Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Expert: 'Child's play' to rig vote counts

Expert: 'Child's play' to rig vote counts

America's computerized voting system isn't just as easy to hack into as Target credit systems, but is "programmed
to cheat," according to an explosive report by a long-time election forensics expert.
"The grim truth that is so hard to tell and so hard to swallow is that America's electoral system has been
corrupted in the most direct and fundamental of ways: the computers that now count virtually all of our votes in
secret can be—and, the evidence indicates, have been—programmed to cheat," said Jonathan Simon.
He has just published a new version of his book on vote theft, "CODE RED: Computerized Election Theft and The
New American Century," and is
warning of how the 2016 election could be corrupted not by fake voters but overwhelming system rigging.
And he suggests it impacted the GOP primaries and Democratic challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders.
"To override the will of the voters and change the outcome of elections. To steal and hold power that could not be
gained and held legitimately. Ultimately to reshape America more effectively than could a junta rolling tanks down
Pennsylvania Avenue. The junta would, by its very visibility, at least provoke resistance," said Simon, also head of
the group Election Defense Alliance. (http://codered2014.com/election-defense-alliance/)
Simon suggests that it has already happened, but said that getting access to investigate the fraud and computer
theft is nearly impossible. But using elections and polling numbers, he raises questions about the outcomes of
several past elections.
In an interview, said that Americans are too trusting of elections boards and machines. He said that there is little
or now way to verify vote counts on computers and said that a sketchy programmer or elections official can shift
vote numbers around to favor their wished for result while still showing accurate numbers of votes. "It's child's
play," he said.
"The system is unobservable and computerized," he said. "It's privatized, computerized and outsourced to a lot of
private corporations," said Simon. He said that nobody audits votes or even back checks the results. And he
argued for a new system that can be audited.
Pollster John Zogby said Simon has hit on a potential landmine.
"He raises a lot of questions about votes that cannot be validated. No election is as pure as Ivory Snow but these
are some troubling issues," Zogby told Secrets.
In the new version, Simon credits Donald Trump (/section/donald-trump) for at least raising the issue of rigged
He writes:
"Whatever one's opinion of Donald Trump (/section/donald-trump) as an avatar of electoral integrity, it was
only a matter of time before someone, whether from a place of fairness or from one of self-interest, called into
question a vote counting system that cannot be seen. This emperor has been walking around naked for 15 years
now and the real mystery is why it has taken that long for anyone to mention the obvious. Nor is Trump the
only one speaking publicly of rigging and hacking: the forensically bizarre 2016 primaries triggered such
allegations, lawsuits, and a wave of distrust from millions of supporters of the Sanders candidacy
"However you feel about such stirrings, you can sense that the political and electoral environments have
undergone a sea change. Our electoral system has failed badly in the translation of public will into electoral
outcomes and representative government, and the result has been a rapidly metastasizing politics of disgust and


Don's Tuesday Column

            THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/25/2016

         Question polls; race “tight as a tick”

