switch as many States as possible to popular vote and then make sure that no matter what, the Democrat won. And win they did – 6 out of the next 8 contests up to the Civil War; with ballot box stuffing becoming a routine practice.
Since 2000, the Democrats have just put it into overdrive…and in any area where they control all the levers of power, the system has been set up quite deliberately to ensure the election outcome is in line with Democrat desires. And not Democrat voter desires – Democrat boss desires.
The resistance to honest elections is blatant, reminding me of the moving sidewalk at an amusement park. Talk about voting machines proven to be online and susceptible to outside manipulation and the strident opposing voice will be arguing about mail ballots. Talk about the violation of state election laws by accepting and counting ballots received after the official deadline or without signatures and the other party will start in about the security of voting machines. Talk about ways of rigging elections without actually manipulating votes, like the Russia Hoax, and the other party will start howling about court rulings. And then there are the flash-bangs they randomly toss in—“Should voting be restricted to citizens?” is met with “35 felonies!”
Democrats don’t even try to posture as being interested in election integrity.
Questions Democrats try to avoid answering:
1) Do you think voting should be restricted to citizens?
2) Do you think citizens should be required to provide state-issued identification confirming citizenship to be able to vote?
3) Do you think it is important to routinely clear invalid voter registrations from the rolls? (People who have died, people who have moved, people who have lied on their applications by claiming false residence addresses, etc?)
4) Do you think people who have lied on voter registration applications and signed statements under oath that the information is correct should be disqualified from voting if their lies are discovered?
5) Do you believe in one citizen/one vote?
6) Do you believe that only votes cast in compliance with election laws should be counted?
7) Do you believe that voting by mail is secure enough to ensure compliance with voting laws?
8) Do you believe that election officials who do not follow election rules should be prosecuted and penalized?
9) Do you believe that voting should be restricted to one day, and that results should be publicized within 24 hours of the deadline?
10) Do you agree that if the number of votes casts exceeds the number of registered voters that vote count cannot be certified and that state should lose its votes in the Electoral College?
For “some reason” every one of these questions has caused discomfort, verbal tap-dancing, evasion, efforts to avoid giving a simple declarative answer, efforts to change the subject of the question, etc.
Yeah well the Electoral College isn’t going away – and we know that you’ll say the correct answer to the question. What you won’t think about – because you’re afraid to think about it – is the desperate efforts Democrats engage in to make sure that voter ID isn’t required (even if the ID is free) and to ensure voter rolls aren’t cleaned up. Now, just why would Democrats fight hard – and I mean spend huge sums of money on legal efforts to stop it – against cleaning up voter rolls? You know the answer – so they can cheat. So they can use the votes of the deceased and moved away to tip election their way…and mail in voting is now the best and easiest way to do this.
I mean, you do know that while we don’t record who a person voted for, we do record if they’ve voted, right? Meaning that someone with access to the voter rolls in the last couple weeks of early voting can find out who hasn’t voted (and is unlikely to vote because, you know, they’re dead or moved away) and then simply start filling out mail in ballots for them. Once that ballot is inserted into the system, there’s no way to get it out…and even one false ballot casts doubt upon the entire process.
Oh, and don’t even try “it is not enough to matter”…nobody cheats just a little bit. If you’re going to commit the major felony of voter fraud, you’re doing it to matter…that one or two individuals caught might have only cast a dozen votes isn’t the point…they are part of a system of hundreds of people doing it, controlled by someone…and as almost all close elections go Democrat in the days after poll closing, it is an absolute mathematical certainty it is Democrats doing it.
Omega4America has documented small one-bedroom apartments in small buildings being shown on registration rolls as residences for several dozen people, and every election cycle there are reports of buildings like this with small mailboxes in the lobby having piles of ballots lying there, sent to purported residents who don’t live there. There are sworn affidavits of post office workers given instructions to handle undelivered ballots in a certain way—banding them together with a prescribed number of rubber bands and then placing them in specific bins, where they disappear overnight. It sure does SOUND like people are going around picking up undelivered ballots marked for them by the way they are banded together, and this is not being done by Post Office employees, who merely notice that the bins with the specifically handled ballots are empty in the morning.
