In 2000, as Democrats were attempting to steal the Presidential election in Florida, an article written by Jon Dougherty and David Kupelian titled “How Democrats Steal Elections” shed light on the tactics used.
What unfolded in Broward County was not new, but a replay of well-honed methodology.
The authors interviewed Bob Haueter, chief of staff to the California Assembly Republican Caucus, as well as Republicans such as former California Assemblyman Pat Nolan.
Open disclosure: Nolan was convicted in a federal corruption probe and upon release has worked with Chuck Colson -- another fallen-but-reformed public figure -- to reform the criminal justice system.
Nolan investigated elections he knew were “stolen” but unclear as to methodology.
Nolan stated, in reference to a local election: “after the election, Democrats 'brought in their junkyard dog lawyers from around the country and basically harassed the local registrar -- got in their faces and demanded to handle ballots' -- which were of the same type now in dispute in Palm Beach.”
Mr. Nolan tracked down an attorney, one Tim Downs “who readily admitted the Democratic strategy” as well as methods. From the piece:
"Downs told me, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 'You get me within 100 votes and I can steal any election.”
"The first rule is, you keep counting until you're ahead. And if that doesn't put you ahead, you recount, re-recount -- you keep counting until you're ahead.”
Second, "the more times those ballots are handled, the more chance there is that chads will break loose" and be disqualified.
Third, "the minute you're ahead, you stop and declare yourself the victor."
The term ‘close’ once meant a hundred as being the ‘cheatable spread.’ That was then and this is now:
The story, originally incorrectly debunked by various ‘fact checkers.’ now makes 200,000 to 300,000 votes to be within the ‘cheatable spread.’
Achieving large-scale fraud requires two things: Mail-in ballots and outdated voter rolls.
Which brings us to the lawsuit filed by the Arizona Republican party against the Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. In Arizona the outdated voter rolls are the subject of the stated litigation. Democrats like Governor Katie Hobbs and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes are fighting to delay the updating of Arizona’s voter rolls, which have over 500,000 registered voters who should be removed, for various reasons.
It appears the ‘cheatable spread’ in Arizona may be up to 500,000.
From the complaint filed for the litigants we have: “Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (the “NVRA”), 52 U.S.C. § 20507, which requires states to “conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters”
Again, from the complaint filed: “a review of other reliable data sources shows that Arizona has between 1,060,000 and 1,270,000 unaccounted-for voters on the state voter rolls.”
Did I say the ‘cheatable spread’ was 500,000? It may well be over a million. Hanging chads are now so old school.
Secretary Fontes in two years has failed to develop a program to rectify this situation. His excuse has consistently been that its program “is in development.” For two years?
The only recourse now is in the courts.
Wishing to join in the litigation were two Democratic Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans ) and Voto Latino. A look at their websites indicates that the AARA supports far leftist Ruben Gallego (D) for senator and the Voto Latino group is fighting for ‘social justice’ and rights for the LGBTQ crowd. I think it fair to say that neither group will be supporting President Trump in November.
These two organizations filed a “motion to intervene,” which if approved would allow them to use their considerable resources (Voto Latino is a national organization) to actively assist and participate in the defense of Secretary Fontes. Put another way: We would have outside Democrat groups fighting, in court to defend a violation of national law by a fellow Democrat.
Both groups would likely proclaim themselves to be simply fighting for voter rights, as well as free and fair elections for all. If that is true, why would they fight to keep ineligible people on the voter rolls?
Fortunately, this past Friday, Judge Dominic Lanza of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied this request. Judge Lanza, a Harvard Law school graduate, is one of 234 Judges appointed by President Trump. These judges serve to confirm the importance of having a President in office to appoint judges who are not national embarrassments such as we have seen in confirmation hearings regarding Biden nominees.
This win for the Republicans did not make national news, nor did it make local news, it should have. There are people fighting to improve the integrity of elections. Those would be the same people fighting to help elect Donald Trump.
There are also people fighting to maintain voting rolls filled with hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters. Those would be Democrats, Fontes and Hobbs among them, as well as multiple 501c3 NGOs.
This skirmish was won in court last week, but the real battle still lies ahead.
Image: Public Domain
Source link