— This article, by Jerry Cates, was first published on 20 October 2016, and was last revised on 23 October 2016. © Govinthenews Vol. 7:10(4).
So, Donald Trump is the most dangerous candidate for U.S. President, ever?
Even some of the commentators on Fox News are parroting that line, and political “authorities” on all fronts — conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. — did so immediately following the third presidential debate. What justification do all those revered individuals use for that conclusion? All point to Trump’s supposedly “horrifying” (per Hillary Clinton), “perpetrating a lie” (per Tim Kaine), “jaw-dropping” (per just about everyone else) claim that the election may be rigged, because of what he calls rampant voter fraud within the American electoral system.
Julie Roginsky argues that Trump’s statement proves he doesn’t care about the fabric of this nation. Charles Krauthammer called Trump’s statement “political suicide.” WSJ’s Associate Editor John Bussey said Trump was “questioning the will of the people.” Mark Cuban says Trump was questioning no less than “American democracy.” Near the end of the debate, Chris Wallace said this to Donald Trump:
“But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?”
Really? Wallace’s contrived tradition, which he calls one of America’s prides, is something a candidate for president must be tested on, and required to commit to on principle?
Voter fraud is either a myth or it is real. If it is a myth, ok, maybe each of those respected “opinionators” has something of a point, though a tiny one at best. But what if the possibility of serious voter fraud is real? Are we ready to dismiss that possibility out of hand? At any time? Even if we think it has never happened, shouldn’t we always wonder if it might happen this time? Not to be paranoid, no. But isn’t the question worthy of at least some kind of objective examination?
Not, apparently, in the mind of debate moderator Chris Wallace. He so much as insisted that the American legacy of a peaceful transition of power requires American candidates to automatically accept the results of our electoral process without question because there is absolutely no room for even thinking that our elections might be rigged. He even called that kind of rigid rubric “… one of the prides of this country…”
Was Chris Wallace right? Does the historical American tradition of losers accepting their losses without question, as put forth by Juan Williams and others, really exist? And even if it does, are our political candidates duty-bound to abide by that tradition, to the point that, if they suspect the election had been rigged against them, they cannot ask for or seek redress? Who could be proud of so cowardly a position? And who amongst America’s voters could be proud of electing such a coward to the highest office in the land?
Chris Wallace’s So-Called Stellar Performance…
If Wallace’s assertion holds, we’re in a lot more trouble than I’d ever guessed. Despite the long list of accolades Chris Wallace has been getting for his performance last night, if his behavior is subjected to serious critical scrutiny a very different view might emerge. After making the statement pointed out above, he piously called Trump a liar —
“Mr. Trump, in the last debate you were both asked about the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo, and I want to follow up on that because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir.”
He then “informed” Trump that he had made the “false” claim that Aleppo had fallen, but “in fact,” as Wallace saw it, it had not. Trump then defended his position, pointing out that, for all practical purposes, Aleppo had fallen. He then offered a cogent, rational basis for holding that position.
Prior to the debate Wallace went to great lengths to assure everybody he was not going to call out either candidate on the factuality of any of their claims, present or prior. Somehow he could not help himself when he got to Trump. Maybe he felt he was obligated to try to trip Trump up on Aleppo the way Gary Johnson had been tripped up on that city.
We may never know…
All we do know is he violated his own promise to not try to point out the candidates’ falsehoods, which by the way was a good promise to make. A debate moderator is not a prosecuting attorney. A moderator is there to ask questions and elicit answers, not interject their own opinions and viewpoints. When he foolishly violated that promise, like a bigger fool he picked something Trump did not actually lie about, to Wallace’s own shame.
I waited for Wallace to at least even the score by pointing out one or more of Hillary Clinton’s egregious lies — lies that were and are undeniable and that have had serious, demonstrable, and negative impacts on the lives of millions of Americans — but that expectation was in vain. Instead of ensuring equity in his handling of the candidates, he earlier in the debate sought to intimidate Trump into cowardly conceding that he would accept the results of the election even if the possibility existed that the election had been rigged. Nothing comparable was ever posed to Hillary Clinton.
That was wrong, Mr. Wallace. You’ve been around for 69 years now, almost 29% of the 240 years that America, as the USA, has existed as a nation, and you of all people should know just how wrong your position on the sanctity of the American electoral process is. N0, not its legacy, as you want to put it, and which is another question altogether, but its sanctity, which is what really matters, Mr. Wallace. And on that you are very, very wrong.
What Democracy in a Free Republic Really Means, Mr. Wallace...