If there is a true belief in the superiority of mail-in ballots, then anyone truly interested in election integrity would be all about making the process as fraud-proof as possible. That is, careful purging of registration rolls, including purging of invalid addresses, and taking measures to ensure than only one ballot per voter is mailed, and mailed to a legitimate confirmed address. That is, demanding that every returned ballot be examined for a signature, and while understanding that a full forensic evaluation of a signature is not possible at least demanding something RESEMBLING a signature, as well as instituting a hard stop on the deadline for accepting ballots. Postmark every ballot. Limiting drop box locations, banning ballot harvesting, having surveillance of drop boxes, etc. would not be hard to implement. (Johnny wants to drop off his family’s ballots? No problem. He goes up to the kiosk being manned by observers, shows his ID, and fills out a simple form with the name and relationship to him of every person who asked him to deliver a ballot.) Run every ballot deposited through a scanner, so there is a time-stamped record of how many ballots were deposited in that box.
It is doable, with the will to do it. But the goal is make sure it is never done, to make sure the system is as porous and defective as possible.
The Dems illustrated the use of voter records in Florida in 2000. After they purposely designed a confusing ballot, and hired (weeks in advance of the election) a company in Texas to call Dems who had already voted, all they had to do was give the call centers the names and phone numbers of everyone who had already voted. These people were then called and told they might have accidentally voted for Bush, given the way the ballot was designed, and telling them to challenge the election. People who hadn’t voted were not called.
“it is not enough to matter” is also meant to deflect from the facts by substituting the overall popular vote with the votes in the swing states. They look at a margin of a million or more votes, nationwide, and say “See? There is no proof that more than a million votes were fake!”
But they don’t need a million votes—they only need a few thousand, if they are in the right states. Only 44,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin made the difference in 2020. That is
20,682 votes in Wisconsin, 12,670 votes in Georgia, 10,457 votes in Arizona—not hard to accomplish.
In Georgia alone, the state’s own election commission just admitted that 315,000 ballots were accepted in violation of the state’s own election laws. Arizona had documented proof that just the number of people who voted who were not residents of the state was more than the margin of victory.
I didn’t see any “verbal tap-dancing” in Casper’s response.
Awww, how sweet of you to rush to casper’s defense. Birds, feather, etc.
But he did give a couple of declarative answers which could, if I cared, provide the basis for some discourse. He doesn’t like the Electoral College, which is typical of the radical Left and not worth discussing as its role and necessity have been explained often enough to penetrate any mind not wholly hardened to reason. He thinks mail-in voting is secure, which is so objectively false it doesn’t even call for discussion—not after the hundreds of thousands of proofs of violations of the integrity of the system, but it IS a staple of the Left, which can’t win without it, so this is no surprise. He admits to liking longer election periods. He did fall back on the complaint about access to IDs, and the litany of “poll tax” (echoed by you) but in general he did agree to the most important aspects of my little quiz:
1) only citizens should be allowed to vote: 2) voters should be required to provide state-issued identification confirming citizenship: 3) clean and accurate voter registration rolls are important and must be subject to routine purging of inaccurate information: 4) people who lie on their voter registration applications should not be allowed to vote: 5) one citizen/one vote: 6) only votes cast in compliance with election laws should be counted: 8) election officials should be held accountable for their actions:
So he is in line with his party in liking mail voting, extended voting periods and plenty of time to release vote totals, and he prefers a popular vote to the Electoral College. All of this is totally expected of casper, and he is entitled to his opinions. At least he isn’t playing silly petty little games trying to get a bickerfest started.
1) Do you think voting should be restricted to citizens? Of course. Don’t you?
2) Do you think citizens should be required to provide state-issued identification confirming citizenship to be able to vote? As long as it’s free and easily obtainable by everyone.
3) Do you think it is important to routinely clear invalid voter registrations from the rolls? Not really, because instances of voter impersonation are almost non-existent, and we find that attempts to purge the roles wind up disenfranchising legitimate voters.
4) Do you think people who have lied on voter registration applications and signed statements under oath that the information is correct should be disqualified from voting if their lies are discovered? If they violate the law, they should be prosecuted. That said, we should not disenfranchise someone for inadvertently providing false information.
5) Do you believe in one citizen/one vote? Of course. Don’t you?
6) Do you believe that only votes cast in compliance with election laws should be counted? Of course. Don’t you?
7) Do you believe that voting by mail is secure enough to ensure compliance with voting laws? Yes. Most states have vote-by-mail, as do many countries.
8) Do you believe that election officials who do not follow election rules should be prosecuted and penalized? If they commit a crime they should be prosecuted, yes.
9) Do you believe that voting should be restricted to one day, and that results should be publicized within 24 hours of the deadline? No.
10) Do you agree that if the number of votes casts exceeds the number of registered voters that vote count cannot be certified and that state should lose its votes in the Electoral College? An investigation would be warranted to determine the cause of the disparity.
Now, some questions for you:
1) Do you know what Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says?
2) Do you think state or federal governments should enact laws or regulations that disenfranchise citizens from voting?
