Posted tagged ‘Election rigging’

Trying to overturn a free and fair election

December 13, 2016

Trying to overturn a free and fair election, Washington Times,

vlad

The world has turned itself upside down. Only yesterday the liberals and the left (the “progressives,” as they want to be called) regarded the CIA as the locus of evil, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, forever poisoning gentle minds with a diet of conspiracy and tall tale.

In those gloomy days of the Cold War, where every day was seasoned with a sharp wind and a cold rain, it was the Democratic intellectuals who were forever chiding the rest of us that the Soviet Union was not so bad, the Russians just wanted to be understood and maybe deserved an occasional cuddle. It was the Republicans and other conservatives who were mindless rubes who imagined there was a mad Russian under everybody’s bed.

Now the CIA, in the liberal/left’s fevered dreams, is the last bulwark of the republic, the last remaining hope to turn the 2016 election result on its head and deprive Donald Trump of the victory he won. The Russians, it now turns out, are just as bad as the conservatives said they were.

President Obama, who mocked Mitt Romney four years ago for suggesting that Russia and Vladimir Putin was America’s No. 1 enemy, now says it was Mr. Romney who was smart and got it right four years ago. The president himself, in his telling, is the man dumber than a cypress stump.

The president, at last awake and paying attention to Russian cyber warfare, wants answers, and by noon on Jan. 20. He can then only dine out on the answers, because he won’t have any more authority to do anything about them than the cat.

Desperation pursues despair, and the Democrats are stumbling from inanity to insanity in search of a way to block Donald Trump’s path to the White House. Hilary Clinton’s remnant of a campaign has endorsed an attempt by a handful of members of the Electoral College — 9 Democrats and a rogue Republican — to get the “intelligence briefing” they think might derail next Monday’s scheduled day for the members of the Electoral College to vote for president, 306 of whom are honor bound to vote for the Donald. That’s 36 votes more than he needs.

“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” John Podesta said Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.

“Each day our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump. Despite our protestations this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in our campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”

What should distress every American is the way the left, the liberals, the progressives and their handmaidens in the press have discarded reasonable conversation to try out every absurd alarm, one after the other, to see whether one could stick, to undermine and undercut the results of what everyone agrees was a free and fair election on Nov. 8. None has worked. More than a month later, the republic stands.

Hysteria now threatens to become insanity. Rep. Jim Hines of Connecticut, a Democrat, says it came to him in the night, as if Marley’s ghost was rattling his chains at the bedside, “that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic. I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”

Accusing a president-elect of treason, of plotting with the enemy against his country, and with no evidence at all, is something that even a congressman from Connecticut should understand is beyond the limits of rational and decent political debate. Alas, it’s par for the course on the left this season.

The sudden deep concern by President Obama and the Democrats about Russia and cyber warfare, is a bit rich. The Washington Post, which continues so deep in denial that its side lost the election that it may never find the way to the next stage of grief, hangs its survival on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies — which, to put it charitably, have a dismal record of finding out what’s going on anywhere.

A competent president and a responsible “intelligence community” would have done something about the Russians and their hackers a long time ago. Whining doesn’t work.

Recount Freakout

November 26, 2016

Recount Freakout, Power Line, John Hinderaker, November 26, 2016

If you’re a liberal, anything is better than admitting that you lost. So now, just weeks after cautioning Donald Trump’s supporters that they had better accept the results of the election (unlike the Democrats in 2000 and 2004), Democrats led by Jill Stein are demanding recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Left-wingers have donated millions of dollars, and the Hillary Clinton campaign has announced that it will participate in Stein’s recount efforts.

The presidential election wasn’t particularly close: Trump won, 306-232. Still, if you convert Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to Hillary Clinton victories, she would edge Trump out, 278 to 260. That is obviously the basis on which those states were chosen. However, there is zero chance that a recount will change the result in any of those states, let alone all of them. Trump won Wisconsin by more than 20,000 votes, Michigan by 10,704 votes, and Pennsylvania by more than 70,000 votes. Lots of luck with those recounts.

Jill Stein claims that she isn’t trying to favor one presidential candidate over the other, but only wants to assure a fair process. That is nonsense. The states she and other liberal activists have chosen to challenge are not those where the race was closest. How about New Hampshire, which Hillary Clinton won by around 2,700 votes? Or Nevada, which she won by a little over 26,000? Even Minnesota was a whole lot closer than Pennsylvania; with its notoriously lax ballot security, Minnesota could be fertile territory for questioning election results.

Liberals know they aren’t going to overturn the result of the election through recounts, they just want to undermine Trump’s victory by making vague allegations of irregularities, “hacking,” and so on, which will circulate in the fever swamp for the next four years. It is, in other words, just another attempt by liberals to undermine our democracy.

Rigged? In What Way Is This Election NOT Rigged?

October 24, 2016

Rigged? In What Way Is This Election NOT Rigged?, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, October 24, 2016

(Please see also, Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day. — DM)

rigged-trump-sized-770x415xt

The political and media elites are outraged beyond measure by Donald Trump’s charge that the election could be rigged. How dare he suggest such a thing, they say, for the system is as honest as the day is long!

It shows he knows he is going to lose, they say. It shows that he has no faith in the American system, and is really a fascist at heart.