What if all, even most, of the polls are wrong? The better question is “What if the polling averages and poll-driven narratives are biased—more importantly, intentionally skewed to the point of inaccuracy?” What is the likelihood that such skewing is designed to portray a seemingly insurmountable lead for Hillary Clinton; and that the dispirited reaction among Republican voters and conservative thought-leaders is actually the intended result?
Hang in for a few revelations on polling. I then want to focus on what, to majorities of voters, are the manifest disqualifications of Hillary Clinton to hold office. Vast numbers of Democrats, while agreeing in the particulars, dismiss the logical conclusions of the manifest flaws in her character and record. In general, most voters, including many Democrats, simply don’t trust Clinton, consider her to be duplicitous and cannot name a single major accomplishment—not from her time as First Lady, her U.S. Senate term nor her reign as the architect, the Secretary of State, of America’s foreign policy.
First, I’ll summarize hours of mathematical dissection of NBC (with the Wall Street Journal or Survey Monkey), ABC/Washington Post, and Quinnipiac University polls. They are over-sampling Democrats (by 20 to 30 percent), women over men (53 to 47 percent), union-households (at 21 percent, twice the actual rate of unionized workers), and minorities; and they somehow marginalize the tendency of Independents to favor Trump.
Just one revealing question in an NBC poll, on page 24 question F1b/c, asks for whom they voted in 2012. The sample of voters, used by NBC, voted for Obama 59 percent, to 41 percent for Romney (after removing those who didn’t know or voted for someone else). Obama won by 4 points, 51 to 47 percent. So we are supposed to think that Hillary Clinton is way ahead based on survey respondents who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the last election.
In the Quinnipiac University poll, Hillary was ahead by 6 points but Trump was heavily favored by Republicans and Independents. When I adjusted and equalized the number of respondents, Hillary was only ahead by 2 points. They “over-sampled” Democrats for Hillary’s lead.
The most accurate polling (out of 18 pollsters rated by 538’s Nate Silver) last election was by Investor’s Business Daily, which had Trump ahead by 2 (Sat.), ahead 1 (Sun.), and tied on Monday. “LA Times/USC Tracking” polling was done by RAND, the 4th most accurate pollster in 2012. That poll has had a small lead for Trump alternating with, as on Monday, a 1 point Clinton lead. Rasmussen and Reuters polling has shown a 1 or 2 point Trump lead for most of the last week. Folks, the race is neck and neck, within the margin of error, or “tighter than a tick” as folksy Dan Rather (who peddled phony anti-George Bush documents) would say.
Here are a few facts for you to take to heart before you even think about voting for Hillary Clinton (please remember that liberals in general, Robert Minch in particular, think you are insane, unintelligent or both to vote for Donald Trump). In addition to placing untold amounts of top secret, classified information on unsecured servers and devices and in hack-able emails, Hillary compromised methods, assets and undercover agents in brutal countries. An ambassador and 3 Americans died because she dismissed hundreds of requests for additional protection. She lied to the faces of their families and lied about the phony culpability of an anti-Muslim video.
As if to emphasize her flagrant disregard for classified information, Hillary Clinton revealed in the last debate the never-before-publicized secret “time to respond” to a nuclear threat. National security experts across the nation were shocked at such irresponsibility.
Look up “Hillary Clinton’s Insidious Threat to Traditional Christianity” by Tyler O’Neil. “Last April, Clinton infamously declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed’ in order to make way for abortion and other forms of ‘reproductive health care.’” That is despotic, “vee vill make you” language about accepting all abortions, at every stage of pregnancy up to a day before delivery, paid by taxpayers, performed in church-owned hospitals—or else.
If you are Catholic, numerous statements hateful to your faith have been made public. “Clinton and her associates have demonstrated a contempt for traditional religious beliefs and an insidious effort to change them by whatever means necessary.” Sandy Newman (Voices for Progress) wrote to John Podesta in February 2012, wanting a “Catholic Spring,” as if the reluctance to accept “gender equality” (described elsewhere as “severely backwards gender relations” i.e. traditional marriage) and the Pope-centric “middle ages dictatorship” needed overthrowing—like the backward Muslim practices of the Middle East. Podesta bragged that he’d already tried to induce the rejection of longstanding doctrine through the George Soros-funded Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
“In a speech given in December 2011, Clinton openly compared religious opposition to the LGBT agenda to honor killings, widow burning and female genital mutilation.” Similar beliefs were in emails from 2011 and 2012, and speeches in 2011 and 2015. Clinton told the LGBT magazine, The Advocate, this year that she will fight against laws written to protect religious conscience objections to transgender agenda acceptance. You will be made to agree.
I urge you to look up “Hillary Clinton: Architect of Failure” by Lt. General (retired) Keith Kellogg. He makes the irrefutable case against her horrendous foreign policy record.

What Politicians Mean When They Ask for More Education Spending

What Politicians Mean When They Ask for More Education Spending
Per-student spending on K-12 education has risen steadily over the last two decades, but student test scores, and teacher salaries, are stagnant. Why hasn’t this massive increase in investment produced better teachers and better opportunity for students? The short-answer, according to a new Manhattan Institute report by Josh McGee: State and local governments have catastrophically mismanaged their teacher pension systems. The cash infusion to K-12 has been used largely to pay for irresponsible pension promises politicians made to teachers’ unions and justified to the public with shoddy accounting. From the executive summary:
Per-pupil spending on equipment, facilities, and property fell by 26% between 2000 and 2013, likely resulting in a growing backlog of expensive repairs and  replacements that will need to be made sometime down the road. Spending on instructional supplies (e.g., textbooks) declined by 10% per pupil. More than half of states (29) spent less per pupil on instructional supplies in 2013 than in 2000. […]
The vast majority of taxpayer contributions into teachers’ pension plans are now used to pay down pension debt owed for past service rather than to pay for new benefits earned by today’s teachers. As the value of this debt has increased, most current teachers have experienced stagnant salaries and reduced retirement benefits, while spending on classroom supplies, equipment, and building upkeep has declined relatively or even absolutely.
In other words, to cover benefits for retirees, states need to dig into education funds that might otherwise be used to attract and retain good teachers or buy better textbooks and build new facilities. So long as state governments are unwilling to reform the blue model pension-for-life civil service system, and so long as teachers unions continue to wield outsized influence in so many state legislatures, this pattern seems likely to continue indefinitely.
Campaigns to increase spending on schools are always popular, and understandably so: Education ought to be a great equalizing force in our society and, in theory, an efficient way to invest in the future. The problem is that in many states, new “K-12 spending” isn’t really an investment so much as a transfer payment to retired employees of the public schools who have been promised untenable lifetime pension benefits.
There is definitely room for smart new investment in K-12. But responsible reformers should make such investment conditional on an overhaul of the public sector pension and collective bargaining system. Otherwise, the public will keep paying more and more and getting nothing in return.