3) Can you tell us how many cases of voter fraud out of how many ballots cast the Trump administration has actually found?
4) Can you cite any evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that has stood up to scrutiny in court?
5) Do you think there should be a poll tax?
6) Do you think only certain citizens should be allowed to vote, and if so, which ones?
7) Do you think it’s a crime to produce fraudulent certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim a candidate won the Electoral College vote when in fact that candidate did not?
8) Do you think it’s a crime to beat the shit of law enforcement officers protecting the United States Capitol?
1) Do you think voting should be restricted to citizens? Of course. Don’t you?
Getting off to a good start here, with that typical smirky effort to control the process.
I am asking these questions.
2) Do you think citizens should be required to provide state-issued identification confirming citizenship to be able to vote? As long as it’s free and easily obtainable by everyone.
Define “easily obtainable”. For example, if 95% of all citizens are able to obtain this kind of identification, isn’t that proof it is “easily obtainable”?
3) Do you think it is important to routinely clear invalid voter registrations from the rolls? Not really, because instances of voter impersonation are almost non-existent, and we find that attempts to purge the roles wind up disenfranchising legitimate voters.
For one thing, having a clear and accurate voter registration record is simply necessary, and the fallback onto a version of “not enough to make a difference” is not relevant. For another, the issue is not necessarily one of “voter impersonation”. As a matter of fact, that is a minor concern. What is a concern is the retention, on the rolls, of people who are dead, people who have moved and are no longer in the voting precinct or state, people who have also voted in other locations, people who are not eligible to vote at all, and people who do not exist except in the registration rolls, with bogus non-residential addresses. Records should be accurate, period. As far as your claim that “we find that attempts to purge the roles wind up disenfranchising legitimate voters” this is theoretically possible, but if this were to happen a legitimate voter can correct the mistake. It is the responsibility of the voter to make sure his or her information is accurate and up to date.
4) Do you think people who have lied on voter registration applications and signed statements under oath that the information is correct should be disqualified from voting if their lies are discovered? If they violate the law, they should be prosecuted. That said, we should not disenfranchise someone for inadvertently providing false information.
Clearly there are areas where it might theoretically be possible to inadvertently provide false information but this is easily identified, vs falsehoods like non-existent addresses, etc.
5) Do you believe in one citizen/one vote? Of course. Don’t you?
So you are back to that smirky little tactic again, are you?
6) Do you believe that only votes cast in compliance with election laws should be counted? Of course. Don’t you?
Still smug and smirky but thank you for this, because one of the arguments made by Dems has been that even when election rules have been violated the ballots cast should be counted as valid. One example is the recent disclosure from election officials in Georgia that something like 315,000 ballots/votes were accepted and counted even though they failed to comply with the election rules regarding signatures to confirm chain of custody.
7) Do you believe that voting by mail is secure enough to ensure compliance with voting laws? Yes. Most states have vote-by-mail, as do many countries.
Your “answer” is non-responsive. “Most states have vote-by-mail” but most states do not send out tens of thousands of unsolicited ballots without confirming the legitimacy of addresses or those named on the ballots. “Vote-by-mail” via absentee ballot has been a staple of American voting for decades. Yes, lots of places have vote-by-mail. And lots of places send out tens of thousands of unsolicited ballots, which can be harvested and cast by people other than the named voter on the ballot—especially when rules such as signature confirmation are ignored. Lots of places have no control over ballots. Lots of places count ballots received with no required signatures. Lots of places count ballots received after the official election deadline. And this is a list of questions about American voting, so who cares about what other countries do? This is not even close to a real answer.
8) Do you believe that election officials who do not follow election rules should be prosecuted and penalized? If they commit a crime they should be prosecuted, yes.
This appears to be some of that tap-dancing I mentioned, the effort to qualify the offense by trying to define the offense as “criminal”.
9) Do you believe that voting should be restricted to one day, and that results should be publicized within 24 hours of the deadline? No.
“No” to which? “No” to the Constitutional requirement to vote on a certain day, or “no” to a requirement for timely reporting of results?
10) Do you agree that if the number of votes casts exceeds the number of registered voters that vote count cannot be certified and that state should lose its votes in the Electoral College? An investigation would be warranted to determine the cause of the disparity.
How could this be done? Votes are fungible. Once a ballot has been accepted and counted as vote it is folded into the body of all votes cast and that vote cannot be isolated or examined. While it might be possible to learn how and why these excess votes were counted, they can’t be uncounted, so an “investigation” would only lead to understanding how it happened.
Now, some questions for you:
1) Do you know what Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says?