Democracy in a free republic means, to me, that all citizens, including candidates for the highest elected office in the land, have a right, even a duty, to question the fairness of the process by which our elections take place. But what do I know? Well, maybe not much. Certainly my views are at variance with those of all the fresh-faced cherubic youngsters populating the television newsrooms these days. Yet — though lacking the blessing of youth bestowed on them, and cursed by being a full 5 years Chris Wallace’s senior — I still feel qualified to have at least something of an opinion on this, and my opinion is:
All American candidates for elected office, alongside all of America’s voters, have an absolute, undeniable right to know if the electoral process is fair and equitable. Our officials who oversee that process have a duty — an absolute duty — to lay bare the mechanics of that process for all to see. For ALL to SEE. It should never, ever, be considered un-American to ask if that process is legitimate. It should never, ever, be considered crass or suicidal or stupid or — pick whatever pejorative you want to use — to question the way our electoral system operates and demand proof that it works the way we think it should and ought to work. If anyone, whether they are named Chris Wallace, Hillary Clinton, Julia Roginsky, Charles Krauthammer, John Bussey, or even a billionaire of the likes of Mark Cuban, tells you otherwise, they are wrong. Flat, dead, inexcusably wrong.
We should all be asking why almost nobody but Donald Trump and Bill Bennett are saying that today. We should all be asking why only Donald Trump and nearly nobody else has the guts to point out that strong evidence exists that indicates the American electoral system is subject to voter fraud. We should be asking why few others, besides Trump and Ben Carson, are the only people willing to take the heat for saying that not only is the system subject to fraud, but strong evidence exists that fraud has actually taken place, to the point that races have been fraudulently won or lost, in the recent past, as a result.
If voter fraud is real, how could pointing it out be tantamount to having no regard for the fabric that holds this nation together? If anything, Trump was doing the opposite of what Julie Roginsky churlishly accused him. And, if voter fraud really takes place, why must those who expose it do so at the peril of their political future, as Krauthammer posited in his stern, superior tone of voice? On the contrary, shouldn’t we celebrate and praise such people?
And, seriously, if voter fraud is not a myth, and in fact has the potential for subverting the will of the people by allowing people who are not legally allowed to vote to cast votes that might change the outcome of an election, please explain to me how on God’s green earth the act of pointing that out might be like questioning the will of the people, as John Bussey put it?
Calling evil by its real name is the first step toward fixing the injustices to which that evil inevitably leads. If voter fraud does take place, and if the electoral process is the foundation on which democracy stands, how can pointing out that voter fraud is rampant be thought of as “questioning American democracy,” as Mr. Cuban so pompously insisted, as though his $billions automatically made him a political savant? Rather, Trump was doing all he could to protect American democracy, was he not?
One must conclude, from these comments by highly respected individuals, that they either don’t believe voter fraud exists, or that — if they do believe it happens — they are sniveling cowards who are afraid, for one reason or another, to admit it. Almost nobody stood up last night for Trump’s position on that question. Nobody, in fact, but Bill Bennett.
Yet Al Gore said he didn’t trust the vote tallies of the election of 2000, and John Kerry said the same thing about the vote totals recorded in the election of 2004, and nobody called them un-American for doing so at the time. So why is everybody dumping on Trump? Why are so many authoritative figures in American government and in American news reportage today screaming that Trump is un-American, dangerous, or worse, for suggesting something that a huge — yes, a HEEEWGE — number of serious, objective students of the American electoral system have been saying for years? Objective, serious students, like John Fund, who has been writing about American voter fraud for decades.
Based on the evidence available to anyone willing to delve into the issue — because, despite protestations by so many “authorities” on the subject that no such evidence exists, it is available in great gobs and quantities to anyone who wants to find it — rampant voter fraud does exist in the American electoral process. Furthermore, there is no reason not to believe that rampant voter fraud has led to the “election” of individuals to local and national elected office who were not actually, legally, legitimately elected by the voters.
Undeniable Fact: Voter Fraud Exists in the American Electoral Process
Let me repeat that. Voter fraud exists. That fact — yes, it is a fact — is accepted by most who have seriously studied the question that some of America’s most important elections in the past were stolen as a result of rampant voter fraud. Please, don’t turn away from this because you don’t want to believe it. Robust studies have been carried out on this, and they prove that that assertion is absolutely true.
