Wonder if they factored in the cheating yet?

 

Wonder if they factored in the cheating yet?

Texas turned down Dominion voting software -- and that's no conspiracy theory - Washington Times

One line of logic being slung by the scoffers of President Donald Trump‘s election challenges goes like this: that’s conspiracy talk. Stuff and nonsense; sour grapes. All fluff and no substance — particularly the part about the Dominion voting system and its ripeness for the fraudsters’ pickings.

But Texas rejected the very Dominion software that’s at the heart of attorney Sidney Powell’s investigation into ballot-counting fraud. Three times. And Texas rejected the software over concerns, in part, about the potential for — get this — fraud.

Isn’t that at least a little bit interesting to the scoffers?

Or, put it this way: Shouldn’t it be at least a little bit interesting?

“Texas Rejected Use of Dominion Voting System Software Due to Efficiency Issues,” The Texan wrote just a few days ago.

Peer past the headline and it’s revealed that Texas also rejected use of the system because of concerns over the potential for fraud and “unauthorized manipulation.”

Like the stuff of Sidney Powell’s allegations — that what voters put into the system by way of ballot choices weren’t exactly what came out of the system by way of ballot choices.

The Texas Deputy Secretary of State, Jose Esparza, in January, wrote this of Dominion’s software in a “Democracy Suite 5.5-A” report: “Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-! System is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.”

More than that, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton underscored those concerns on a radio show in mid-November.

“Texas looked at Dominion for the voting systems,” Paxton said, to WBAP 820, Breitbart reported. “It goes through the Texas secretary of state and also the Texas attorney general’s office. We have had these things tested and they have failed every time. We have not approved these voting systems based on repeated software and hardware issues. It was determined they were not accurate and that they failed — they had a vulnerability to fraud and unauthorized manipulation.”

Georgia and Michigan both experienced errors tied to Dominion voting products — errors that were caught and rectified. What of the counties and states that didn’t catch them?

The larger point is this: Powell is under attack for her allegations of election fraud.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani is under attack for his allegations of election fraud.

Trump is under attack for his allegations of election fraud.

And all are being mocked and scorned and derided and dismissed as conspiracy theorists for daring to suggest the Dominion voting systems were rigged and hijacked to push Joe Biden into the White House.

But two facts shine bright — one, that for Democrats, the ends always justify the means, even if those means are less than honest, less than ethical, less than principled, and two, Texas reviewed Dominion systems in August 2012, January 2019 and October 2019 and found on all three occasions cause for concern.

“Both during and after the examination,” wrote Ryan Vassar, general counsel with the Office of the Attorney General, according to The Texan’s reporting, “the examiners raised specific concerns about legal compliance, including numerous technical and mechanical issues.”

Chew on that for a while.

It’s more conspiratorial to dismiss concerns over Dominion’s voting machines than not.

Texas turned down Dominion voting software -- and that's no conspiracy theory - Washington Times

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballot

By Jon Levine

A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.

Mail-in ballots have become the latest flashpoint in the 2020 elections. While President Trump and the GOP warn of widespread manipulation of the absentee vote that will swell with COVID polling restrictions, many Democrats and their media allies have dismissed such concerns as unfounded.

But the political insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears prosecution, said fraud is more the rule than the exception. His dirty work has taken him through the weeds of municipal and federal elections in Paterson, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, Hoboken and Hudson County and his fingerprints can be found in local legislative, mayoral and congressional races across the Garden State. Some of the biggest names and highest office holders in New Jersey have benefited from his tricks, according to campaign records The Post reviewed.

“An election that is swayed by 500 votes, 1,000 votes — it can make a difference,” the tipster said. “It could be enough to flip states.”

The whisteblower — whose identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed by The Post — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.

“There is no race in New Jersey — from city council to United States Senate — that we haven’t worked on,” the tipster said. “I worked on a fire commissioner’s race in Burlington County. The smaller the race, the easier it is to do.”

A Bernie Sanders die-hard with no horse in the presidential race, he said he felt compelled to come forward in the hope that states would act now to fix the glaring security problems present in mail-in ballots.

“This is a real thing,” he said. “And there is going to be a f–king war coming November 3rd over this stuff … If they knew how the sausage was made, they could fix it.”