Yes. Do you?
2) Do you think state or federal governments should enact laws or regulations that disenfranchise citizens from voting?
Aside from the now-contested rule that felons can’t vote, clearly citizens should be able to vote
3) Can you tell us how many cases of voter fraud out of how many ballots cast the Trump administration has actually found?
Not playing this silly game, partly because it is part of the worn-out Leftist narrative of “NO FRAUD” and partly because it is impossible to get an accurate figure, given interference in investigations, loss of records, and time passed. You do, however, illustrate the tap-dancing I mentioned, as I am looking forward to future election integrity, beginning with a foundation of established standards, and you are trying to distract from that by trying to dredge up beloved old themes and grievances and alleged defenses against observations of prior frauds. It’s just more of your pattern of bickering.
4) Can you cite any evidence of wide-spread voter fraud that has stood up to scrutiny in court?
Ah, back to the modifier of “wide-spread”, allowing for the follow-up quibble of defining “wide-spread”. But I see the careful following of the established narrative here.
5) Do you think there should be a poll tax?
No
6) Do you think only certain citizens should be allowed to vote, and if so, which ones?
What a stupid question, clearly intended to be a gotcha. Until final adjudication of laws prohibiting felons from voting, and absent any legislation naming any class of citizen as ineligible to vote, clearly all citizens should be allowed to vote.
7) Do you think it’s a crime to produce fraudulent certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim a candidate won the Electoral College vote when in fact that candidate did not?
This seems to be a new gotcha effort, which would, if allowed to descend into the bickerfest you always try to generate, involve examples of such certificates and arguments about the freedom to present opinions. Nope, still not falling for your sleazy little games, “cody”
8) Do you think it’s a crime to beat the shit of law enforcement officers protecting the United States Capitol?
It is clearly a crime to “beat the shit” out of anyone
It is clearly a crime to “beat the shit” out of anyone
Apparently, though, it ISN”T A CRIME for one of those police officers who was “guarding” the Capitol (and didn’t get the shit beat out of him) to murder an unarmed woman who was posing no threat in cold blood. Double standard is such a woefully inadequate term.
The guy who shot Ashli Babbit got promoted! And the cop who was on video viciously beating that semi-conscious woman over the head with her baton never even got a citation, even after the victim died.
You know, for all the breathless rhetoric about how the cops at the Capitol were being assaulted and “beat to shit” there are remarkably few records of any such injuries. Certainly fewer, and milder, than the injuries to police in Leftist riots.
Just a side note – someone dredged up a newspaper interview Trump gave in 1988 where he said that if he were President and Iran messed around, he’d pound heck out of them…including blowing up Kharg Island…which was blown up today and is 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Word is that a Marine Amphibious Unit is also on the way…probably to take Kharg Island.
Almost like Trump has actually thought about things…and maybe for a long while.
Heh!
I said “by everyone.” So no, 95% is not good enough. I mean 100%. As in, everyone.
Over 150 million Americans voted in the 2024 presidential election. 5% of that number is 7.5 million. If 5% of Americans are not able to easily obtain the identification required to vote, you have likely prevented 7.5 million Americans from exercising their right to vote when you impose obstacles they can’t easily overcome in order to vote. You already agreed that “clearly” all citizens should be allowed to vote. And yet you support measures that you know would likely prevent millions of citizens from doing so.
And for what? After reviewing the results of several states, the Trump DOJ has admitted it has only found isolated cases of fraud, numbering in the dozens. Not dozens of millions. Not dozens of thousands, or even dozens of hundreds. Dozens, period.
This is the cruz of the issue. Disenfranchising millions of citizens from voting in order to combat dozens of cases of fraud is obviously worse than the dozens of cases of fraud itself. Preventing citizens from voting is as bad as allowing non-citizens to vote, and when the numbers tilt several million to several dozen, then one obviously has to ask the question why we would do this? And we know why: Republicans think that reducing the number of voters will be to their benefit.
You persist in demanding focus on prior elections, which of course enables endless bickering, instead of looking at any and all possible areas of vulnerability in election integrity and working to correct those defects going forward.
If you have a better way to guarantee that only citizens can vote, why don’t you explain it? There is a perfectly good solution that you quibble about because you claim it can’t be perfected. Yet you have nothing to back that up. It’s all just breathless speculation of a theoretical problem, one that might exist.
