A loud and clear message was sent by voters on November 5th

November 26, 2024

The people spoke on November 5th, voting to make Donald Trump and J.D. Vance our next President and Vice President, and to give both houses of Congress a Republican majority.

And now, even after the disastrous message provided by the election results, the political left still is committed to divisiveness, unpopular attitudes and even illegal activities.

The election was a mandate from the people. The policies and realities of the last four years are highly unpopular, and voters want to restore the nation to the condition of the four years before President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took office in 2021, and to continue policies of that nature.

The election was a thumbs-down message about the absurd and dangerous virtual “open-border” policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to enter the country at will. The Biden administration even secretly flew thousands of illegals into the country, avoiding the border altogether. 

These illegal aliens are people with a variety of motives for coming here. Some are coming for the right reasons, even if their method of entering is a crime. But many, many others are drug dealers, women traffickers, child traffickers, robbers, rapists, murderers and other types of criminals. And some of them are on the terror watch list.

While many of them have been charged with crimes, the recent guilty verdict in the trial of the illegal alien with a heavily checkered criminal past who was accused of murdering 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley is indisputable proof that this and other crimes have occurred because the border security measures that were in place when Biden and Harris took office were cancelled in what looked like a 5-year-old’s temper tantrum on Biden’s part.

None of this seemed to even attract the interest of the Biden administration, which attempted unsuccessfully to blame the problem they created on the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans voted down a bad bill that supposedly was to address the situation, but wasn’t available until early 2024.

Biden’s reversing of Trump policies that were working pretty well also threw the country into four years of exceedingly high inflation. The war on domestic oil is responsible for the high gasoline and diesel prices, and shattered America’s energy independent status. It forced us to import oil and gas from other countries instead of using our own resources.

Under the Biden economic policies, people can’t afford things that had previously been affordable. Prices rose by more than 20 percent, a 40-year high. The average family of four was paying an additional $17,080 per year. The goods and services they could afford before January 2021, had risen to $1,423 per month more than before.

Businesses are caught in the middle of this mess. They have to deal with higher prices for the goods they market, and the components of the goods and services they produce. Increased costs lead to increased prices. And increased prices lead to unhappy customers and fewer customers who can afford the higher prices.

This affects small businesses greatly, as they are less able to deal with higher operational costs than the large companies. Some of them are forced to close down, putting workers on the unemployment line.

The public complaints of price increases on needed items led presidential candidate Harris to play politics with the inflation caused by the Biden/Harris administration.

Harris threatened to introduce a national ban on price gouging, if elected. She told an audience that her plan would “stop companies taking advantage of the desperation and need of the American consumer and jacking up prices without any consequences.”

These so-called “progressive” policies so badly affected the American people that they voted against them, and said a very loud “Stop it!” They don’t want open borders. They don’t like the much higher prices. It was a definite “No” to the exceedingly foolish Biden policies.

The country now looks ahead to next year when the Trump administration can begin to address the problem of millions of illegal aliens in the country and the costs in dollars and lives they bring. But blue state governors and blue city mayors have publicly announced their intention to fight the administration’s efforts to deport the millions of illegals who were happily, but illegally, welcomed into sanctuary states and cities.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has said that he would “fight to the death” against the Trump administration if it acted against New Jersey’s “values.” And Matt Platkin, New Jersey’s Attorney General, commented on X (formerly Twitter) that while he respects the electoral process and trusts in the peaceful transition of power, he will resist what he termed Trump’s unlawful attack on the “rights” of New Jersey residents to be in the country illegally.

But a majority of the country’s voters has said loudly that they are fed up with the dangers and expense of millions of illegal aliens being here, and with the unnecessarily high prices on everything they need and want.

They want an end to the foolish policies that brought these problems to us. The question now is, will the Democrats get the message and give up their radical un-American impulses?

Is our election system secure enough to produce the true result?

November 5, 2024

Today is election day. Voting is a sacred right and a critical duty of eligible voters. And although this is the day that Americans traditionally have gone to the polls to cast their ballots, tens of millions have already voted, either through early voting, or by mail-in ballots.