Mail-in voting can be complicated — tough enough that 84,000 New Yorkers had their mailed votes thrown out in the June 23 Democratic presidential primary for incorrectly filling them out.

But for political pros, they’re a piece of cake. In New Jersey, for example, it begins with a blank mail-in ballot delivered to a registered voter in a large envelope. Inside the packet is a return envelope, a “certificate of mail in voter” which the voter must sign, and the ballot itself.

That’s when the election-rigger springs into action.

Phony ballots 

The ballot has no specific security features — like a stamp or a watermark — so the insider said he would just make his own ballots.

“I just put [the ballot] through the copy machine and it comes out the same way,” the insider said.

But the return envelopes are “more secure than the ballot. You could never recreate the envelope,” he said. So they had to be collected from real voters.

He would have his operatives fan out, going house to house, convincing voters to let them mail completed ballots on their behalf as a public service. The fraudster and his minions would then take the sealed envelopes home and hold them over boiling water.

“You have to steam it to loosen the glue,” said the insider.

He then would remove the real ballot, place the counterfeit ballot inside the signed certificate, and reseal the envelope.

“Five minutes per ballot tops,” said the insider.

The insider said he took care not to stuff the fake ballots into just a few public mailboxes, but sprinkle them around town. That way he avoided the attention that foiled a sloppy voter-fraud operation in a Paterson, NJ, city council race this year, where 900 ballots were found in just three mailboxes.

“If they had spread them in all different mailboxes, nothing would have happened,” the insider said.

Inside jobs

The tipster said sometimes postal employees are in on the scam.

“You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold … He can take those [filled-out] ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican, he can just throw those in the garbage.”

In some cases, mail carriers were members of his “work crew,” and would sift ballots from the mail and hand them over to the operative.

In 2017, more than 500 mail-in ballots in New York City never arrived to the Board of Elections for races that November — leaving hundreds disenfranchised. They eventually were discovered in April 2018. “For some undetermined reason, some baskets of mail that were bound to the New York City Board of Elections were put off to the side at the Brooklyn processing facility,” city elections boss Michael Ryan said at the time of discovery.

Nursing homes 

Hitting up assisted-living facilities and “helping” the elderly fill out their absentee ballots was a gold mine of votes, the insider said.

“There are nursing homes where the nurse is actually a paid operative. And they go room by room by room to these old people who still want to feel like they’re relevant,” said the whistleblower. “[They] literally fill it out for them.”

The insider pointed to former Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann, who was sued in 2007 after a razor-thin victory for a local school board seat for allegedly tricking “incompetent … and ill” residents of nursing homes into casting ballots for him. McCann denied it, though he did admit to assisting some nursing home residents with absentee ballot applications.

Voter impersonation 

When all else failed, the insider would send operatives to vote live in polling stations, particularly in states like New Jersey and New York that do not require voter ID. Pennsylvania, also for the most part, does not.

The best targets were registered voters who routinely skip presidential or municipal elections — information which is publicly available.

“You fill out these index cards with that person’s name and district and you go around the city and say, ‘You’re going to be him, you’re going to be him,'” the insider said of how he dispatched his teams of dirty-tricksters.

At the polling place, the fake voter would sign in, “get on line and … vote,” the insider said. The impostors would simply recreate the signature that already appears in the voter roll as best they could. In the rare instance that a real voter had already signed in and cast a ballot, the impersonator would just chalk it up to an innocent mistake and bolt.

Bribing voters 

The tipster said New Jersey homeless shelters offered a nearly inexhaustible pool of reliable — buyable — voters.

“They get to register where they live in and they go to the polls and vote,” he said, laughing at the roughly $174 per vote Mike Bloomberg spent to win his third mayoral term. He said he could have delivered the same result at a 70 percent discount — like when Frank “Pupie” Raia, a real estate developer and Hoboken nabob, was convicted last year on federal charges for paying low-income residents 50 bucks a pop to vote how he wanted during a 2013 municipal election.

Organizationally, the tipster said, his voter-fraud schemes in the Garden State and elsewhere resembled Mafia organizations, with a boss (usually the campaign manager) handing off the day-to-day managing of the mob soldiers to the underboss (him). The actual candidate was usually kept in the dark deliberately so they could maintain “plausible deniability.”