Come back with hard cold figures, of actual records of people who have not been able to get acceptable proofs of citizenship. Explain why this was not possible, and then why the problem cannot be solved without opening up the entire voting process to unidentified people. Bring forth actual human beings who actually want to vote, who do not have the necessary documentation to prove their citizenship, and then prove that they can’t get this information. Oh, but you have built in your off-ramp—-it has to be EASILY done, and let me guess—-you people want to be the ones to define “easily”. Which, of course, opens the door to bickering about the definition of “easily”. But none of this is real. It is all a pipe dream, a fantasy of the cruel disenfranchisement of millions of people, based on a “what if”.
Of course anyone truly concerned about this imaginary underserved population of millions of people could actually do something constructive for them. After all, in this world it’s hard to get by without identification, and these poor souls obviously need a lot more help than just being able to vote without proving who they are or that they are citizens. Certainly some activists could set up a non-profit to seek out these people and walk them through the process so at the end of it they would not only have proof of identity and citizenship, they would have something to show for the effort. But no, that falls under the heading of problem solving, and the Left doesn’t SOLVE problems, it invents them and then howls about them.
And to try to justify it you make a claim there were only “dozens” of cases of fraud in some election, which of course is simply untrue. You claim that “Trump’s DOJ” reported this without providing a link to this alleged report. And, of course, you do not define “fraud”. Is it voting twice? Is it voting in the wrong state? Is it voting though not a citizen? Is it voting after filing a false voter registration application?
See, this is what you people do, which is why we have no respect for you or the arguments you pretend to make. You present an invented problem, based on an invented number, supported by a different invented number, and then draw false conclusions. All of which is really just to get your nose under the tent again, with a different name, hoping to generate some bickering, which is what you feed on.
We already know, from the Trump DOJ’s own investigations, that non-citizen voting is infinitesimal. A few dozen cases found out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast over multiple elections. You’re trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, and by your own admission you think disenfranchising millions of citizens from voting is an acceptable outcome. It is not.
The burden is on you to provide hard cold figures if you want to change voting in the US. The onus is on you to prove that that the problem is so serious that it’s acceptable for 5% of citizens to having difficulty voting. It’s on you. You and Mark have “contentions.” Contentions are not the same as facts. You never provide facts. You never provide evidence. You just contend this and contend that, constantly citing debunked conspiracy theories.
“If you have a better way to guarantee that only citizens can vote, why don’t you explain it?”
And, naturally, you can’t or won’t address this, but only go back to your same old whine about what you claim has been proved in the past. Then you build what you seem to think is a good argument for allowing people to vote without any mechanism for confirming their eligibility to do so by inventing yet another metric—in this case, that “the burden is on (me)” to prove, somehow, that this would be a bad idea. Then, in a glaring example of hubris, you—-who have made an entire argument made on contentions—complain that the need to confirm citizenship of voters is merely a “contention”.
And you finish with revisiting those beloved themes of the radical Left—-conspiracy theories and that the assertions of prior election frauds have been “debunked”. All while lying, one lie after another. You claim that I have admitted that disenfranchising millions is an acceptable outcome. You claim there has been no evidence of election fraud. You claim that only a “few dozen cases (were) found out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast over multiple elections”. You claim that I “never provide facts”. You claim that I “never provide evidence”. “We already know, from the Trump DOJ’s own investigations, that non-citizen voting is infinitesimal.” All lies.
It took you only three posts to prove that you are a liar and a zealot committed to enabling the ongoing insecurity of our election process. As well, of course, of repeating your pattern of deception in constantly trying to get back on this blog by inventing new identities.
“cody” has, in his ongoing bickering as he tries to pick flyshit out of the pepper, provided a little tutorial on Leftist rhetoric. You can’t call it “debate” or even “discourse” because it is just nonstop haranguing, but it’s still illustrative. Here is an example of the use of semantics as a tool.
When I asked: “Do you think voting should be restricted to citizens?” he responded “Of course. Don’t you?”. Then when I asked “Do you think citizens should be required to provide state-issued identification confirming citizenship to be able to vote?” he replied “As long as it’s free and easily obtainable by everyone.” And here we see the modifiers slipped in, those details intended to derail the requirement for proof of citizenship by inserting qualifiers. “free” “easily obtainable” “by everyone” And, naturally, those terms are flexible and not locked into any specific definition (somewhat like the free-floating and infinitely mutable definition of “insurrection”).
So, let’s take the example of a “Bob”—40-ish, politically indifferent, thinking of voting this time but only has an old-style drivers license he just renews online, with an outdated photo and old address. He wades through the deceptive storylines of the Left and finally figures out that no, he does not need a passport—but he does need an updated driver’s license that also confirms his citizenship. To get this he needs to provide a certified copy of his birth certificate and some kind of documentation of his new address, take them to the DMV, and pay $10.00 to get a new, updated, license (just as he has always paid a fee to get his license renewed).
