Tag Archives: voting

Of What are they Afraid?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has formed his commission to look into national-scale voter fraud, as promised, and that commission has asked each of the several States for a potful of voter roll information.  Even though the commission has asked for a broad range of data, it has emphasized that it wants only the data that are publicly available according to the respective States’ laws.

Nevertheless, a significant number of States have chosen to refuse to supply the data.  Virginia Governor Terry McAuliff (D), for instance, wondered with a straight face “what voter fraud?  Who—us?”

I have no intention of honoring this request. Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia[.] … At best this commission was set up as a pretext to validate Donald Trump’s alternative election facts, and at worst is a tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla also has refused.

…not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.

Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes:

Kentucky will not aid a commission that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country[.]

Look who’s prejudging the outcome of an investigation that’s just getting underway.

I fail to understand why these folks want to obstruct the investigation.  After all, what better way to shut down Trump than to show, via his own commission, that his voter fraud beef is bogus?  Unless the beef is valid, and these guys have something to hide.

Naw.  Couldn’t be.

The Debil Made Me Do It

Posted on by
Reply

At least Flip Wilson’s routine was funny.  The Democrats’ and their Party’s comedy, though, is just sad.

In no particular order, it’s been low-information voters who didn’t get the message that caused Democrats to lose seats in Congress and ultimately caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Presidential election.  Or it was that we’re just too dumb to understand their message.  Or it was FBI Director Comey who spiked her campaign.  Or it was the Russians who rigged our election.  Or it was President-Elect Donald Trump who’s in cahoots with the Russians.  Or it became Republican Electors who need to do their moral duty and not vote for Trump.  Or it was a mendacious press that had it in for Clinton.  And the latest: Bill Clinton’s racist and sexist rant: it was all those angry, white men who didn’t vote for Hillary.

Now it’s Huma Abedin’s fault.  She was an enabler of Clinton’s decision to isolate herself from the public and from the nature of her campaign.

“The real anger is toward Hillary’s inner circle,” a Clinton insider told Vanity Fair for a Wednesday feature on Abedin. “They reinforced all the bad habits.”

Because her role—created by her boss (that would be Hillary Clinton for those of you following along at home)—as personal advisor and Deputy Campaign Chief meant her advising should have been taken seriously.  But it was only advice: the decisions were always those of the MFWIC (Clinton again).  And it was Clinton’s bad habits, no one else’s.

And she was too enamored of her role.

“She was enjoying the red carpet and enjoying the photo spreads much too much in my opinion,” one Clinton insider told Vanity Fair. “She enjoyed being a celebrity too much.”

Yeah, she enjoyed the spotlight on her caused by Anthony Weiner’s behavior.  Gotta be it.

It couldn’t possibly be that Clinton had no message on policy, no coherent argument on why her plan to continue, even extend, President Barack Obama’s (D) policies that have been a failure these last eight years was a good idea.  It couldn’t possibly be that in conjunction with that, Clinton simply has been a terrible campaigner.  And that she’s entirely untrustworthy in the eyes of too many Americans.  No, all of that would be Clinton doing something with her personal responsibility more concrete than just talking about taking it.

No, it’s never Democrats’ fault, and it’s never Clinton’s, either.

Obama Has Threatened Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Or so he says, while continuing his partisan and petty attacks on his opponents.

The US will “take action” against Russia for alleged cyberattacks on Democratic officials, President Obama warned Thursday, hours after his spokesman claimed that President-elect Donald Trump “obviously knew” about the breaches and leaks that critics say propelled him to victory in last month’s election.

President Barack Obama’s (D) tough talk about retaliatory action against Russia comes against the backdrop of his Vice President Joe Biden’s threat to retaliate against Russia for its cyber invasions and his own threat of retaliation regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons.

Obama’s tough talk about what Trump knew and when he knew it comes against the backdrop of his refusal to let his intelligence community Directors let Congress know the same things he claims Trump already knew.

Obama in his own words:

I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections … we need to take action.  And we will—at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.

Sure he will.

I’m reminded of what bully wannabes on the playgrounds where I grew up used to chant: “Boy, oh boy, when I get you.”

Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Or sore, childish losers.  Or outright dishonesty.  That’s the behavior of a couple of Colorado Presidential Electors who are members, also, of the Democratic Party.  These two have filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of the State’s law that requires them to vote for the State’s choice in the just concluded Presidential election.  The State’s law is a winner-take-all requirement: Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won Colorado, they’re required to cast their Electoral votes for Clinton—but they’re so desperate to block President-Elect Donald Trump, they don’t want to; they want to vote for a third party candidate if they can get enough other Electoral College voters to similarly turn their coats and vote for a common third party candidate to deny Trump 270 Electoral College votes.  (Never mind that that would just move the election to the Republican House of Representatives.  Logic has never been much of a player for the Left.)

These two persons are basing their suit’s claim on Article II and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution.

Though Hillary Clinton and Timothy Kaine won the majority vote in Colorado and are qualified for office, plaintiffs cannot be constitutionally compelled to vote for them.  Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their judgment and free will to vote for whomever they believe to be the most qualified and fit for the offices of president and vice president, whether those candidates are Democrats, Republicans or from a third-party.

And from the complaint itself:

Many states, including Colorado, require their Presidential Electors to vote consistent with the popular vote in the state. Thus, despite the plain language of Article II of the US Constitution, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment, and the Founders’ intent that the Presidential Electors be a deliberative and independent body free to cast votes for whomever they deem to be the most fit and qualified candidates, Messrs Trump and Pence—if the state statutes are enforced—may “win” the election while also losing, by historical margins, the nationwide popular vote.

Since these persons mention the plain language of Article II and the 12th, they—and their lawyers—might want actually to review that plain language.  Here’s the relevant part of Article II:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….

All the 12th Amendment does is fix the mechanics of voting and the number of still-eligible candidates if the contest must go to the Federal House and Senate.

[I]n such Manner as the Legislature…may direct: which plainly includes for whom and under what State-wide vote outcome as a State might choose to direct.  The Electors are representatives of the State, not of themselves.  No, they are not entitled (such a popular term for the denizens of the Left [/snark]) to exercise their judgment and free will.  They are required to reflect the collective will of their State.

The suit should be tossed, and the lawyers complicit in bringing it should be sanctioned by the Federal court whose time they wasted with this cynical frivolity.

Gerrymandering, Politics, and Race

Posted on by
Reply

The (eight Justice) Supreme Court is going to take up the question of gerrymandering and Congressional districts in Virginia and North Carolina.  In fact, the case the Court is hearing is narrower than that:

drawing legislative districts based on race.

Never mind that the Democrats’ Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates race-based districting: the VRA

generally prohibits reducing minority-voting power through redistricting[]

which, of course, explicitly requires race-based districting in order to “protect” that “power.”

Indeed, the whole divide[] between white and minority voters nonsense with which Jess Bravin opened his piece at the link is just a tacit summary of the Left’s racism.  We’re all Americans.  Full stop.  Any “divide” is nothing but an artificiality, fueled by the Left’s fundamental identity policies that end up masking real abuses.

Were the Left, and now the courts, serious about how bad gerrymandering is, they’d agree to its elimination altogether.  Congressional districts should be squares enclosing substantially equal sized populations, differing from those straight-line boundaries only at the borders between states, and drawn without regard to the Left’s identity politics concerning which special groups of Americans are resident in which districts.