Watch This Shock Voter Fraud Video in California — Then Tell Your Senator to Pass the SAVE America Act

Watch This Shock Voter Fraud Video in California — Then Tell Your Senator to Pass the SAVE America Act

Victoria Taft  

AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File

These acts of voter fraud and voter impersonation are so in-your-face that even the California Secretary of State's office says it will investigate. And it's another reason why U.S. senators MUST pass the Save America Act to demand voter identification, citizenship proof such as a birth certificate, and voter roll checks to tie a living person to a vote.

This open-air voter fraud reportedly has been going on for days in areas populated by homeless addicts and other down-and-out folks in San Francisco. The people you'll see in the following video have been paid to sign a petition — not in their own names, but in other people's names. You read that right.

In some ways, this is nothing new. This is how voter impersonation has been happening for years in California. What's shocking is that a street photographer I follow on X caught it on video for you to see with your own eyes.

Watch the entire video.

What you have just witnessed are crimes. These ballot-petition signature gatherers are paying homeless addicts and others to sign multiple petitions in exchange for $5. Signature gatherers are often paid. That's not a crime. But they may not give a person signing a petition anything of value in exchange for a signature. That's a crime.

Told You: DOJ Sues Six More Blue States for Hiding Shady Voter Rolls From Feds

But hang on there, because things get worse for these crooks.

Those men you saw in the video lining up to make an easy five bucks of "walking around money" to pay for their next bump have been instructed to illegally sign someone else's name, which is fraud.

Had it not been captured by JJ Smith on video, these signatures would have been accepted and counted, and the initiative petitions would have been put on the ballot with the help of these signatures. Who knows — maybe they'll still be counted. California doesn't really check signatures; these registered voters are on the books as having signed something they didn't. Additionally, in 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom also signed into law a measure that makes it illegal for cities to ask for ID to vote. California already bans ID requirements to vote.

But hold on. 

Even the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Harmeet Dhillon, weighed in to let people know she'd seen this outrageous behavior.

Even one California media outlet in Sacramento was gobsmacked by this outrageous behavior. 

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.

FAFO: Massive Coverup Underway in Washington State to Stop Reporting of Somali Daycare Fraud

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's much worse in California. 

The campaigns involved those hoping to reverse the proposed California wealth tax, a state government transparency act, and a union effort to establish a state retirement and personal savings act. The campaigns told KCRA TV they want the circulators outed and the petitions by these people tossed out.

https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2026/03/11/curious-about-how-voter-fraud-works-watch-this-happening-in-california-n4950528

This CNN Reporter's Tweet About Trump, Polling, and Iran Is Laughably Predictable

This CNN Reporter's Tweet About Trump, Polling, and Iran Is Laughably Predictable

Matt Vespa  

     

AP Photo/Ron Harris

Oh, they’re so close—they’re always so close. Polling Donald Trump is nearly impossible. It’s never been accurate. It was wrong in 2016, 2020, and 2024. The weekly approval ratings are always underestimating the real figure. Also, when your oversampling Democrats, which is always the case among mainstream outlets, the accuracy becomes even more unpredictable.

Take the Washington Post, whose polling on the war saw a drastic change from last week [emphasis mine]: 

What do Americans think about the U.S. war with Iran, and how have their opinions shifted since the conflict began?

A Washington Post poll of 1,005 Americans finds less opposition to the U.S. military actions than when they began, although more people still would prefer that the strikes stop than continue. A steady majority say the Trump administration has not clearly explained the war’s goals, and most say the number of U.S. casualties — including seven service members reported killed in action — is unacceptable. Many Americans are still making up their minds on the military campaign or hold a mix of positive and negative views about it. 

A Post poll shortly after the strikes began found 39 percent supported “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” while 52 percent opposed them and 9 percent were unsure. The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure. The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.

Aaron Blake, now with CNN, hit it on the head, though he doesn’t say it: Democrats are simply not serious people.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/03/13/this-cnn-reporters-tweet-about-trump-polling-and-iran-is-laughably-predictable-n2672774?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-ZAegngTtuZ&utm_term=&_nlid=ZAegngTtuZ&_nhids=ncXyxhR9SGgols

The Democrats’ White Liberal Problem

The Democrats’ White Liberal Problem

It’s their party now.

Ruy Teixeira

It’s easy to underestimate how much the Democratic Party has changed in this century. In particular, you can miss how white liberals have changed from being a voice in the choir to the choir director. Cast your mind back to the beginning of the century. At that point, a mere 28 percent of Democrats described themselves as liberal and two thirds were either moderate or conservative.