And here we hit two of the Left’s speed bumps. That fee to get his license renewed is now called a “poll tax” and it means that the entire policy of requiring proof of citizenship is unfair, burdensome and disenfranchising. Because that new ID is not “free”.
And then there is the element of having to find his birth certificate and then take it to the DMV and then wait his turn to speak with the clerk and then to go through the process of entering his information and getting a new photo and a new license. “Bob” finds this annoying. He had to go see his mother to get his BC, take off work, and then he had to drive across town and then he had to wait an hour and a half. If asked, he might say this did not meet his personal definition of “easy”.
And Shazaam! Just like that, there is proof that the requirement for proof of citizenship is an unreasonable burden, because it is not “free” and does not meet some arbitrary definition of “easy”.
If “Bob” first had to apply to the state for a certified copy of his birth certificate, and pay for that copy, this would just add to the evidence that proving his citizenship is not “easy”—or “free”. And God help him if he had to accompany his request for the copy of his birth certificate with a letter, or a notarized request form (what if the notary charged a fee/”poll tax”?) and Bob had to find a notary and go to an office to get his statement notarized? So very NOT-easy!
So much better to just throw election security into the trash and let anyone vote, maybe going so far as to ask for a pinky-swear that the person is eligible to vote but not always, because even demanding a signature on a mailed ballot can be interpreted as “onerous”. ie: “not easy”
But the Left can smugly claim that it supports proof of citizenship—just under certain conditions. And it can pretend that non-citizen voting is the biggest/only concern of election integrity promoters, and its importance has been “debunked”.
We already know, from the Trump DOJ’s own investigations, that non-citizen voting is infinitesimal. A few dozen cases found out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast over multiple elections.
According to Chuck Schumer it’s a LOT MORE THAN THAT.
But don’t forget the semantic tap dancing: But Schumer didn’t say they all VOTE! Being on the rolls doesn’t mean they VOTE! Chuck only “explained that the SAVE Act was an “outrage!” that would “allow ICE to kick tens of billions of people off the rolls.” That’s not a typo. Chuck said tens of billions.” He was obviously talking about tens of billions of illegal immigrants registering to vote just for grins, with no intention of actually, you know, doing the deed.
And having tens of billions of illegal aliens on the voter registration rolls would not be any more of a concern than the hundreds of thousands of voter registrations listing bogus, non-residential, addresses, as discovered through the quantum computing efforts of Omega4America. Seriously! So what? It’s just voter registrations! It’s not as if they will then receive ballots or anything! //sarc
And going back to my post about the narrow margins in those four states, it clearly doesn’t take a lot of invalid votes to swing an election, which might lead to a bickerfest about the definition of “infinitesimal”. Those are always so productive.
AAGHarmeetDhillon
@AAGDhillon
Under
@AGPamBondi
,
@CivilRights
has been hard at work delivering results for America!
• 14 states sued for voter rolls
• 4 states willingly complied
• NC cleaning up over 100k registrations
• 260k dead registrants identified
• Thousands of non-citizens identified
From Ms. Dhillon:
“Here is what we found so far. We’ve checked 47.5 million voter records. We’ve found 260,000-plus dead people enrolled in the states’ voter rolls, which is pretty concerning. They’re going to be removed with the help of the DOJ.
And finally, that there are several thousand non-citizens who are enrolled to vote in federal elections. This is very concerning, and the DOJ is partnering with local law enforcement where appropriate to prosecute people who have unlawfully voted in our elections.”
Following the 2020 election, the Arizona Senate ordered a comprehensive review of voting procedures and ballot handling.
That review cited several irregularities. One report referenced during the process included an estimate suggesting that more than 200,000 ballots with mismatched signatures may have been counted in Maricopa County without undergoing a verification process known as curing.
The figure was significantly higher than the approximately 25,000 mismatched signatures county officials had acknowledged during the election review process.
Despite the audit, disagreements over election administration in the county remain unresolved. Maricopa County officials and Democratic leaders have argued that many of the concerns raised about the system have been overstated.
The American constitutional experiment, born from the idea that sovereignty resides in the
people, hinges on a guarantee of free and fair elections. Over the past 250 years, our republic has
endured because citizens—and citizens alone—hold the power to choose their leaders. Under
the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4) of the Constitution, states bear a solemn duty to ensure
that only eligible voters participate in our elections, and that only legitimate ballots are counted.