Monday, October 24, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Insidious Threat to Traditional Christianity

Christian Persecution in America
Image Courtesy of Shutterstock
Conservative Christian support for Donald Trump has become something of a scandal of late. But no matter how odious the Republican nominee's faults may be, religious believers must not be fooled — Hillary Clinton represents a terrifying threat to religious freedom and traditional faith in general.
Last April, Clinton infamously declared that "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed" in order to make way for abortion and other forms of "reproductive health care." These remarks, given at the sixth annual Women in the World Summit, are fully in keeping not only with other denigrating speeches she has given about religious beliefs, but even with her colleagues' political work behind the scenes, as recently revealed by WikiLeaks.
For years, Clinton and her associates have demonstrated a contempt for traditional religious beliefs and an insidious effort to change them by whatever means necessary.
One such effort was revealed by WikiLeaks. In an email from February 2012, Sandy Newman, president and founder of the progressive nonprofit Voices for Progress, wrote to John Podesta (now Clinton's campaign chairman) that "there needs to be a Catholic Spring [like the Arab Spring], in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church."

Podesta, rather than dismissing the idea of infiltrating a Christian church and trying to force it to reject longstanding doctrine, said he had already attempted to do this. "We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a movement like this. Likewise Catholics United," he replied. The first group Podesta mentioned, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, is funded by George Soros and pushes left-wing ideologies which are inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.
In another email to Podesta, from March 2011, Center for American Progress fellow John Halpin argued that conservative Catholics "must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy." (emphasis added.)
Jen Palmieri, now Clinton's communications director, responded, "I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelicals." Halpin responded, "Excellent point. They can throw around 'Thomistic' thought and 'subsidiarity' and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they're talking about."
As an evangelical Protestant, I am both familiar with those ideas, and offended on behalf of my Catholic "separated brethren." Much of the way Americans see the world is heavily influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers' idea of federalism arguably traces back to subsidiarity.
Next Page: Clinton herself compared opposition to the LGBT agenda tohonor killings and female genital mutilation.
But some of the most offensive attacks have come directly from Clinton herself. In a speech given in December 2011, Clinton openly compared religious opposition to the LGBT agenda to honor killings, widow burning, and female genital mutilation.
The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn't cultural; it's criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights. [Emphasis added]
In other words, if religious people oppose gay marriage and special legal protections for transgender people, that is tantamount to religious violence and morally comparable to honor killings and slavery. This interpretation is extremely uncharitable to religious conservatives, who do not hesitate to condemn violence against homosexuals, and who most strongly object to being forced to partake in gay weddings, which they see as a violation of religious freedom.