Fast forward to today and the liberal share has more than doubled to 59 percent while the moderate/conservative share has declined drastically. It’s the liberals’ party now. And especially, it’s the white liberals’ party now.

White Democrats even at the beginning of this century were already disproportionately liberal—that is, more likely to be liberal than nonwhite Democrats. That disproportion has grown sharply over the course of the century. A Gallup analysis from 2023 found that over several decades, the liberal share among white Democrats had gone up 37 points, compared to 17 points among black Democrats and 18 points among Hispanic Democrats.

These trends have combined to radically change the ideological composition of white Democrats. In 2000, white Democrats who were moderate or conservative outnumbered white liberal Democrats by about 2:1. Today that relationship has been reversed. White liberal Democrats now outnumber moderate/conservative white Democrats by about 2:1.

That matters. From being merely a voice, albeit an important one, in the Democratic choir, white liberals are now directing the choir and imposing their culture, preferences, and priorities on the party as a whole. For example, in the recent Third Way survey of likely 2028 Democratic primary voters, white liberals (43 percent) outnumber all nonwhites (35 percent) who anyway are ideologically split in a way white Democrats tend not to be (66 percent of that group say they’re liberal). Indeed, black voters in the survey are split down the middle between liberal and moderate/conservative, with the latter group actually being slightly larger.

That gives white liberals enormous leverage within the party. Any Democrat seeking to build their support in the party has to reckon with this enormous bloc of Democrats, whose influence is enhanced beyond their considerable numbers by their dominance of the party’s infrastructure, allied NGOs and advocacy groups, and left-leaning media, foundations, and academia. Not to mention the money—ambitious Democrats need money and white liberals are a reliable source of cash for politicians who press the right buttons.

This clarifies why it is so difficult for Democratic politicians to carve out a truly moderate path. Back in the day, such a politician could balance the demands of white liberals with the considerable and countervailing tug from white moderates and conservatives. No more. White liberals are in the driver’s seat and Democratic politicians have calibrated their appeals accordingly.

The pull in that direction is enhanced by the fact that white conservative Democrats have practically disappeared and even white moderate Democrats are not particularly moderate by the standards of the country as a whole. In the Third Way survey, moderate white Democrats, while not as enthusiastically as white liberals, still give strong support to Medicare for All that would eliminate private health insurance, a Green New Deal that would rapidly eliminate fossil fuels, canceling student debt and free college, and an annual nationwide wealth tax on billionaires. Not so moderate!

So it is not irrational for ambitious Democratic politicians to put a finger on the scales for an agenda that puts white liberals in their happy place. Quite the contrary.

---

And no wonder one still searches in vain for the Democratic politician willing to venture a true “Sister Souljah moment.” Recall the original Sister Souljah moment that occurred in June 1992, when Bill Clinton, speaking at a gathering for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, commented on a statement rapper/activist Sister Souljah had made in an interview with The Washington Post. In the interview, she replied to a question about whether black-on-white violence in the 1992 LA riots was a “wise, reasoned action” as follows:

Yeah, it was wise. I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?...White people, this government and that mayor were well aware of the fact that black people were dying every day in Los Angeles under gang violence. So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?

Clinton’s comment on this to the Rainbow Coalition was:

You had a rap singer here last night [on a panel] named Sister Souljah…Her comments before and after Los Angeles were filled with a kind of hatred that you do not honor today and tonight. Just listen to this, what she said: She told The Washington Post about a month ago, and I quote, ‘If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?…So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?

If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and reversed them, you might think David Duke [founder of a Louisiana-based KKK organization] was giving that speech.

At the time, Democrats were suffering from a highly negative image of being soft on crime and public disorder and practicing a racial double standard (sound familiar?). Given what Clinton said and where he said it (to the Rainbow Coalition), his message was crystal clear: Democrats should not tolerate violence and inflammatory rhetoric, including any that comes from members of their own coalition. There should be no double standards.

Clinton was relentlessly attacked by Jackson and other figures on the party’s left for his apostasy. But normie voters got the message. Here was a different kind of Democrat who was willing to throw obvious Democratic lunacy over the side. Clinton withstood the blowback and he—and his party—reaped the reward.

It’s hard to imagine a contemporary Democratic politician being willing to risk such a confrontational attack on party orthodoxy. Today’s massive contingent of white liberals, herded along by their opinion leaders and institutions, are likely to rise up in unison to punish such apostasy. That key change makes the intra-party cost-benefit calculus of such a move far different—far more negative—than in Clinton’s day. So we don’t see them.