Yet, in recent years, some states have gone rogue—adopting policies that erode this foundational
principle in service of an anti-borders agenda. Front and center in this regard are states that have
adopted some combination of automatic voter registration (AVR), universal mail-in voting, and
the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. According to proponents, these measures provide
administrative convenience in the electoral process. But the reality is that they enable noncitizens
to infiltrate voter rolls and undermine the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.
This betrayal of constitutional duty is most evident in eight jurisdictions (California, Colorado,
Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia) that have embraced
all three policies with reckless disregard for election integrity. These states, driven by anti-borders activism, have created a dangerous trifecta where illegal aliens can seamlessly obtain licenses, trigger automatic registration through self-attestation, and receive unsolicited mail-in ballots with minimal verification. The real-world consequences are stark. In Oregon, officials admitted to registering at least 1,700 noncitizens. Colorado erroneously encouraged 30,000 noncitizens to vote via mailings drawn from driver’s license databases. And Nevada uncovered over 6,000
noncitizens on rolls, with nearly 4,000 having cast ballots. These incidents reveal systemic
weaknesses—lax citizenship checks, data-sharing flaws, and unsupervised voting—that not only
violate federal law but also dilute the voice of American citizens.
Colorado erroneously encouraged 30,000 noncitizens to vote via mailings drawn from driver’s license databases.
Nevada uncovered over 6,000 noncitizens on rolls, with nearly 4,000 having cast ballots. Well, I guess that technically one could say that the number 4000 could be described as “dozens”—-333 dozen, actually. (Hint: “Cast ballots” = voted.) And that’s only one state. I wonder if Colorado is going to release the information on how many of those 30,000 ballots sent to noncitizens were cast/voted. Given the dishonesty of Secretary of State Jenna Griswold, I doubt it.
(I)n Michigan, the Macomb County Clerk Anthony Forlini noted that noncitizen aliens
were appearing on voter rolls there. These irregularities apparently occurred when the
Secretary of State failed to flag the foreign nationals within internal databases. Worse yet,
Forlini noted that the aliens who were registered to vote did indeed have voting histories
(including one who voted several times).
In Arkansas, Secretary of State Cole Jester identified 240 noncitizen aliens on the state’s
voter rolls. Jester confirmed that “between 30 and 40” of these individuals had voted in
elections and were being referred to both state and federal prosecutors. Let me see—I think that would be “between 2 and 4 dozen” of these non-citizens had voted.
In Ohio, the Secretary of State’s Office conducted an extensive citizenship verification
audit. The audit identified 597 noncitizen aliens registered to vote. Of that amount, 138
had cast their ballots in an election. A month after this revelation, an additional 78
noncitizen aliens were located on state voter rolls. 138 non-citizens voted in Ohio. That would be almost 12 dozen.
Election officials in Montana found 23 voters, (let’s round that up to 2 dozen) “most
of which appear to have permanent alien status and no record of citizenship. Several of
the flagged individuals had voter histories indicating participation in dozens of previous
Montana elections.” (If two dozen people have voted in dozens of elections, do you just count the number of people or the number of times they have cast illegal votes?)
I have addressed the assertion that “mere dozens” of voting by non-citizens have been proved. I have only discussed findings of voting by non-citizens in a few state, and merely cited these findings to illustrate the fact that “dozens” is a very imprecise term.
But the real issue not just of non-citizen voting in the past. The SAFE Act is intended to prevent this in the future. As we see some states manipulating their laws to make it easier for non-citizens to vote we have to be aware that if preemptive steps are not taken the number of non-citizen votes is likely to rise. One such example is Georgia’s laws allowing people to claim any address or location as a residence when registering to vote, even if that address is a vacant lot or a filling station.
It’s also important to note that non-citizen voting is only a small component of election fraud/rigging. The strident efforts of Democrats to enable illegal voting shows in the defenses of all the manners of rigging elections that have been cited. From counting ballots more than once to accepting ballots with no signatures to accepting ballots after the legal deadline for voting to interfering with poll and count watchers to accepting votes from people who are dead or no longer living in the states where they vote, etc., the range of election-rigging is broad and deep, going back to padding census counts with people in the country illegally to increase the number of members of Congress for those areas.
Back to the illegal-aliens-voting topic: This was in TownHall today, in an article about how easy it is for illegal aliens to vote in Minnesota:
“They get their driver’s license, because again we give them to anybody here, they register to vote, it doesn’t match with the Social Security number so they’re flagged, but they come in and as long as they have an ID, which is the driver’s license, and they sign that they’re—ya know—eligible to vote, they can vote and they’re no longer flagged, is that correct?” a Rep. Patti Anderson, a member of the Minnesota legislature asked during a hearing.