For example, Democrat strategists and spokespeople dismiss any possibility that illegal aliens might be involved in voter fraud in America, yet, in an article published in the Washington Post, authors Jesse Richman and David Earnest point out their discovery that more than 14% of illegal, undocumented aliens in America are registered to vote. Their conclusion was based on rigorous analysis (of statements made by illegal aliens who were asked if they were registered to vote), as a reading of their paper makes abundantly clear; they were not guessing on this. Furthermore, those same authors claim their analysis shows that, in the 2008 presidential election, over 6% of those illegal, undocumented aliens actually admitted they voted in that election. Again, their conclusion is based on rigorous analysis, not guesses.
In other words, assuming that we had over 11 million undocumented illegals in America in 2008, more than 1,540,000 of them were not only registered to vote, but at least 660,000 of them cast votes that were counted in the 2008 election, mostly for Democrat candidates. Do you think this could have affected the outcome of that election? Barack Obama won over John McCain by a margin of 9,550,193 votes, so the illegal alien vote alone — though potentially representing as much as 6.9% of the margin — might not have been decisive. However, it would have had an impact in individual states where thin margins were involved. If other forms of voter fraud were also at play, the likelihood of those fraudulent votes deciding that election is not outside the realm of possibility.
What are the chances other forms of voter fraud were, indeed, at play? Pretty good, say a number of serious researchers.
Separate investigations, by a number of such researchers, have been conducted to see how easy it is for unscrupulous individuals to cast fraudulent votes in American elections. The results of those investigations should shock every American who learns about them. Yet, almost nobody in the know even talks about it. Worse, those in the know who do have the courage to speak about voter fraud — people like Donald Trump — immediately get pilloried by the press, by elected officials on both sides of the political aisle, and are called the worst names anyone can possibly be called. Un-American is the least of those names…
Case in point: as chronicled by John Fund in an article published in the National Review in 2014, in the election conducted in New York City in the fall of 2013, undercover investigators with the New York Department of Investigation (DOI) went to 63 polling places pretending to be legitimate voters. But, they did not use their real names. Instead, they assumed the names of individuals who had died, moved out of town, or were in jail.
In one case a 24 year old DOI agent gave the poll worker at a Manhattan polling site the name of a person who had died in 2012 at the age of 87, and was promptly given a ballot, no questions asked. In fact, 97% of the time, or in 61 of the 63 instances the agents tried to vote with their fraudulent, assumed names, the DOI agents were actually allowed to vote.
In two cases the agents were not allowed to vote, but one of those instances raised interesting questions of its own that proved just how fraudulent the New York City electoral process is: the poll worker at a Staten Island polling site walked the imposter outside and volunteered advice to the effect that, by going to a polling place near where he used to live and “play(ing) dumb” it would still be possible for the agent to cast a fraudulent vote. In the other instance, the only reason the agent was denied a ballot was because the felon whose name the agent had assumed just happened to be that of the son of the election official at the polling place.
Except for those two instances, 61 of the 63 attempts to cast fraudulent votes succeeded. In other words, the votes they cast got counted, and there was no practical way to take those votes out of the final tally once they were cast, so long as those who cast those fraudulent votes voted for persons named on the printed ballots. See, our electoral system is, for good reasons, a secret ballot. Once a vote is cast the vote goes into a big pot, and for all practical purposes cannot be separated out from all the other votes in the pot. Even if you later find out that fraudulent votes were cast earlier, there is no way to remove them from the total tally.
Fortunately, the DOI undercover investigators all cast write-in votes for a fictional “John Test,” a made-up name not on the printed ballot. As a result, their votes, though actually cast, did not affect the outcome of the election. Further, because they used that specific, unique name, it was possible to later go back and see how many times write-in votes were cast for a made-up “John Test,” Thus — unlike any fraudulent votes that might have been cast for individuals that were named on the printed ballots — the votes cast by the DOI agents could be verified and taken out of the pot, in case the Board of Elections cared to do so. As far as I know, though, the New York City Board of Elections didn’t care to do so…
Throughout the United States the voter registration rolls are loaded with the names of dead people, individuals who have moved away, and of people who are in jail and cannot legally vote, or who are in nursing homes with dementia or other mental illnesses that prevent them from competently casting a vote. If such people can “vote” in New York, they can “vote” anywhere that individuals are willing and able to go into polling places and ask for ballots in the names of those dead, jailed, moved-away, or incompetent persons.
Each of those absent but registered voters represents a potential target of voter fraud. Each is potentially known by those assigned by party bosses to make sure their votes get cast, by homeless persons paid in cigarettes, booze, or some similar reward. If it is done right, nobody ever finds out. Or, more likely, if the polling officials know it is happening but are in on the deal, nobody else ever finds out…
Anyone who thinks that doesn’t happen, anywhere, is sadly naive. Criminals experienced in the process of voting fraudulently are likely to know the simple precautions they need to take to cover their tracks, and the tricks they need to play to take advantage of the weaknesses of the system. They also likely know there is almost no way for their fraud to be detected. That’s why the Democrats can say, as they are now saying and have been saying for decades, that there is “no proof” of voter fraud in America. It is almost impossible to prove when it does happen.