With mail-in ballots, partisans from both parties hash out and count ballots at the local board of elections — debating which ballots make the cut and which need to be thrown out because of irregularities.

The insider said any ballots offered up by him or his operation would come with a bent corner along the voter certificate — which contains the voter signature — so Democratic Board of Election counters would know the fix was in and not to object.

“It doesn’t stay bent, but you can tell it’s been bent,” the tipster said. “Until the [certificate] is approved, the ballot doesn’t matter. They don’t get to see the ballot unless they approve the [certificate.]”

“I invented bending corners,” the insider boasted, saying once the fixed ballots were mixed in with the normal ones, the bed was made. “Once a ballot is opened, it’s an anonymous ballot.” 

While federal law warns of prison sentences of up to five years, busted voter frauds have seen far less punishment. While in 2018 a Texas woman was sentenced to five years, an Arizona man busted for voting twice in the mail was given just three years’ probation. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation found more than 1,000 instances of documented voter fraud in the United States, almost all of which occurred over the last 20 years.

“There is nothing new about these techniques,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Heritage who manages their election law reform initiative. “Everything he’s talking about is perfectly possible.“

The city Board of Elections declined to answer Post questions on ballot security.

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballot

Barr Says No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud in Election

The Justice Department hasn’t found evidence of widespread voter fraud that could reverse President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory, Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday, dealing a blow to President Trump as he launched fresh legal claims to contest the results.

Mr. Barr told the Associated Press that federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have probed complaints of voter fraud, including allegations around voting machines skewing the results.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Mr. Barr told the AP.

What the hell do you call this?

If this proves to be true Trump won Nevada!

With his comments, Mr. Barr, a strong ally of the president, directly contradicted Mr. Trump, who has said the election was stolen from him and refused to concede the race to Mr. Biden. Before the election, Mr. Barr had echoed the president’s frequent criticism of mail-in voting, arguing it was ripe for fraud.

Mr. Trump’s legal advisers, including his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, have aired conspiracy theories to explain Mr. Biden’s win, saying that voting machines were tampered with and that collusion among judges, election officials and elected leaders in large cities swung the race.

Barr Says No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud in Election

The 'David Duke' of Congress

Dr. Mark Goldfeder: House should censure anti-Semitic Rep. Rashida Tlaib

According to this article I couldn’t help wonder if Goldfeder is concerned not one Jew in the House said boo about Tlaib’s remarks. Omar has said the same in the past.

Jews in the House

(25 Democrats, 2 Republican)

David Cicilline (D-RI)

Stephen Cohen (D-TN)

Susan Davis (D-CA)

Ted Deutch (D-FL)

Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Lois Frankel (D-FL)

Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)

David Kutsoff (R-TN)

Andy Levin (D-MI)*

Mike Levin (D-CA)*

Alan Lowenthal (D-CA)

Nita Lowey (D-NY)

Elaine Luria (D-VA)*

Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)

Dean Phillips (D-MN)*

Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

Max Rose (D-NY)*

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

Adam Schiff (D-CA)

Kim Schrier (D-WA)*

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)

Brad Sherman (D-CA)

Brad Schneider (D-IL)

Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)*

Susan Wild (D-PA)*

John Yarmuth (D-KY)

Lee Zeldin (R-NY)

* New member

Wonder what their reaction would have been had she said the same thing?

-------------------------

The House of Representatives should censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., for her continuing embrace of anti-Semitism and her calls for the destruction of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.

Congress should not be a forum for hate speech aimed at any religious, racial or ethnic group. While Tlaib’s target is the Jewish people today, it’s easy to imagine a different bigot in Congress targeting African Americans, Latinos, or another group with hateful comments in the future if Tlaib’s attacks on the Jewish people are not condemned on a bipartisan basis. 

Tlaib’s toxic anti-Semitism is dangerous. According to the FBI, the majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jews. That number is on the rise, despite the fact that Jews make up less than 2% of America’s population.

(Made the photo small as to not hurt your eyes)

SQUAD MEMBER RASHIDA TLAIB UNDER FIRE FROM ANTI-SEMITISM WATCHDOG

The first step needed is to call out anti-Semitism for what it is. It is high time for Congress to do just that in no uncertain terms.