Minnesota Director of Elections Paul Linnell then delivered a word salad answer, but admitted to the key facts that a driver’s license is simply “an affirmation of identity” rather than eligibility to vote and indicated that reports of possible fraudulent votes are only created and referred to the county attorney if they have been challenged.”
In other words, if no one CHALLENGES a vote by a non-citizen, that means the vote was valid, at least in Minnesota. And it can’t be counted as a vote by a non-citizen, because it was never specifically identified as such by a challenger. Meaning—-there WAS no vote by a non-citizen.
(Which, going down the rabbit-hole of Leftist “logic” means that any claim of election fraud in Minnesota has been “debunked”.)
Typical talking point drivel from the Left – “if you don’t have absolute stand up in Court proof, you’re wrong!”. Though, of course, we do have stand up in Court proof…that is, people have been convicted recently of voter fraud. But it doesn’t matter…no Leftist will ever concede that cheating is a problem because their Party Line is that cheating isn’t a problem. We could quote reams of documents…doesn’t matter.
It is like all the other Leftist lies which are dogma on the Left…”hands up, don’t shoot”, “was just going for Skittles”, “I can’t breath”…so, too, “voter fraud doesn’t happen”.
“Infinitesimal” numbers of bogus votes! Mere “dozens” over tens of millions of votes cast! Full court hearings of evidence and witness testimony then all finding election fraud to be “debunked”! Remember the scathing dismissal of the sworn affidavit of the post office driver about his strange midnight delivery of thousands of filled-out ballots, taken from New York to Pennsylvania during the vote counting in 2020? And the total silence when, a few years later, the Post Office came out and said, well, yeah, that really did happen?
(I loved the Left’s “explanation” of this, BTW—that obviously, when people apply for absentee ballots those ballots have to be filled out and mailed back, and obviously a lot of people from Pennsylvania had had their absentee ballots sent to them in New York, so that’s what this guy was talking about. Yet the mailing address on each ballot is in Pennsylvania, where they are to be returned, not some post office in New York. Naturally, the professionally gullible “reporter” did not follow up with a question about how or why ballots addressed to election headquarters in Pennsylvania ended up in post office boxes in New York. It had been “explained”.)
I thought of writing a book about the lies so many believe, but realized I just don’t have the time. You mentioned four, but there are so many, like the one about Mathew Shepherd just being a shy young man confused about his sexual identity and rather clumsily approaching some homophobic cowboys who took offense and beat him and left him to die.
Personally, I think we should have basic competency tests to vote. Voting is a privilege … IT IS NOT A RIGHT. We are blessed to live in a country where our votes matter, and If you don’t take it seriously, you should not be allowed to vote and cancel out a vote from an informed and engaged citizen. Casper, how would you like your vote countered and negated by some MAGA inbred moron from Appalachia who doesn’t;t have but a 2nd grade education? I mean that’s what you think of them so why would you allow that? That makes no sense if in fact you strive for a decent civilization and honest government. I also think that ONLY tax payers should vote. If you don’t contribute anything to the country, you don’t get a vote. Period. I think EVERYONE should pay taxes, even if it’s $20. Everyone needs skin in the game.
Democrats want everyone to vote (100% as Cody wished for) because it sounds extremely virtuous but makes it extremely easy to cheat. Democrats only care about being virtuous because they have a hole in their soul that they need to fill.
Democrats have become a clear and present danger to the country. It’s the most unbelievable thing I have ever seen and never thought possible that an entire political party would pander to the lowest elements of society as a path to power.
BREAKING: Member of Jasmine Crockett’s Security Detail Killed in Standoff with Dallas SWAT Officers
Ol Jasmine hired a criminal who impersonates police and ended up getting shot. How does someone like that get security detail on a campaign for a US Senator??
We need to completely disengage with Democrats. Don’t talk to them and don;t even acknowledge their existence. Simply nod and smile at their insanity and move on. And if they become more of an obstacle … kill them. We are not the same and let’s not pretend we are. I would rather fight and die than live under their governance. Period.
Let’s also not pretend that the States of CA, IL, and NY have fair statewide elections. Are we to believe that after years of grift and incompetence, CA voters overwhelmingly vote Democrats back into office every year, despite the fact that about 40% of voters in the state are registered republicans?? Do they think we are that naive???
Election Fraud in Deep Blue California? Officials Investigate Alleged Scheme Paying People to Sign Ballot Petitions With Fake Names
Democrats have perfected statewide voting fraud and in 2020 they took it national. But we caught them and all the evidence will soon be undeniable.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/election-fraud-deep-blue-california-officials-investigate-alleged/