In case you think this is all ancient history (emails from 2011 and 2012, a speech from 2011, and a speech from 2015), read Clinton's words to the LGBT magazine The Advocate in July of this year:
America was founded on religious freedom. It's enshrined in our Constitution. And the Equality Act, for example, advances LGBT equality while maintaining religious exemptions that have been part of our civil rights laws for decades. So this should not be an either/or question.
Sounds good, right? Not quite. Clinton says she supports religious freedom, but then repeats the "discrimination" line so painfully familiar to religious Americans.
Now, the concerted effort underway in a number of states to discriminate against LGBT people under the guise of protecting religious freedom is something very different. It's insincere and insidious. And we shouldn't let it stand.
As president, I will fight to make sure all Americans can live their lives free from discrimination, including LGBT Americans.
Here's the problem — the laws which promote religious freedom do not discriminate against LGBT people. The religious freedom laws only allow businesses to refuse to serve gay weddings (when they have a religious exemption, and since there are many other businesses which will happily do so), and allow churches to operate on their beliefs that people are born male and female and should not change their gender.
The "discrimination" line itself is "insincere and insidious," as are Clinton's efforts to force change in religious doctrines.
These declarations present Hillary Clinton as a radical opponent of religious freedom. We're not just talking about "clinging to their guns and their religion" rhetoric for which President Obama is notorious. No, Clinton and her team have advocated subversion of Christian churches.
Clinton isn't just arguing that Christians "discriminate" against gay people, she's effectively saying that it is the government's job to make them conform. She is equating Christians' unwillingness to support special laws for LGBT people to physical abuse against women. This isn't just an insult — it's a hateful, odious lie that makes enemies of all religious conservatives.
Next Page: Where Clinton's view comes from, and why it is so wrong.
To be fair, Clinton's view makes some sense. From a liberal standpoint, conservatives who accept the Bible's view that homosexual acts and transgender surgery are sinful are stuck in the past. Since LGBT activists are "on the right side of history," their movement will succeed, and one day religious conservatives will look back on these benighted times with the same moral revulsion with which they now remember the Christian justifications for slavery in the 1800s.
The problem with this view is that it assumes way, way too much. Slavery is a morally ambiguous question in the Bible. Yes, the biblical books of Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Peter all urge slaves to obey their masters. But in the book of Philemon, Saint Paul encourages a master to accept the escaped slave Onesimus back "not as a slave, but as a brother."
Furthermore, slavery was endemic in the ancient world, and was a universal feature of human societies until the 800s A.D. when the first Christian abolitionist movement ended the practice in Europe for a time. Then, in the 1800s, Christians like William Wilberforce led the modern abolitionist movement. Slavery is not explicitly condemned in the Bible, but Christians have sacrificed everything — in multiple centuries — to end the practice.
Homosexuality and transgenderism are not so ambiguous. Romans 1 makes clear that homosexual acts are sinful — a penalty for separation from God and a sin with its own consequences. (An aside, this passage does not call for the execution of homosexuals, as The New York Times ignorantly reported.) When it comes to transgenderism, Genesis and the words of Jesus agree that God created humans male and female, and that sexuality is a gift from God.
This does not mean that people who struggle with homosexual attraction or with the sense that they were born in the wrong body are irredeemable or not worthy of Christian charity. All Christians are sinners, and are called to offer God's forgiveness to the repentant. Christians are also called to love and serve our fellow human beings, no matter how sinful.
Believers are not to take a holier-than-thou attitude or to mistreat LGBT people in any way, and that is not what religious freedom laws are about. Christian bakeries should not — and do not — deny service to people because they are gay or transgender. That would be discrimination. They can — and some should — deny service for gay weddings, however, because those are public events and their participation would imply an agreement with homosexual acts in a union.
Furthermore, statutes to make sure that pastors refer to transgender people by their chosen pronouns are oppressive, to some degree. The idea that leaders who do not believe a man can become a woman should be forced to refer to a man as a woman, in violation of their religious principles, is not in keeping with religious freedom. That is not to say a pastor will not decide, in the interests of courtesy and politeness, to do so of his own accord.
The biggest problem with Clinton's approach is that it is exactly what secular progressives accuse Christians of being — morally narcissistic. It not only assumes that her moral positions are correct, but also that there is no justification behind conservative beliefs besides bigotry.

An Establishment in Panic

An Establishment in Panic

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense."
"That's horrifying," said Clinton, setting off a chain reaction on the post-debate panels with talking heads falling all over one another in purple-faced anger, outrage and disbelief.
"Disqualifying!" was the cry on Clinton cable.
"Trump Won't Say If He Will Accept Election Results," wailed The New York Times. "Trump Won't Vow to Honor Results," ran the banner in The Washington Post.
But what do these chattering classes and establishment bulletin boards think the Donald is going to do if he falls short of 270 electoral votes?
Lead a Coxey's Army on Washington and burn it down as British General Robert Ross did in August 1814, while "Little Jemmy" Madison fled on horseback out the Brookville Road?
What explains the hysteria of the establishment?
In a word, fear.
The establishment is horrified at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority.
It may rule and run the country, and may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.
Having fixed the future, the establishment finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.
Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: Its ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.
After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach.
Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England and France to bring Christianity to the New World.
Today, Clintons, Obamas and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law."
Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to re-establish their true God.
And Allah is no democrat.
By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election" Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.
For none of the three -- diversity, equality, democracy -- is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.
When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it.
Consider: Six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.
If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it.
And if felons decide the electoral votes of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that election?
In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority, the matter went to the House.
There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency to Adams -- and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams himself.
Were Jackson's people wrong to regard as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency?
The establishment also recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks time."
Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion":
"We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."
Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.
What goes around comes around.

