Share This Article with a Friend!


Outsiders vs. Insiders: Fraud-free elections are a figment of liberal hallucinogenic imaginations

With all of the considerable hubbub surrounding the justified firing of former FBI Director James Comey last week the news media neglected to place much emphasis on one of the most significant actions of the Donald Trump presidency thus far, namely the creation (via executive order) of a commission to study the prevalent problem of voter fraud.

Trump is entrusting Vice President Mike Pence to lead the effort. As would be expected, the left’s reaction to Donald Trumpthe news was slightly less than welcoming.

Brandon Carter of The Hill reported, “[The commission] will ‘study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections’ as well as ‘fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting,’ the order says.

“Lawmakers from both parties will be on the commission, which will be tasked with studying practices and policies ‘that undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections,’ according to the text of the executive order.”

Sounds real controversial, doesn’t it?

Naturally Carter’s article added a gratuitous “there is no evidence to indicate” statement in reference to the president’s claims of massive voter fraud in the 2016 election. How dare Trump attack the system? How dare he also insinuate terrorism is mostly perpetrated by radical Muslims? How dare he tweet out that Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower? Oh the horrors!

As has been revealed by numerous sources there’s plenty of evidence indicating there was voter fraud last year just as there are proven cases of hijinks in practically every election.

Why? Because it’s very easy to register to vote and extremely challenging to police not only the millions of listed voters but also the people who oversee vote counting and precinct management. Vote-fraud studies tend to disprove the commonly held liberal fallacies that no one cheats on elections – except for Republicans and Russians, of course – and that every attempt to build security measures into the system are targeted at dampening and suppressing minority votes.

The leftists’ arguments get old. Requiring states to scour their own voter rolls for deaths, duplications or potentially illegal registrations is a legitimate police power under the Constitution or at the very least is simple common sense.

It’s baffling to witness liberals getting so perturbed about something like a bipartisan group studying the issue. If they truly believe there’s “no evidence” and fraud rarely occurs, why would they care if the president’s commission looks into the subject? If there’s truly nothing there, then won’t the members find zilch and look foolish in the process (kind of like Democrats searching for Russian meddling)?

Or, if liberals have nothing to hide, why not allow the authorities to look?

John Fund wrote in National Review, “Leftists have known for a long time that America’s voter-registration lists are breeding grounds for potential fraud. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center survey, one out of eight American voter registrations is inaccurate, out of date, or a duplicate. Some 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead.

“Even though that’s a rich vein of potential mischief for fraudsters, the Obama administration didn’t file a single lawsuit in eight years demanding that counties clean up their voter rolls, as they are required to do by the federal ‘motor voter’ law.”

Obama and his all-race-all-the-time hucksters such as Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch consistently maintained any efforts to investigate invalid registrations and outright fraud were just part of a greater Republican/conservative effort to deny minorities their civil rights, like asking for valid ID is akin to a poll tax or loyalty pledge.

Similarly, some states’ efforts to narrow early voting availability last year was seen by liberals as unfairly impacting minorities, though I’m not sure how since it applies universally to all registrants.

Jim Crow as a legal entity might have died over half a century ago, but there are hordes of Democrats today who still seem to think it resides comfortably in the hearts of all Republican elections integrity advocates.

Again, if they don’t have anything to hide, what are they worried about?

Probably the single most annoying moment of my excruciatingly tedious tenure in law school occurred during my first-year criminal procedure class when the professor, obviously a do-gooder liberal, staunchly defended the Supreme Court’s infamous exclusionary rule.

In explaining the reasoning for his position, Professor X confessed he formed his opinions through handling pro bono appeals for convicted felons awaiting execution on Death Row. He said he had no faith in the system and believed a number of the men he represented were telling the truth and were wrongly convicted, therefore suggesting those who were advancing the standard, “If you don’t have anything to hide, why would you mind the police searching your stuff?” argument were way off base.

As if the police would ever plant evidence. Never, right?

