Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 MAJOR WIN FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY! The DOJ is cracking down hard, warning election officials in multiple states that they could face serious criminal charges for letting noncitizens onto voter rolls or helping them cast ballots in the 2026 midterms. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon isn’t playing games. She’s...

161,189 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

💔 ROBERTS AND BARRETT JUST STABBED US IN THE BACK. AGAIN. The Supreme Court ruled today in Watson v. RNC that states do not have to receive mail-in ballots by Election Day for them to count. Postmarked by Election Day is good enough. Your ballot can wander through the postal system for days after the polls close and still be counted. And who wrote the majority opinion? Amy Coney Barrett. Who joined her? John Roberts. Along with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The usual liberal bloc did what the usual liberal bloc does. But Barrett and Roberts had the power to stop this and chose not to. This is not a surprise from Roberts at this point. But Barrett? This is the justice we were promised would be different. This is the justice we fought for. This is the justice who just handed the left exactly what they wanted on mail-in ballot integrity. Five to four. One vote. That is the margin by which election integrity lost today. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented. Alito was scathing. He wrote that allowing ballots to pour in after Election Day, while preliminary results are already being reported publicly, creates greater opportunity for fraud and risks further destroying public confidence in our elections. He is right. He has always been right on this. Here is what this means on the ground. States can now set their own deadlines for when mail-in ballots must be received after Election Day. Mississippi had five days. Washington State has twenty-one days. Twenty-one days of ballots trickling in after you thought the election was over. Think about what that looks like. Think about what that feels like to watch. You know exactly what it feels like. We have all lived it. Alito said it plainly in his dissent. When thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the result of an election, charges of a rigged election explode. He cited research showing that drawn-out ballot counting produces a large and significant decrease in Americans' trust in elections. We did not need a study to tell us that. The Save America Act, if passed, could address some of this going forward through Congress. But today's ruling makes clear that the legislative route is now the only route. The Court just took the judicial option off the table. Roberts and Barrett handed that decision to the same Congress where we are still fighting for a real majority. Barrett and Roberts folded. Again. Remember this the next time someone tells you that winning the White House is enough. It is not enough if the judges we are told to trust keep crossing the line when it matters most. Personnel is policy. And today, our personnel failed us.

Bill Mitchell

290,035 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

TRUMP JUST ENDED THE U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Is Trump finally ending mail-in voter fraud? He fired the three remaining commissioners this week, leaving the board with zero members. The EAC is the obscure little agency that sets voting machine standards and controls the federal mail voter registration form. Here is the real story behind it. For over a year Trump has pushed two basic reforms through that commission: proof of citizenship to register, and rules requiring USPS to stop blindly mailing ballots to anyone without verifying they are eligible for mail voting. The old board slow walked both. So he cleared it out. Replacements need Senate confirmation, this is not a hostile takeover, it is the president using the power the Supreme Court just confirmed he has! Now the post office piece. Trump's executive order directs USPS to track ballots and only deliver them to voters on an approved list. Courts have already blocked several parts of it, ruling the president cannot unilaterally rewrite election rules, that power sits with states and Congress. What this really means is Trump keeps applying pressure on citizenship verification and mail ballot accountability heading into the midterms. Democrats are calling it interference because tighter verification makes it harder to run up numbers through a system nobody can fully audit. This is a developing story. Nothing is more important for November than voter integrity.

Bill Mitchell

90,829 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

BJP has perfected the dirty art of voter roll tampering. They did the warm-up in Delhi and Maharashtra. Now they are playing the real match in Bengal. In Maharashtra, 43,84,814 voters were added in 5 years, and another 40,81,229 were added in just 5 months. In Delhi: 4,16,648 voters were added in 4 years, and another 3,99,362 were added in just 7 months. I had warned then that the real rigging is not in EVMs, it’s in the electoral rolls. Bengal is now witnessing exactly that. This video clearly shows cartons filled with fraudulent Form 6 applications being openly submitted at the Chief Electoral Officer’s office, and stacked on the third floor raising serious concerns about an attempt to illegally bring in voters from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh into Bengal’s electoral rolls. And it is shocking how the Election Commission of India has rolled over and allowed this conspiracy. Nowhere in the Election Commission’s rules is bulk submission of Form 6 permitted. The limit is clearly capped at 50 applications per individual. Yet here, thousands of forms are being submitted by just a handful of people- something that is not only a blatant violation of the rules but also strikes at the very foundation of a free and fair electoral process. We call ourselves the world’s largest democracy, yet the very custodian of our democratic rights is actively facilitating its sabotage. When BJP shouted “Paltano Dorkar”, they actually meant “VOTER ROLLS PALTANO DORKAR”. When they screamed “Poriborton”, they meant a DEMOGRAPHIC PORIBORTON, replacing Bengal’s own electorate with voters brought in from BJP-ruled states.

