• Home
  • Elections/Vote Fraud

Video: Bannon Declares War On GOP Establishment

"We're Coming After All Of Them And We're Going To Win"


Editor's Note:  Bannon is the first high profile person to really start to embrace the KTAO voting strategy.  Unfortunately he's only targeting the GOP.  The Democrat incumbents need to do as well.  There are two shots are removing incumbents.  Bannon is focusing on the first shot, taking them out in the primaries.
~~~~~~~~~~


On Monday's edition of Hannity, Breitbart executive chairman and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon talked about his plan to challenge every Republican Senator up for re-election in 2018 in the primary, except Sen. Ted Cruz. Bannon said Republican incumbents have committed "economic hate crimes" against the "forgotten man."

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Bannon Celebrates Roy Moore's victory: 'Revolution' for GOP


Editor's Note:   THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT.  There are two shots are removing incumbents.  One shot in the primary, which is the best place to do it.  Then you get another shot during the actual election.  Steve Bannon has the right idea.  Throw the bums OUT!  Get rid of all the worthless, traitorous incumbents across the board.



 


Former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon celebrated Roy Moore's victory in Tuesday night's GOP Senate primary runoff in Alabama as the beginning of a "revolution" for insurgent Republicans looking to challenge incumbent senators. 

In remarks introducing Moore before his victory speech, Bannon recalled his comments at a pro-Moore rally on Monday night.
 
He pointed to Moore's victory and Tuesday's announcement by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that he'll retire at the end of 2018 as proof that the insurgent right is on the rise. Corker had been targeted as a potential incumbent for Bannon and his allies to pick off in a GOP primary.
"Last night we talked about starting a revolution with Judge Moore's victory. Well, Sen. Corker stepped down today, he's not going to run for reelection," Bannon said. 
 
"You are going to see, in state after state after state, people that follow the model of Judge Moore, that do not have to raise money from the elites, the crony capitalists, from the fat cats in Washington D.C., New York City and Silicon Valley."
Upon leaving the White House in August, Bannon returned to the conservative Breitbart News and became one of Moore's biggest boosters both behind the scenes and eventually in public. 
 
While Bannon was campaigning against President Trump's pick in Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), Bannon repeatedly framed a vote for Moore as "a vote for Donald J. Trump." 
 
Bannon and his allies have been furiously advocating for Moore, a former state Supreme Court chief justice, in the hopes that a victory will spark a wave of primary challenges against establishment Republican senators. 
 
One of those challengers is former Arizona state Sen. Kelli Ward, who is going up against Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of Trump's most prominent critics in the GOP. She too signaled a wider victory in a statement congratulating Ward, arguing that the frustration with the Washington establishment that won Moore the primary is present in Arizona too. 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Electoral College Is Still The Best Way To Elect A President


Editor's Note: The primary reason we need the Electoral College is ensure each state has a equal say in decided who is going to represent them as President.  It is imperative that to a huge state like California or New York be prevented from deciding the outcome of every single presidential election.  Those two states do not represent the views and values of every other state.  For example, if the popular vote were used in the 2016 election California alone would have decided the fate of the entire country.  Each state choses who will represent them in Congress and each state must have the right to decide who will represent them as President.

 


 

By Randy Blaser
ChicagoTribune.com

I see there is some squawking about abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct election of the president by a majority of voters in light of the results of the 2016 election.

While on her book tour, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, who won a majority of the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College, said the peculiar institution should be abolished.

Some local newspapers agreed, calling it an outmoded method of election that really isn't fair.

I suppose when you fail to gain the presidency because of this odd institution even though you won the most votes, you're bound to want to change it. Clinton thought the same thing when Al Gore was denied the presidency in 2000, even though he won the popular vote.

And if you supported Clinton and Gore in those two elections, or if your guy was Andrew Jackson in 1824, or Sam Tilden in 1876, or Grover Cleveland in 1888, who all lost the presidency despite winning a popular vote majority, then you might want to abolish it, too.

But one shouldn't be swayed by the passions of the supporters of the losing candidate, which is something the great Alexander Hamilton feared in coming up with the Electoral College. And as we all know, Hamilton is so much in favor today he has his own musical. Could he be wrong?

Unlike those who wish to abolish it, I think that in today's America, the Electoral College is the only way to make an election for president fair.

One danger of direct election of the president by the popular vote is what James Madison called the tyranny of the majority. The founders were so concerned about this concept of the tyranny of the majority, they created a Constitution full of checks and balances.

And it's a good thing they did. I know it is counter-intuitive. We love the phrase majority rule. But if you think about it, there are all sorts of instances where the majority has been stopped.

Not long ago, the majority in California voted to outlaw same-sex marriage. And more than likely, a majority of Americans would also vote to outlaw it. Yet the tyranny of the majority on this issue has been checked by the courts.

There is no such thing as a national election for president, is there? To run for president, a candidate has to successfully get on the ballot in all 50 states. Elections are conducted by the states. How can you devise a system where a union of the states elect the only person who represents all Americans?

The answer was, and still is, the Electoral College, which fills that role neatly for a republic, which is what we have, not a democracy. A candidate must win a majority total in a majority of the states, which keeps one region having too great an influence over the rest of the country.

Finally, there is the recent issue of the alleged Russian tampering with the 2016 election. I know some of my more liberal friends believe Russia rigged the 2016 results, but think about it. Putin must be some sort of evil genius to figure out how to come up with just the right results in just the right states to give Trump the victory in an election where Clinton gains a majority of popular votes by 3 million.