Of course in the quarter-century since that day I’ve come to realize we have plenty to fear from government agents (and the police) abusing the Fourth Amendment in search of reasons to bring innocent people up on charges. Anyone who’s familiar with the IRS’s witch-hunts after America’s tea parties a few years ago realizes there are a lot of nefarious people out there – including in government – who would love to get their hands on any dirt that might reek of non-politically correct thinking.

Then there are the Susan Rices of the world who are desperate to unmask the subjects of legitimate intelligence gathering activities. The list goes on and on and on…

I still have issues with the exclusionary rule but I now understand Professor X’s desire to represent “the least amongst us.” In order to ensure the legitimacy of our institutions, there must be checks and balances. And that includes guaranteeing voter integrity.

I don’t understand, however, where the Democrats are coming from in opposing an investigation into voter fraud. This isn’t a criminal case where a person’s house, papers or effects were subject to search. There’s no potential conflict with the Constitution in making sure people who show up at a polling place actually are who they say they are. There’s no snooping at all. There’s no one knocking at the door and there aren’t any prying eyes in anyone’s windows.

This isn’t just a Trump administration wild goose chase in search of something that isn’t there. I can’t say for sure but I’m guessing there were dozens of such liberal-inspired commissions under Obama that cost taxpayers millions investigating subjects like the effects of “climate change” or gender-neutral bathrooms.

Already the left is trying to throw a wrench in the process.

The editors of the New York Daily News wrote, “The Commission on Election Integrity that President Trump just created by executive order is a threat to actual election integrity. The panel springs Athena-like out of the head of the President based on the myth, spread in a desperate attempt to claim he won the popular vote in 2016, that the undocumented voted by the millions.

“Fact: Noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare. Researchers canvassed 2016 election officials who oversaw more than 33 million registered voters — and documented 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting, or 0.0001% of ballots cast.

“Fact: While some controls to ensure that only legitimate registered voters cast ballots are welcome, state measures often pile on unnecessary requirements in thinly veiled attempts to suppress turnout by reliably Democratic constituencies.”

Not to be outdone, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the “evidence” President Trump used to support his claims of voter fraud. They assert all attempts to investigate voter fraud are really only naked schemes to keep people from voting.

What “evidence” do liberals possess showing that anyone was actually prevented from voting simply by having to produce a valid ID? Where is the “evidence” of collusion to suppress minority turnout? Where are the board minutes from an RNC meeting demonstrating that such a plot exists?

Where is the media in questioning the motives of the liberal side?

There’s something fishy here…and it isn’t Trump’s commission to ensure elections integrity.

Share this

Voter ID?

"I'm proud of the fact on this show Hardball and other shows on MSNBC that we talk about denial of voter rights". - declared that far-left creep Chris Matthews. He means voter ID “racist” laws. Well - let me give you an abbreviated list of actions when a photo ID is required:
1) Buy alcohol;
2) Buy cigarettes;
3) Open bank account;
4) Apply for food stamps;
5) Apply for welfare;
6) Apply for Medicaid;
7) Apply for Social Security for pension and disability;
8) Apply for unemployment insurance;
9) Rent-buy-drive a car;
10) Board airplane;
11) Get married;
12) Buy a gun;
13) Adopt a pet;
14) Rent hotel room;
15) Get hunting license;
16) Get fishing license;
17) Buy cell phone;
18) Visit casino;
19) Pick up prescription;
20) Hold rally or protest;
21) Donate blood;
22) Buy "M"-rated video game;
23) Buy nail polisher;
24) Buy cold medicine;
25) Enter ANY government building;
26) Apply for a job;
27) write a check;
28) buy computer duster (to prevent huffing or something);
29) buy super glue;
30) rent a car;
31) buy some form of insurance;
32) get into an adult night club
etc., etc. I will leave to others to complete this list.
But for voting - no ID required??? So that government employees union goons can transport illegal immigrants by busses from one polling place to another with pre-filled voting slips for Democrats?

A "Bipartisan" Commission

As much as the "Democrats" oppose the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate voter fraud, it will be difficult to find any who would participate in it without sabotaging it every step of the way. Perhaps this is where President Trump could use Joe Lieberman. (Historical note: During the Clinton impeachment, Joe Lieberman was the ONLY senator from either party who was interested in seeing the evidence against Bill Clinton.)