In reality, it shows no such thing, but it does show that a conversation about whether this election — and the political system in general — is rigged is one that the elites most desperately do not want to have.

And that is why we must have it.

And, if we’re going to have it in an honest fashion, the question should be framed not as “Is the system rigged?” but as “In what way is the system not rigged?”

First, there is the media.

Richard Nixon complained of media bias as long ago as 1960, but even he never envisioned the state propaganda machine we have today. Even just a decade ago, conservative media watchdogs were tallying up mainstream media stories that were favorable and unfavorable to conservative politicians and issues, and finding that unfavorable ones vastly outnumbered favorable ones — which did, however, exist.

Now, even the idea that anything or anyone not left-of-center would get even the briefest fair hearing in the mainstream media seems quaint.

Recently, I stopped by the online portals of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS — all the self-anointed guardians of acceptable opinion — and each one featured story after story showing Donald Trump to be evil, stupid, dangerous, and worse.

How many stories from those sources, and others like them, were favorable to Trump, or negative toward Hillary Clinton? Don’t kid yourself.

Anyone who still trusts those outlets as reliable sources of news — and they are legion — will be bombarded daily with the message presented in a thousand ways: Trump is an ignorant blowhard who got the Republican nomination because of the shocking reservoir of racism and bigotry in America. His plans to build a border wall and limit Muslim immigration are stupid, impracticable, evil and divisive.

Whatever the merits of Trump and his positions, they have never — not once — gotten a fair hearing in the mainstream media.

The mountains of evidence of Clinton’s flagrant corruption, meanwhile, merit barely a mention. Friday I saw, to my surprise, a feature on CNN on Wikileaks: the Podesta friendship with and censorship of supposedly objective reporters? The pay-for-play scandal?

No, not a word about those things: CNN was reporting on how a Wikileaks email revealed, in 2015, that Clinton campaign operatives were worried that Al Gore might not endorse their candidate.

And now we know why all this is happening. We now know that, despite their pretensions to the contrary (which are still believed by all too many people), mainstream media outlets are propaganda arms for the Left and the Democratic Party.

Leftist Soros-funded groups bought favorable coverage of the Iran deal and the Muslim migrant inundation, and also bought hit pieces on foes of jihad terror.

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is so chummy with some of the top reporters in the country that he cooks dinner for them; how many conservatives were there?

Politico’s Glenn Thrush ran his article on Hillary past Podesta for his correction and approval. How many conservative politicians are accorded that courtesy?

Nor is Thrush’s hackery anything new. Back in 2010, Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel lost his job — only to be rehired later, of course — after his emails denigrating the conservatives he was assigned to cover were leaked. (What mainstream media reporter has ever denigrated Leftists?) But what is new is that in 2016, the Post and other mainstream outlets don’t even bother to keep up a pretense of objectivity. Back in 2010, the Post had to pretend that Weigel’s Left partisanship was unacceptable. Now he is again a member of their staff in good standing, and no doubt is denigrating conservatives more energetically than ever.

What candidate who dares to depart too far from Leftist orthodoxy can stand a chance against this?

Never will his or her positions be presented fairly in mainstream news outlets. Never will he or she be anything but on the defensive when dealing with “journalists.” The opposition will always be presented as the voice of reason, sanity, and truth.

We see this playing out in innumerable ways. Here’s one: according to the latest Rasmussen poll, “Trump has the support of 78% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats and continues to hold a small lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party. Clinton has the backing of 77% of Democrats and 11% of GOP voters.”

Trump has more support among Republicans than Hillary has among Democrats, and more Democrats support Trump than Republicans support Clinton. Yet the newscasts are full of stories about Republicans jumping off the Trump train, and Republican operatives worrying about how much the coming Hillary landslide will hurt down-ticket candidates.

Then there is the voter fraud.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their bought-and-paid-for media propagandists feign shock and outrage that Trump would dare question the integrity of the very heart of the political process. Meanwhile, two Democratic Party operatives have now lost their jobs over the damning videos by James O’Keefe that show them cheerfully, openly, and even proudly discussing how to game the system, get innumerable fraudulent voters to the polls, and pull off a foolproof, prosecution-proof rigged election.

That there has been no call for any official investigation, no outcry, but only ridicule and scorn from our guardians of acceptable opinion only underscores the point of the O’Keefe videos, and shows how deeply the rot has set in.

Yet O’Keefe’s videos are compelling enough to have cost two of those featured in them their jobs (ironically, the Washington Post report on this was written by … Dave Weigel).

There’s no telling how many millions will vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 because they have no idea of her deep, habitual, inveterate corruption. There is no telling how many people are convinced that to guard the border and to limit immigration are racist proposals because that is what they have been told, endlessly, by the most respected news outlets in the nation.

So is the system rigged?

We have more evidence that it is than we have ever had before, and what we know now is likely the tip of the iceberg.

Whether or not Hillary wins on November 8, that knowledge cannot be unlearned. The best outcome we may be able to hope for in these dark days is that the election of 2016 will turn out to be the very last one that is rigged.

Let’s make sure that by 2020, the Leftist stranglehold on the political system and the media is definitively broken, with the revelations of this tumultuous campaign being the first cracks in the edifice.