Tougher than solving a Rubik's cube, if you ask me.

The Electoral College makes rigging an election impossible. A president is elected by 50 state elections all with different rules and different methods for voting and different timetables. Rigging 50 elections to get the outcome you want is impossible. Even a brainiac like Clinton couldn't figure it out.

Yes, the Electoral College is an antiquated idea. But maybe the founders were wiser than they knew. Wiser than we know.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Court Admits DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schulz Rigged Primaries Against Sanders


By Michael Sainato
Observer.com

In June 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for violating the DNC Charter by rigging the Democratic presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. Even former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted in July 2016, ““I knew—everybody knew—that this was not a fair deal.” He added adding that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should have resigned much sooner than she did. The lawsuit was filed to push the DNC to admit their wrongdoing and provide Bernie Sanders supporters, who supported him financially with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, with restitution for being cheated.

On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation in which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to rig primaries and select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated.

The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'”

The order reaffirmed that the primaries were tipped in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but the court’s authority to intervene in a court of law is limited.

“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”

At this time, it’s unclear if the attorneys who filed the class action lawsuit, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, will pursue other legal recourse regarding the 2016 Democratic primaries.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Feds: Vote-Fraud Scheme By State Employees At DMV


By Bob Unruh
wnd.com

The federal government has confirmed organized voter fraud in America, with the arrests of six people who allegedly ran a fake-ID scam inside the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.

The results give credence to President Trump’s much-maligned claim that Hillary Clinton received more popular votes nationally in 2016 mostly because more than 3 million illegal aliens voted.

In fact, WND reported only weeks ago a new study concluded as many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, suggesting the problem could be even bigger than what Trump estimated.

In Massachusetts, the U.S. attorney’s office said six people, including four RMV clerks, were arrested in connection “with a scheme to produce false identification documents through the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.”

“Some of the false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register to vote in the city of Boston.”

The federal report said the fake paperwork was based on Puerto Rican birth certificates and was used “to fraudulently register the clients to vote in the city of Boston.”

Washington watchdog Judicial Watch pointed out it had reported more than a year ago a rise of faked Puerto Rican birth certificates to obtain authentic U.S. documents.

In the current case, Judicial Watch said “state employees sold drivers’ licenses and state identification cards to illegal immigrants who bought Puerto Rican documents on the black market.”

“The case is the latest of many illustrating that there’s an epidemic of voter fraud in the U.S. that’s seldom reported in the mainstream media,” Judicial Watch said. “It’s not clear how many false identities and addresses were used to fraudulently register to vote in Boston, but the feds indicate that it occurred in multiple cases and Judicial Watch is investigating the matter as part of a five-year-old Election Integrity Project.”

The report continued: “The scheme was operated by four taxpayer-funded employees at the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles along with two outside accomplices who sold Puerto Rican documents to illegal aliens. All six were recently arrested and charged with aggravated identity theft. They probably never would have been caught if not for an anonymous tip received by the Massachusetts State Police nearly two years ago and there’s no telling how long the illicit scheme operated.”

The government “won’t reveal the magnitude of the operation and how many authentic state documents were issued fraudulently to illegal aliens,” Judicial Watch said.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Judicial Watch President Discloses Massive Potential Voter Fraud


 
 
Project Veritas captured undercover video exposing precisely what these A-Holes have been doing for decades.  One arrogantly proclaims "they've been busing in voters for decades and they're not going to stop now."
 
 
 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: U.S. Meddled In 81 Elections In 41 Countries

CNN host Michael Smerconish shocked


Michael Smerconish just did a segment on CNN with the banner reading, 'International Intervention: Has the US meddled in other countries’ elections?' In the segment, Smerconish's guest, Dr. Levin, reveals just how extensively the US has meddled in other countries' elections, and Smerconish appears very surprised.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

2016 - Just One Congressional Incumbent Outsted In Primary


In year of supposed angry electorate, just one congressional incumbent ousted in primary

 

 

By Joseph Weber
Fox Politics

 

In the year of the supposed angry electorate, millions of frustrated voters have put their weight behind the outsider presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but continue to back congressional incumbents -- ousting only one so far in hundreds of 2016 primaries contests.

The lone victim was Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah, but his ouster appeared more about questionable ethics than frustration with Washington insiders. The 11-term congressman is facing a 29-count federal indictment related to racketeering, bribery and mail fraud.

“The year of the outside candidate is a neat, tidy package put out by the media to a certain extent,” David Payne, a Republican strategist and partner at Vox Global, said this week. “But it’s only part of the story. Look at all of the insiders who are picking up 60 percent of the vote.”

 

Payne argues that House districts have been “so carefully constructed” by state party officials and others to “remain stable” that few primary races are now competitive.

To be sure, members of Congress rarely lose a primary race, in which incumbents (typically) face a challenge from candidates in their own political part.

Over the past three election cycles, just 17 congressional incumbents have been ousted in a primary -- four House members in 2014, five House members and one senator in 2012, and four House members and three senators in the so-called 2010 Tea Party revolution.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)