Abhishek Banerjee

423,086 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

ALITO'S DISSENT ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS IS A MASTERPIECE AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT While the mainstream media is busy celebrating today's ruling, four justices stood in the breach and said what every honest American already knows. Alito's dissent in Watson v. RNC is not just a legal argument. It is a warning shot about where this country is headed if we do not get serious about election integrity. Read these words carefully. Alito wrote that when thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the result of an election, charges of a rigged election explode. That is a sitting Supreme Court Justice, in an official dissent, validating what the corporate media has spent four years calling a conspiracy theory. He went further. Alito cited research showing that drawn-out ballot counting produces a large and significant decrease in Americans' trust in elections. Not a talking point. Not a campaign slogan. Peer reviewed research cited in a Supreme Court dissent. The problem is real, it is documented, and five justices just decided to ignore it. On fraud, Alito was surgical. He pointed out that as far back as 2005, a commission chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker concluded that absentee voting was the largest source of potential voter fraud in American elections. Jimmy Carter. The left canonizes that man. His own commission said mail-in ballots are the biggest fraud vulnerability we have. And today's majority just threw the door open wider. Then Alito did something remarkable. He painted a picture of exactly what this ruling could produce. A close presidential election. One state still counting. The leading candidate watching his margin shrink day after day as new batches of mail-in ballots arrive. The lead flipping with days to spare before electors must cast their votes. He was not writing fiction. He was describing something we have already watched happen in slow motion in race after race since 2020. He also torched the majority's logic directly. Barrett and Roberts argued that the word election in federal law only governs when voters CAST their ballots, not when officials RECEIVE them. Alito called this what it is. The electorate's choice is not complete, he argued, until all the ballots have been collected and the decision is fixed. A ballot sitting in a mail truck three days after Election Day is not a completed act of voting. It is an open question. And open questions are where fraud lives. He also raised something nobody else is talking about. What is the limiting principle here? If states can accept ballots five days late, can they accept them twenty-one days late? Washington State already does. Can a state eliminate receipt deadlines entirely? Alito asked that question directly and the majority gave no answer. They opened a door and refused to say how far it swings. Thomas and Gorsuch stood with Alito completely. Kavanaugh joined most of it. And Barrett, the justice we were told would hold the line, wrote the opinion that Alito was dissenting against. History will not be kind to this decision. But it may be very kind to this dissent. The greatest dissents in Supreme Court history are often the ones that turn out to be right. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch put it on the record today. The question is what we do with it.

Bill Mitchell

248,615 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

‼️BOMBSHELL: Same Law Firm Harpole Uses AGAINST Candace Employs Ben Shapiro’s Brother-in-Law & Is OWNED By Trump DOJ Insider! 👀 The rabbit hole just got a lot deeper. If you were wondering why Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candace Owens felt like a coordinated strike, the legal "family tree" behind it tells the whole story. 1. The DOJ Connection: Brian Harpole’s lead attorney, Zachary Stoner, works for the Dhillon Law Group. The firm’s founder, Harmeet Dhillon, is currently serving as President Trump’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the DOJ. While she is officially on leave from the firm, her influence is everywhere—especially as she advocates for stricter "Anti-Semitism" speech laws that many fear will be used to silence journalists like Candace. 2. The Daily Wire Connection: As Candace revealed tonight, this is the EXACT same law firm that represented The Daily Wire during their brutal, two-year arbitration battle against her. They know her, they’ve fought her before, and they are back for more. 3. The "In-Law" Bombshell: This is where it gets personal. Dhillon Law Group didn't just stop at representing the Daily Wire—they also hired Jacob Roth (Jacob William Roth 🇺🇸). Who is he? An Orthodox Jewish attorney at Dhillon Law specializing in "civil rights." The Shapiro Tie: He is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law, married to Ben’s sister, Abby Shapiro (Abby Roth). It looks like a classic ATTACK BY PROXY. Ben Shapiro is her crazy ex-employer who feels more like a Jilted lover and has been relentlessly harassing and stalking her for years—seems to be weaponizing a law firm tied to the highest levels of the DOJ and his own family members to launch a legal offensive against her. This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to chill free speech and shut down her investigation into the Charlie Kirk case and the "Epstein class." They want to use the legal system to do what they couldn’t do in a debate. But they forgot one thing: Discovery works both ways. Do you think this is just a regular lawsuit or is it a coordinated effort by Shapiro and the DOJ to silence Candace Owens on behald of our greatest ally? The receipts are starting to pile up. 🍿