Another Undeniable Fact: Detecting Voter Fraud is a Difficult, Nearly Impossible Task
Our electoral process is built in such a way as to make detection of voter fraud nigh unto impossible so long as the voter rolls are not properly maintained and so long as those who ask for a ballot under another person’s name are not required to confirm that they are whomever they claim to be. In places like Texas, where concerns about voter fraud have been raised in the past, the easiest way to reduce voter fraud at the polling place was to institute requirements that the voter show identification when they ask for a ballot.
Yet, even in locales anywhere in the USA where identification is required, there are rarely similar safeguards designed to prevent fraud connected with absentee ballots. Once a voter asks for an absentee ballot, the ballot is mailed to the requestor’s address, often to a postal mail box, where nobody can check to ensure the person who receives, fills out, and mails back the completed ballot is indeed the person who he or she claims to be.
It doesn’t have to be that way, but it is that way, and it is that way because that’s how the Democrats want it to be. They want it to be that way because that way allows unscrupulous persons to commit voter fraud without taking serious risks of ever being detected. Over the years the Democrats have come up with a set of practically fail-safe means of ensuring it stays that way. We witnessed that means last night. We hear it over and over again today, working perfectly, only one day after the presidential debate, as many of our most revered newscasters parrot the words that Democrats put forward for them to say. In their defense they are probably not aware they are repeating a Democrat mantra that was designed specifically to stifle any attempt, from any quarter, to fix the problem.
Case in point: let’s return to the case in point mentioned earlier. The New York DOI investigators involved did their job, to the letter. They documented what they did by writing up a 70 page report detailing their investigation and their successes at proving how easy it is to cast fraudulent votes. Then they provided their report to the New York City Board of Elections (BOE). The BOE, Which has a $750 million annual budget, reacted to the DOI report by… well, take a guess.
Would you expect them to take immediate steps to fix the New York City electoral process, so this kind of voter fraud cannot ever happen in the future? No. Instead, the BOE approved a resolution referring the DOI investigators for criminal prosecution. It asked the state’s attorney general to determine if the DOI had violated the civil rights of the voters who had moved or are felons, and sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Greg Soumas, president of the New York BOE, explained the BOE’s response this way:
“If something was done in untoward fashion, it was only done by the DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.”
You may think the news media would have picked up this story and run with it. They didn’t. Furthermore, the police don’t seem to care, either, as voter fraud is not considered something local police are supposed to prevent or investigate. Remind you of anything?
The Real Definition of Un-American behavior…
First, let’s be honest. It is not un-American to point out that voter fraud is rampant in the United States. It is not horrific for a candidate to say that it is possible that an election they are involved in might be tainted because fraudulent votes may be cast against them. And it should not cause our jaws to drop when we hear a candidate say such things. If our jaws do drop when that happens, that’s our fault, because we have not done our own due diligence in ferreting out the truth of the matter. And, one of the reasons we are not doing our due diligence is because our news sources are lying to us, telling us that allegations of voter fraud in America are bogus when in fact they are not.
Here’s what John Fund wrote in the article cited above:
“Given that we now know for certain how easy it is to commit undetectable voter fraud and how serious the consequences can be, it’s truly bizarre to have officials at the New York City Board of Elections and elsewhere savage those who shine a light on the fact that their modus operandi invites fraud. One might even think that they’re covering up their incompetence or that they don’t want to pay attention to what crimes could be occurring behind the curtains at their polling places or both.”
What can you, as a concerned American voter, do about all this?
Demand that voter i.d. requirements be instituted and standardized throughout America. Go to your local, state, and federal boards of elections and demand that America’s voter rolls be brought up to date, so all the dead voters registered in your locale are removed from the rolls, so that all voters who have moved away are also removed, so felons and incompetent persons are no longer registered to vote.
In short, do your part! If you don’t, this problem will continue to be a problem and both America and its promise of the American Dream are doomed. If you do your part to fix things, the problem of voter fraud can begin the long-delayed process of being eliminated. You should not stop fighting until you know for certain that voter fraud cannot be carried out without being detected, prevented, and stopped.
— Questions? Corrections? Comments? e-mail email@example.com. You may also register, log in, and leave a detailed comment in the space provided below.