Instead, we get the occasional anodyne attempts at heterodoxy, quickly swept under the rug when they are (inevitably) attacked by the usual suspects. Democratic politicians chasing a moderate image typically do not attack liberal shibboleths but rather emphasize their practical bent and distaste for being “divisive.” But their underlying positions rarely deviate much from those preferred by white liberals.

That will only take you so far, even in era where the political terrain is tilting against Trump and his party. As Damon Linker pointed out in an essay last summer:

[W]hat liberals need to do to defeat right-wing populism…[is] to moderate on culture. That means on policies and moral stances wrapped up with the old culture war (like trans and other gender-related issues) as well as in other areas of policy that have a strong cultural valance—like crime, immigration, and DEI. This isn’t just necessary because Democratic positions on these issues are unpopular at the moment. It’s also crucial because culture is more fundamental than politics: It sends a signal to voters about where a politician or party stands on base-level moral questions. When voters become convinced that a specific politician or party has bad (or just sufficiently different) moral judgment, they lose trust in that politician or party. And then other, more superficial policy commitments don’t matter…

White liberals who are inclined to blame everyone but themselves for why their cause hasn’t gotten farther should consider the wise words of Pogo:

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/the-democrats-white-liberal-problem

I Have Seen the Future of Anti-Drone Warfare, and It's Dirt-Cheap (Really!)

I Have Seen the Future of Anti-Drone Warfare, and It's Dirt-Cheap (Really!)

Stephen Green  

U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kaden D. Pitt

As fascinating as drone warfare can be — particularly the seemingly sci-fi drone-vs-drone variety — keeping up with all the developments is a fool's errand. Yesterday's hot new thing is practically outdated today, and today's hot new thing may look obsolete tomorrow.

That's an exaggeration, of course, but some days it doesn't seem like much of one.

That's why today's news about Ukraine's Sting counter-drone caught my eye, and what it might mean for U.S. and other Western forces going forward.

I vaguely remembered reading something about the Sting a year or more ago, but I just learned today that they're both dirt-cheap and extremely effective — mostly at shooting down Russia's Geran-2 one-way attack drones, which are licensed copies of Iran's Shahed that have caused us considerable trouble in Operation Epic Fury.

Ukraine needs tons of these things, because Geran is essentially a terror weapon aimed in large numbers — currently 100 to 200 per attack — at Ukraine's cities and infrastructure. Larger attack waves include anything from 300 up to just over 800 Geran-2s in one night. 

So the concept behind Sting is simply enough: Make something cheap and fast to build, easy to use, yet still capable of knocking a Geran-2 out of the sky far enough out from its target for some degree of safety.

And a local startup firm called Wild Hornets delivered on all three counts.

A typical quadcopter design and just over a foot tall, Stings are made mostly from 3D-printed parts and can be assembled in about two minutes. Unlike some drones that must be launched into the air via catapult (really), Sting takes off vertically like a helicopter before tipping over and using its stubby wings to fly like a plane, with an intercept range of 15 miles or so. Vertical takeoff allows operators to deploy and launch in less than 15 minutes.

The Ukes designed themselves a mini Osprey. That goes boom. Nifty. 

And Another Thing: My mind almost immediately pictured 40 or 50 of the little guys in a box on the helicopter pad of most any USN warship. Or almost anywhere on the deck of a container ship.

There's a camera on board, which the operator then uses to fly into incoming Geran-2s. With a top speed of about 190 MPH, they're fast enough to enjoy a reported 80-90% successful intercept rate — and better than 90% in more recent operations. There's a faster — and presumably more difficult to intercept — jet-powered Geran-3, but they're much more expensive to build, require more fuel, and have shorter range. Russia uses far fewer of those.

The best part of Sting? The basic model costs about $2,500 to manufacture, compared to an estimated $70k–$80k for each Russian-built Geran-2. The economics of mass drone warfare are brutal.

The worst part? The operator.

As a First Person View (FPV) drone, each Sting requires its own operator — but that's where American/Israeli know-how comes into play.

Ukraine might not be able to mass-produce the necessary electronics to turn the Sting from an FPV interceptor to a fire-and-forget device, but we certainly do.

Sting is low-cost to produce but labor-intensive to operate. Once we solve that problem, which ought to be easy enough to do, we have an anti-drone drone that can be put in large numbers on any flat surface, just waiting for the GO! command to do its thing.

Whether or not Ukraine survives in its war against Russia, that country's innovations might very well save us untold blood and treasure in our next war. 

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2026/03/12/i-have-seen-the-future-of-anti-drone-warfare-and-its-dirt-cheap-really-n4950573