Project Constitution

430,456 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

And here it is, 🚨🚨Documents obtained by investigative journalist Yehuda Miller through the Freedom of Information Act, CONFIRMS, BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, The Department of Justice and the FBI uncovered a massive 2020 ballot fraud operation based in Michigan and operated in multiple swing states including Washington DC, Chicago, IL, Georgia, Iowa, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Florida, funded by Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign. GBI strategies BUSTED for submitting fraudulent voter registrations during 2020 election cycle. Following a raid, Michigan law enforcement discovered caches of pre-paid gift cards, semi-automatic rifles with silencers, four modified pistols with ammunition inside. and disposable burner phones. Throughout the 2020 election period, these Democratic cartel election committees provided more than $4,000,000 to this criminal organization: Biden for President: $450,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign: $2,117,605 DNC Services Corp: $1,031,856 Democratic Party of Iowa: $493,100 The investigation was initiated following the observation of a Muskegon, Michigan, clerk who noticed an individual depositing 8,000 to 10,000 completed voter registration applications at the city office on October 8, 2020. This same individual returned multiple times, registering an additional 2,500 voters. Thousands of these registrations displayed identical handwriting with fraudulent addresses and phone numbers. Additionally signatures did not match those on file with the criminal Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. 🚨🚨And the icing on the cake. + 100,000 ballots cast in the Nov 3, 2020 election were also falsified at Jocelyn Benson’s own election headquarters. FOIA: “I am following up with some information on one of the most egregious situations that I encountered. There are many examples of significant election integrity issues, but this example involves actions of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS from both the local and state levels that are shocking.” Dawn N. Ison Department of Justice Assistant U.S. Attorney | public corruption unit, “We received this complaint. Guess what the criminals do, when the FBI and the DOJ got hold of this investigation? Passed it right back to this criminal who were running it, 📝who the fuck was she planning to shoot?