Report: Clinton chief probably sent password to hackers

Report: Clinton chief probably sent
password to hackers

Hillary Clinton (/section/hillary-clinton)'s campaign chief probably
handed access to his personal email account to hackers in March, a
security research firm said Thursday, by complying with instructions
they sent asking him to change his password.
A "Bitly" link included in a March 19 email in an account held by
campaign chairman John Podesta led researchers at SecureWorks to
make the discovery. Bitly is a service that shortens links, and the data
is sometimes public. SecureWorks has traced thousands of the links to
a hacking group associated with Russian military intelligence agency
GRU. That group is known alternatively as Fancy Bear, Sofacy or APT
The link was clicked twice after its delivery to Podesta's Gmail account,
researchers told Motherboard
and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts), probably by Podesta. It led
to a website controlled by the hackers that looked like Google's
password reset site and that asked Podesta to change his password.
SecureWorks has been able to identify a number of Fancy Bear's
targets by tracking the Bitly links. Those targets have included former
secretary of state Colin Powell, whose emails were published by
DCLeaks in September, as well as William Rinehart and Sarah
Hamilton, both staffers on the Clinton campaign.
The fact Hamilton had been targeted was first made public by Guccifer
2.0, a self-professed Romanian hacker that the intelligence community
said this month is affiliated with the Russian government.
SecureWorks discovered the breach of Rinehart's account.
The reason the hackers use links that can be traced is unclear, though
it does help them to ensure targets are at least interacting with their
Bitly pointed out in a statement that it is not able to discern regular
users from hackers. "The links and accounts related to this situation
were blocked as soon as we were informed. This is not an exploit of
Bitly, but an unfortunate exploit of Internet users through social
"It serves as a reminder that even the savviest, most skeptical users
can be vulnerable to opening unsolicited emails," Bitly said.
WikiLeaks has released more than 20,000 emails obtained from
Podesta's Gmail account this month, and has said as many as 30,000
more are forthcoming.


Sunday, October 23, 2016

Podesta WikiLeaks Horror: Voter ID Doesn't Stop Alien Voting

Give the Devil his due. John Podesta here, as in many other cases, is the Devil.
Podesta seems to have figured out that, because of vulnerabilities in our election system, foreigners can get registered to vote and get voter ID at the same time.
He has revealed one of the biggest vulnerabilities in American elections, one that exists entirely because of the Motor Voter law.
Wikileaks emails show Podesta reaching this conclusion -- and wanting to exploit it:
John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.
On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture,attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.
Podesta's right. Alien registration and voting is the next big battle for election integrity, because federal mandates created vulnerabilities in our election process.
Here's how it works.
Under Motor Voter, registrants can get registered to vote while they get their driver's license or "photo ID." How? Well, getting registered to vote is as easy as marking "YES" to the question: "Are you a citizen of the United States?"
As Podesta notes, when you attest you are a citizen, you get registered. It's automatic. It's mandated under federal law.
The registrant then signs the form, stating under "penalty of perjury" that the answers are correct. It's an honor system -- but only four states engage in citizenship verification.
And three of those four states are currently entangled in litigation with leftist groups trying to end that verification: Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia.
These leftist groups have allies in the Justice Department, which has also fought citizenship verification measures ferociously.
Now we may know why. Alien registrants lie in enormous numbers, and are now on American voter rolls. Naturally, Democrats and the media do all they can to minimize the scope of the problem, because the former benefit from it.
Don't states check if the answer to the citizen question is truthful? Don't they make sure that only citizens are registering when they get their driver's license/photo ID?
No and no. It isn't happening.
That's what Podesta means when he writes: "when you attest that you are a citizen" you have a right to vote. Courts -- as recently as today in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals -- have largely agreed with Podesta's view.
podesta-email(via Gateway Pundit)
I am involved in litigation right now in multiple locations regarding failing to use all the tools available to verify citizenship. Most election officials do absolutely nothing to verify citizenship.
Moreover, the Public Interest Legal Foundation conducted a scratch-the-surface investigation into a small number of Virginia counties, and found over 1,000 registrants were removed from the rolls for citizenship problems. These were people who didn't tell the truth when they registered to vote and said they were a citizen.
They had photo ID.
Hundreds of ballots were cast from these voters.
Remember, this was only eight counties out of over 130 -- and just in the state of Virginia. Election officials in Virginia are concealing the full extent of the problem. Worse, these registrants were only caught because they told the truth when they renewed their driver's license.
These are federal felonies -- yet there hasn't been a single prosecution by the Obama Justice Department despite the names of aliens who registered and voted routinely appearing in the media.
Podesta would be pleased.
If you want to see how far the institutional left will go to stop citizenship verification of voter registrants, look here and here.
If you want to see how far the Washington Post will go to cover over the scale of the alien voting registration problem, look here.
It's important for those who care about election integrity to be ahead of the curve, not behind it. Voter ID is important. Free and easy voter ID should be the law in fifty states. But it's increasingly likely that voter ID is yesterday's fight, at least to Democrats.
There is a much more plentiful harvest to be had in the fields of alien voting.  Sadly, federal law, namely the no-verification provisions of Motor Voter, makes the harvest all too easy.



As we steel ourselves for the final presidential debate, it is worth remembering that Hillary Clinton has no talents that would have brought her to public attention, had she not married Bill Clinton. For the first time ever, “service” as First Lady is offered as a qualification for the presidency. Hillary carpet-bagged a Senate seat, running in New York while she was the First Lady, living in the White House. She thereby took unfair advantage of a privileged position that she held only by virtue of her marriage.
Her tenure in the Senate was so undistinguished that, I have read, she doesn’t even mention it in her autobiography. I can’t say for sure since, like virtually all other Americans, I have had better things to do than read Hillary’s book.
Next it was on to the State Department. Here, Hillary’s performance was abysmal. She accomplished nothing in four years, and was sometimes embarrassed, as by the misbegotten (and misspelled) Russian “reset.” Documents released pursuant to various Freedom of Information Act requests demonstrate beyond debate that Hillary and her sycophantic circle intended the overthrow of Moammar Qaddafi in Libya to be the crown jewel of her diplomatic career and the basis of her inevitable presidential run.
Only Hillary committed an appalling blunder: she led the overthrow of a government without having a plan for what would come next. What came next was predictable to anyone with any sense–chaos, and a vacuum that was quickly filled by Islamic terrorists, particularly ISIS. The fiasco of Benghazi, and her lies about that fiasco, were the bitter fruits of the broader disaster of her Libya policy.
Now she is running for president–sort of. She makes as few campaign appearances as possible, and wherever she goes she is greeted by small, unenthusiastic crowds. Most people would as soon get a root canal as listen to one of her speeches. As she nears the finish line, she is being propped up: figuratively by the press, which is determined to drag her across the finish line, and literally by her aides when she falls down, or appears about to.
All of that is a preamble to an email exchange that was made public yesterday by Wikileaks. It is an email thread between Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta, and Neera Tanden, supposedly a close friend of Hillary and the head of the Center for American Progress, a left-wing think tank that is a branch of the Democratic Party. The date is September 15, 2015. What prompts the emails is Hillary’s exclamation to an audience in Ohio, “You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center, I plead guilty.”
First, here are the emails as disclosed by Wikileaks. Click to enlarge:
Neera Tanden begins:
Why did she call herself a moderate?
This was, of course, during the windup to the 2016 primary season, when Hillary’s main competition came from the far left. The response from Podesta–her campaign manager!–is stunning:
I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn’t remember saying it. Not sure I believe her. We were speculating, that it may be a Don Baer intervention.
This is remarkable on two levels. First, Hillary described herself as a moderate–seemingly a significant point–and then claimed she didn’t remember doing so. That raises questions about her mental acuity. But Podesta says he isn’t sure he believes her, which means that her own campaign manager thinks she is a liar. Don Baer, if you wondered, is a former communications director and speechwriter for Bill Clinton, who apparently was suspected by the Left of having moderate tendencies.
Neera Tanden wraps up the dialogue:
I mean it makes my life more difficult after telling every reporter I know she’s actually progressive but that is really the smallest of issues. It worries me more that she doesn’t seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.
“She doesn’t seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment.” Tanden, a Democratic Party operative, refers to Hillary Clinton with casual contempt–when talking to Hillary’s campaign manager, who, she obviously thinks, shares that contempt.
It appears that Hillary Clinton, in the eyes of her closest associates, is a pathetic figure, neither truthful nor competent. Today we could add, not only is she neither truthful nor competent, she may not be capable of standing at a podium without help.
It is remarkable that a woman with few if any accomplishments, who is viewed with casual contempt by those who know her best, is apparently on the brink of being elected president.