http://donpolson.blogspot.com/ Bringing you the very best information, analysis and opinion from around the web. NOTE: For videos that don't start--go to article link to view. FAVORITE SITES FOR INFO: https://pjmedia.com , www.powerlineblog.com , https://rumble.com/c/Bongino , instapundit.com https://justthenews.com , https://Bonginoreport.com
I know we live in an era where every progressive politician is required to treat hip-hop lyrics about body counts like sacred scripture, but even by those standards, Florida Senate hopeful Angie Nixon just set a new personal best for catastrophic timing.
There she was, up on stage at FAMU homecoming, white suit and all, enthusiastically rapping along to a track that casually asked if anybody wanted to die and then doubled down on the idea. The crowd was into it. She was into it. It was pure vibes, pure culture, pure “this is what the kids are into, so I’m the cool candidate.”
Hours later, actual gunfire erupted near the stadium.
Twelve people were hit, six of them children, one just 11 years old.
A 15-year-old is now facing attempted murder charges.
And just like that, the same woman who was vibing to murder talk put out the obligatory statement about her heart being broken, the community being shattered, and how we all need to work together to stop the gun violence. The whiplash is almost impressive.
This is the same Angie Nixon who is a card-carrying Democratic Socialist, who has openly mused about locking up her Republican opponent, and who campaigns like the rules of basic adult judgment don’t apply to her. You don’t get to treat lyrics about people dying as a party favor and then act shocked when real bullets start flying in the same neighborhood a few hours later. The culture she was celebrating on that stage is the same culture that treats violence as background noise until the cameras show up and it’s time to perform grief.
Florida voters are getting a clear look at the candidate: one minute she’s the cool aunt at the homecoming afterparty, the next she’s the concerned lawmaker demanding we “do something” about the exact behavior she was just amplifying for applause.
The midterms are days away. Maybe the people of Florida will notice the difference between rapping about murder and actually dealing with it. Or maybe they’ll decide they want a senator who can tell the difference in the first place.
Many have asked for my opinion and prediction on the upcoming midterm election. One of the reasons I have been hesitant to advance an opinion is simply because this election comes down to a fundamental question that is challenging to discuss with a wider audience. That issue surrounds “pretense” or “pretending.”
The Trump administration has been trying to advance election integrity issues that target the structural “pretending” that underpins all election fraud. The political left pretends not to know that elections are manipulated, yet for years they have advanced structural policy and lawfare to facilitate pretending. Make no mistake ‘pretending’ is a strategy -a purposeful strategy- that underpins all election manipulation.
Example using motor-voter registration systems: When the option on a DMV system contains a singular checkbox that says “I am eligible to vote in federal elections” with no option to say, “I am not eligible to vote in federal elections,” the singular affirmative check box if left blank can be then coded to transfer the physical ID to the state registrar’s office under the pretending guise of benefit of doubt. The pretense is the person just forgot to check the box – plausible deniability is constructed.
A singular checkbox is an indicator of plausible pretense that constructs the federal fraud intent. An identity system with two check boxes, one saying “yes, I am” the other saying “no, I am not” eliminates the plausible doubt (pretense). Every blue state who uses the ID or License system to generate ballots use the singular check box.
The Trump administration through DHS/ICE have been targeting illegal aliens who voted in elections for deportation proceedings. This is ultimately a warning spread by word of mouth within the illegal alien community. At the same time, there have been numerous examples of illegal aliens who swear it wasn’t them who filled out the ballot; however, the voting is a criminal act, the voter registration is unlawful, and the illegal alien is deported.
The blue states are protecting their voter registration files from federal review in part because they are protecting illegal aliens who have voted and/or registered to vote. Keep in mind from the above example, the illegal alien who went to get a state ID card my not have wanted to register to vote, but the officials who construct the system register them anyway because they want to generate the ballot opportunity (potentially filled out by others).
If states use the fraudulent registration to generate ballots, and then the ballots are used in the election by political harvesters, DHS/ICE have a federal law violation against the illegal alien to ‘further’ justify the deportation.
Illegal aliens are aware of this issue as a consequence of removal proceedings discussed within their community over the past year+.
Illegal aliens who do not want to appear on the DHS/ICE radar, do not vote in elections. However, that doesn’t mean a ballot wasn’t purposefully created, transmitted and filled out -with their personage as the identity- without their knowledge.
With leftists increasingly desperate to influence the election outcomes, the illegal alien ballots turn the alien into cannon fodder. The leftists don’t care what happens to the alien after the purposeful exploit of their identity has been accomplished. Illegal aliens are also very aware of this issue.
That said, the non-pretending reality of this situation rises to the surface within the issue of the Trump administration notifying the State of California of a specific list of 20,000 register voters who are unlawfully on the voter rolls. The administration has warned the state they are on notice of the fraudulent registration and if any of those names vote in the election the state and/or county officials can be held liable for violating federal election law.
The issue ended up in court where California state officials are fighting the Trump administration. Within the arguments the state officials informed the court they have no process to curate and/or cull votes once the voter registration is submitted.