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

500,240 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#ZimElection2023 CHAMISA RAN HIS CAMPAIGN LIKE AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE WITH NO STRUCTURES AND EXPECTED TO WIN AND BECOME PRESIDENT WITH NO MAJORITY IN PARLIAMENT This is what Nelson Chamisa said on 21 June 2023 about the strategic thrust of the campaign of his CCC in the 2023 harmonised general election held last week: "our [CCC] campaign is going to be basically a presidential... our [CCC] focus is not to be in parliament but to be in government. We [as MDC opposition] have been in parliament for a long time, that's not our [CCC] station of choice at the moment". The fact that Chamisa thought he could win the presidential election even if, or regardless of whether, his CCC won a majority in Parliament, explains his crushing defeat. An election in Zimbabwe is defined in terms of section 4 of the Electoral Act which provides that: election” means— (a) the election of a member of Parliament; or (b) an election to the office of President; or (c) an election for the purposes of the Rural District Councils Act [Chapter 29:13] or the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]; as the case may be. These three elections used to be held separately before they were harmonised for the first time in the 2008 election in terms of section 38 of the Act. It is odd and even irrational, and it defies the logic of the harmonised general election for any political party that seeks power to govern the country as a whole to only target – as did Chamisa in the 2023 harmonised general election held last week –winning only one of the three elections, just the presidential election. It is foolhardy for a political party to say its strategy and focus is only to win the presidential election, without basing that strategy and focus on winning the local authority and parliamentary elections, as well. Such a strategy, if it can be called a strategy, renders the presidential candidate no different from an independent presidential candidate who contests for the presidency without the advantage of the structures of a political party. Simply put, a presidential candidate in Zimbabwe cannot win a presidential election if the candidate does not have a campaign strategy that is based on his or her political party winning a majority of wards in the local authority election, and a majority of constituencies in the parliamentary election. If it’s an independent presidential candidate, then he or she must have ground structures of one sort or another, or forget it. Chamisa contested the presidential election as if he was an independent candidate, and he boasted about it, without relying on his CCC and without any ground structures. In the circumstances, just how or why did Chamisa expect to win the presidential election by effectively running as an independent candidate? Which structures did Chamisa expect to use, or did he in fact use to campaign for the presidency in every street and every village, across the length and breadth of the country? Since by his own admission, as quoted above and reflected on the attached video clip, Chamisa was clearly not relying on his CCC to win the presidency. This begs the question: by not relying on CCC structures, and by not having alternative ground structures in the streets and in villages, did Chamisa think that ZanuPF members and supports would vote for him, as an act of God, perhaps? Was Chamisa's presidential election campaign, for him an article of faith, in other words was it about his belief that God had chosen him, and that he would win regardless of whether or not CCC won a majority in the local authority and parliamentary elections? Where did Chamisa and his supporters in Zimbabwe and among the legions of his fans in America and Europe think he would get the necessary number of polling agents to monitor the voting and vote counting at the country’s 12,374 polling stations, and to secure the 12,374 V11s from those polling stations, given the fact that he actually ran for the presidency as an independent candidate, expecting to be supported less by his own CCC party and more by the members and supporters of ZanuPF? Does this kind of strategy make sense to anyone on earth? And, does that strategy make sense to Nerves Mumba and his Sadc Election Observation Mission or to any other foreign election observation mission that was in Zimbabwe last week like, say for example, the European Union Observer Mission or any of the several observer missions from the United States that were in Zimbabwe to observe the elections? How did the various foreign election observer missions and Chamisa’s social media supporters expect him to win the presidential election, not only where and when his CCC party was losing the local authority and parliamentary elections but, and critically, where Chamisa himself did not believe that the local authority and parliamentary elections were important or necessary for him to win the presidency? The fact that the loquacious, belligerent and inflammatory foreign election observer missions that are peddling falsehoods about the elections, and Chamisa’s social media supporters who claim with no evidence that Chamisa won, did not raise a finger against the results of the local and parliamentary elections that were declared at 1970 wards and 209 constituencies well ahead of the declaration of the result for the presidential election on 26 August, clearly means that there was no problem with two of the three elections that make up Zimbabwe’s harmonised general election. Only after the declaration of the presidential election result on 26 August did all hell break loose. It must be asked, again, how did anyone expect Chamisa to win a presidential election whose campaign was – as per Chamisa’s deliberate strategy – organised and pursued as if it was the presidential campaign of an independent candidate? Chamisa’s presidential election campaign was not based on the CCC parliamentary election campaign or on CCC’s structural capacity on the ground, strangely, it was based on the expectation that ZanuPF members and supporters would vote for Chamisa. Why on earth did anyone expect ZanuPF members and supporters to vote for someone whose base is ever singing cacophonic noise that ZanuPF must go, and hurling insults at the incumbent party, its officials and its supporters? What kind of politics is that? You are contemptuous of ZanuPF and anyone associated with it, but you expect ZanuPF members and supporters to vote for you. This expectation does not compute, certainly not in electoral politics. As things turned out, ZanuPF members and supporters who are registered voters voted for their party candidates in all the three elections: local authority election, the parliamentary election and the presidential election. As a result, in the parliamentary election, CCC won just 73 constituency seats. There's just no way that CCC's 73 constituency seats in the National Assembly would have boosted Chamisa to win the presidency. No ways. In Zimbabwe's first harmonised general election in 2008, Morgan Tsvangirai did well in the first round of the presidential election primarily if not only because the two MDC formations used their round structures to win a majority in Parliament with a combined strength of 110 constituency seats, while ZanuPF garnered 99 seats and an independent got one seat. This was the first time since independence in 1980 that the opposition commanded the majority in Parliament. So, clearly, in 2008 Tsvangirai was propelled by the solid parliamentary performance of the MDC formations. The same structural dynamic was conspicuously absent for Chamisa in the just ended harmonised general election. Chamisa ran a solo presidential election campaign and, predictably, it went horribly wrong. The fact that CCC did not field local authority candidates in 90 wards made a bad situation worse for Chamisa, and it was further compounded by the fact that CCC did not have ground structures to harness and harvest from the loose and unreliable protest vote, especially in the wards and constituencies outside CCC strongholds, which in fact used to be MDC strongholds in the days of Morgan Tsvangirai!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

98,205 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

My Thoughts on Voter ID. I'm for it if we can even the playing field and cover the costs. Disenfranchisement is a problem. And no I'm not just talking about race. Elderly people, and low income people have more trouble obtaining necessary documents. 30 million people in the U.S. lack photo ID issued by local authorities, potentially depriving approximately 11% of the population of their right to vote under strict laws unless they can afford to obtain the necessary ID. And yes this means less black people vote: Approximately 24% of African-American voters of voting age lack necessary government-issued ID, compared to 8% of white voters, leading to unequal impacts on voting rights. Their race doesn't make them, not want an ID, but their economic status and area they live in (extra long lines, and inconvenient locations) make it more difficult to obtain. Solution: Make ID cards National and Free. If You can't get to a place to obtain a card, they will come to you. If you can't afford to obtain the appropriate documentation, they will help you. (This will be expensive, especially considering the fact that many people move often and their personal details change.). Is Voter ID Needed? Probably Not: The vast majority of voter ID laws in the United States target only voter impersonation, of which there are only 31 documented cases in the United States from the 2000–2014 period. All thing's equal that would equate to 210 cases in every 100 years, or 8 cases every presidential election. My Conclusion: The costs to make Voter ID Fair outweigh the minimal benefit based on historical data. But sure, if the government wants to raise the corporate tax rate a bit to pay for it, let's do it.

Brian Krassenstein

872,222 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren