Election Fraud May Dominate 2020 Campaign

The most contentious issue in the 2020 presidential election may not be illegal immigration, the growing threats from abroad, the federal budget, or any of the other myriad topics that dominate the news. The focus of arguments could be the conduct of the election itself.

Democrats are attempting to dramatically alter the political landscape by various means, including eliminating most safeguards on illegal registration and voting, and giving felons voting rights.

Democrat opposition to anti-fraud measures such as picture ID has led to past embarrassment. In 2016, even as the party vehemently opposed those seeking to use that concept to combat illegal voting, the DNC required those seeking to gain entry to the floor of its presidential convention in Philadelphia to have such identification.

Current attempts to gain advantage at the ballot box center on legislative initiatives.

The New York State Assembly has introduced a state constitutional amendment that would allow for Election Day registration. Obviously, this allows no time to review actual eligibility to vote.

California has been a center of the pro-fraud movement. The state automatically registers anyone dealing with its Department of Motor Vehicles. The Wall Street Journal reports that the state DMV acknowledges that this has led to incorrectly registered 23,000 voters. Since California allows illegals to get rivers licenses, that has presented a major threat to ballot integrity. The LA Times reported in April that over one million illegals have been granted drivers licenses.

The use of the controversial concept of “ballot harvesting” has led to major gains for California Democrats. The Independent Voters Network (IVN) describes what happened: “Ballot harvesting was used for the first time in November, and has clearly been advantageous to Democrats… The “minor” change was implemented when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago. Here’s what it changed: In the past, California allowed only relatives or those living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. Ballot harvesting allows anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — ‘harvesting’ them. In Orange County alone, every House seat went Democratic. The chairman of the county Republican Party, Fred Whitaker, said: ‘…the number of Election Day vote-by-mail dropoffs was unprecedented — over 250,000, this is a direct result of ballot harvesting allowed under California law for the first time. That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later.’

“ In interviews, Speaker Paul Ryan said ballot harvesting ‘defies logic…We were only down 26 seats the night of the election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race’

“In August, a federal judge in Arizona upheld the ballot harvesting ban in Arizona. HB 2023 makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caretaker or postal worker to collect another person’s ballot and turn it in to election officials. Supporters of the measure defend it as a safeguard against potential ballot tampering.Eighteen states have outlawed ballot harvesting, and on the website Ballotpedia, Ballot harvesting is listed under the section ‘Voter Fraud.’”

Allowing a partisan campaigner to collect ballots is an open invitation to fraud.

Another strategy pursued by Democrats to enhance their election chances has been giving convicted felons the right to vote. A study by The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciencefound that the majority of felons register as Democrats.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) notes that “ It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently…”

An NCSL study found that:

In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
In 22 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well.

If you do begin, then again renew your decision to quit.If you put on weight due to giving up smoking cutting back your alcohol consumption not taking illegal drugs exercising regularly Reducing stress Penis Pumps A vacuum pump generic viagra in stores consists of a clear plastic tube that is connected to a pump, which is either hand or battery operated. Infertility tadalafil 100mg http://www.devensec.com/news/Devens_Open_Space_Plan_Survey_2014.pdf and impotency are urologic disorders as well. The other is that all the branded cialis price canada has to provide ads for getting a sustainable place in the competitive medicine market. Also stress is the second main reason for this issue buying cialis on line in their life not the women.

In 12 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.