According to state officials, regardless of whether the voter registration is legally compliant or not, once the voter registration takes place the state has no process to stop the voter or sequester the voter ballot from the final tally.
Obviously, when you understand how the motor-voter system has been manipulated [GO DEEP], you can understand the next level of pretending needed by the state officials in order to avoid accountability.
Instead of addressing that issue, the activist judge said yesterday he was going to appoint a “special master” to review how the DOJ developed the list of 20,000 names. Instead of holding the state officials accountable for a system of fraudulent voters, the judge is going to target the DOJ officials who identified the issue.
CALIFORNIA – […] The federal district judge overseeing the Justice Department’s lawsuit asking California to segregate roughly 20,000 ballot belonging to individuals it claims are “likely” noncitizens appeared skeptical of the DOJ’s efforts to seek emergency action just a week from the state’s election.
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said in court Tuesday he intends to appoint a special master to probe DOJ’s process that led it to compile the list of alleged 20,000 likely non-citizens, dealing a setback to the Trump administration’s attempt to quickly intervene in the election.
Judge Carter did not rule by the conclusion of the hearing on the DOJ request for a temporary restraining order against the state, though he appeared skeptical of the department’s late-stage attempt to force what he described as a “monumental change” in California’s ongoing administration of its election. (more)
It is fair to say that given the demonstrable scale of illegal voting, if unlawful registrations and illegal alien voters were removed from their ability to influence the election outcome, roughly half of the current Democrats in congress would lose their seats. That’s the scale of illegal alien voting, direct or indirect, inside the system.
So, the question is…. For this 2026 midterm election, which pressure mechanism is stronger: (1) the threat by President Trump, DHS and ICE to deport illegal voters which may stop a significant number of illegal ballots; or (2) the severity of desperation within the leftist democrat apparatus to push illegal ballots into the harvesting machinery.
All fraudulent election activity rests on a foundation of pretending. The democrats pretend not to know how the structural design of the system facilitates fraud; while the republican wing of the UniParty pretends they don’t know about the structural design of the system that facilitates fraud.
A non-pretending Trump administration has to battle both groups with the army of MAGA/INDY voters behind him.
California bars non-citizens from voting. But it doesn’t require anyone to prove citizenship when they register.David Buchan for New York Post
Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) gave California a thumb drive with 20,000 names on it, ostensibly containing the names of suspected non-citizens who had registered to vote in the state.
State and county officials, who had already sent ballots out by mail, refused to open it.
So the DOJ sued in district court, hoping to force California to set aside those 20,000 ballots if and when they came in.
Time is of the essence: ballots are already being mailed back, and counted. And once they are in, it’s almost impossible to fish them out again.
The district judge set a hearing date eight days after the case was filed. Normally, that’s quick. But in the middle of a vote-by-mail election, it meant that hundreds of thousands of ballots would be counted in the interim.
The state seemed to argue that anyone could challenge a non-citizen’s ballot as it was being cast.CHRIS TORRES/EPA/Shutterstock
So the Trump administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit to intervene.
The judges — two Trump appointees, one Biden appointee — seemed skeptical of the DOJ’s case, at first.
After all, the Constitution’s Elections Clause leaves it to the states to decide how to run their election.
Sure, federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting — as does state law in California — but normally it’s up to California to figure out how to enforce that.
And if California decides not to make voters prove they are citizens — if it just asks them to “attest” that they are — that might be lame, but it might also be within California’s right to do so.
There’s Proposition 39, which would require voters to have valid ID to vote. Zuma / SplashNews.com
The Tenth Amendment — important to conservatives — also prevents the federal government from forcing the states to enforce federal laws.
That’s called “commandeering” — and Trump can’t force California to enforce federal laws against non-citizens voting. Nor can Trump make the state enforce its own laws, either.
The judges — including the Trump appointees — were also worried about stepping into the lower court case too soon.
Why the rush? And if the federal government was concerned about votes being counted before non-citizen ballots could be separated, why hadn’t it acted sooner?
The DOJ, represented by Matthew Donnelly, said that the administration didn’t have a reliable list of non-citizen voters until recently.
Whether the judges buy that explanation remains to be seen.
But the judges also had one lingering question for the State of California’s lawyers that they could not answer.
After all, the Constitution’s Elections Clause leaves it to the states to decide how to run their election.Carlin Stiehl for CA Post
If it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote in California, how does the state stop them from voting?
California’s lawyers seemed to have no answer.
“Your Honor, I honestly don’t know the answer to that.”
The state seemed to argue that anyone could challenge a non-citizen’s ballot as it was being cast.
(How are you supposed to do that — hide in a mailbox?)
Suppose someone does challenge a ballot. The judges asked how the state would verify the accusation.
“There could very well be a verification process,” a lawyer for the state replied.
Could be? You mean, they don’t know?
Well, he said, he was sure that a losing candidate could bring some kind of challenge. But he’d have to have overwhelming evidence, and there would have to be enough non-citizen votes to make the difference in the election.