In her latest expression of anti-Semitism, Tlaib retweeted a message Sunday that read: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That phrase is a well-known Hamas jihadist call to annihilate the state of Israel and murder its Jewish inhabitants. It is an open request by Hamas and other terrorist groups for violence against innocent people and against one of America’s closest allies, Israel.

It is beyond repulsive that a sitting member of Congress could retweet this to her followers without facing immediate bipartisan censure. 

It should be obvious that calling for the destruction of the world’s lone Jewish state — along with the ethnic cleansing and genocidal extermination of its millions of Jewish inhabitants — is anti-Semitic. To imagine that the state of Israel would go away without the wholesale killing of Jews is ridiculous.

To be anti-Zionist, in the Hamas sense of wanting to destroy the Jewish state, is the same as calling for the mass slaughter of the Jews who live there.

Tlaib deleted her hate-filled tweet fairly quickly, but this is not the first time she has engaged in clearly anti-Semitic behavior and gotten away with it. She has accused American lawmakers supportive of Israel of dual loyalty, defended terrorist attacks against a civilian population and revised history surrounding the Holocaust.

And it has only been a few days since Tlaib expressed worry over President-elect Joe Biden’s pick of a Jewish American, Antony Blinken, as his nominee for secretary of state.

While Tlaib certainly has a First Amendment right to make anti-Semitic comments, there needs to be an objective baseline standard for what members of Congress will tolerate without condemning such hatred. 

To be anti-Zionist, in the Hamas sense of wanting to destroy the Jewish state, is the same as calling for the mass slaughter of the Jews who live there.

One starting point would be for Congress to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of anti-Semitism. The definition states that anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition goes on to list several useful examples of anti-Semitism.

The IHRA definition is used by several agencies of the U.S. government, including the Department of Education. It is also used by 33 governments around the world that are members of IHRA.

The definition is also recommended for use by the European Council and the European Parliament. And it has been endorsed by the U.N. secretary-general and the secretary-general of the Organization of American States. It is also included in policy guides prepared by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and has been formally adopted by a growing number of European nations and American universities.

The IHRA has provided us with the consensus-driven gold standard of anti-Semitism definitions. The use of this definition has increased the awareness and understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish discrimination. 

In addition to adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism for members, the House and Senate should agree to condemn anyone who violates that standard. For the record, each of Tlaib’s above-mentioned actions alone would violate the definition.

The adoption of such a definition would not shut down criticisms of Israel or its leaders. Legitimate criticism of Israel is fine under the IHRA definition. Anyone who is merely criticizing Israel, even harshly and regularly, should have no problem signing onto the definition of anti-Semitism.

However, if someone actually demonizes and delegitimizes the Jewish state, or applies a double standard by requiring of it behaviors not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation, then that person should stop and think twice about the hatred being conveyed.

Tlaib excels at the promotion of a popular false dichotomy, which reasons that since not all anti-Zionism is necessarily anti-Semitism, none of it should be included in a definition of anti-Semitism. What this argument does is provide a convenient way for modern anti-Semites to remain in polite society while espousing incredible hate under the thinnest of anti-Zionistic veils.

Tlaib and her allies take offense at the notion that some expressions of anti-Zionism could be considered anti-Semitic, and insist on a definition of anti-Semitism that does not include even the most troubling of anti-Zionist sentiments. But anti-Semites should not get to decide the definition of anti-Semitism.

When is the anti-Zionism expressed by leaders like Tlaib anti-Semitic? In the first instance, it is anti-Semitic when proponents use classic anti-Semitic tropes including, but not limited to, false accusations of Jewish conspiracies; blood libels; accuse Jews of dual loyalty, and engage in Holocaust revisionism.

When this happens, the symbols and signals used often belie the speaker’s true nefarious intent. When they actually call for the extermination of the Jewish state, the line is even easier to see.

The truth is that Israel is the birthplace and homeland of the Jewish people going back thousands of years to biblical times, and is central to Judaism. False claims that the Jews have no right to their ancient homeland and hate-filled calls for destroying the Jewish state and its inhabitants can’t be called anything other than anti-Semitism. 

Dr. Mark Goldfeder is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.

The 'David Duke' of Congress