This election is a critical one. It will determine who our next president will be, how the two houses of Congress will be controlled, who the governors in many states will be and which party will control state legislatures, and many municipal and county leadership positions will be decided. It is a very important day.

The country is more politically and ideologically divided than it has been in many, many years. That divide will not be significantly changed by the election results.

And while most of us are hoping for a clean, secure election with few problems, the nature of the current election processes virtually guarantees that there will be some potentially serious problems of errors, ballot tampering and fraud.

Mailing ballots to voters, no matter how valid the reasons are for doing it, provides opportunities for problems. Delays in the postal system may cause deadlines to be missed. Ballots can be stolen on their way to and from voters. And drop boxes placed on streets for voters to return ballots after voting are targets for mischief.

Already in Washington state hundreds of ballots were recently destroyed by fire in one drop box. And, a drop box in Oregon was also set afire, although the loss of ballots there was small. Still, hundreds of voters’ choices were lost.

The Associated Press reported that “[s]ix states have banned ballot drop boxes since 2020: Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina and South Dakota, according to research by the Voting Rights Lab, which advocates for expanded voting access. Other states have restricted their use, including Ohio and Iowa, which now permits only one drop box per county, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.”

Other election problems have accompanied the introduction of computer voting devices, which can be, and have been, hacked when connected to the Internet. These devices also may have been programmed by the people that produced or installed them to make changes to election numbers as ballots are counted.

In the 2020 election, there were allegations supported by evidence that people who delivered ballots to voters who were in care facilities or who were cognitively impaired coached the voters on how to vote, or actually marked the ballots themselves and managed to get voter signatures on them before submitting them.

And 26 states and Washington, DC allow military personnel to vote by email or an online portal, and seven states allow voting via fax. Some states allow voters with disabilities to use some of those options to vote.

On the latter topic, National Public Radio warned late last year that “advice from cybersecurity experts is clear: Widespread internet voting at this point is a bad idea.”

Clearly, the variety of voting options available presents many opportunities for election tampering and fraud. Our elections are too important to allow the sorts of insecurities present in the current voting methods.

University of Michigan computer science and engineering professor J. Alex Halderman is considered one of the nation’s foremost experts on election security. He offers tips that can help us ensure that votes are recorded accurately and securely, among which are these: 
* Avoid voting methods that don’t have a paper trail.
* If you use a ballot-marking device at the polls, review your printout.
* Don’t vote online.
* Encourage your state to do a risk-limiting audit in future elections.

Digicert, a company that refers to itself as “The global leader in digital trust,” recommends three requirements of a trustworthy voting method:
* Fraud prevention: Ensuring every vote is legitimate.
* Privacy: Protecting voters' choices from prying eyes.
* Cost-effectiveness: Making elections affordable for everyone.

And Bloomberg online offered the following advice prior to the 2020 election: “Election voting is the cybersecurity industry’s most difficult challenge, and casting ballots on paper is the safest option against any digital disruptions, says CrowdStrike Holdings co-founder and former Chief Technology Officer Dmitri Alperovitch.”

“Voting is the hardest thing to secure when it comes to cybersecurity,” Alperovitch said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “The only way we know how to do it well and safely is by using paper.” He also said that in-person voting and ballots that are either mailed in or dropped off at collection sites are the best ways to ensure that a digital hack won’t happen.

Secure elections are a requirement. However, many of the aspects of our elections today are to make registering to vote easier and voting more convenient. 

But election security must not be weakened just to make it easier for people. Other things can be done to improve the election process without opening it up to tampering and fraud.

Every voter must have proved eligibility and produce a photo ID or other form of proof of identity, and have paper ballots that can be kept on file and referred to when needed. If these security measures cause problems, then we must just buckle up and deal with them.

America’s election system has serious security issues

April 2, 2024

One of the great things about being a citizen of the United States of America is being able to participate in determining who will serve us in important governmental positions.

The right to select our governments’ public servants from a list of candidates selected by the people through a voting process is a highly valued one, and governments at all levels have a solemn duty to protect that right, and assure us that the voting process is as safe and secure as possible.

That means using only those elements of voting that are the least likely to be misused.

We were assured that the 2020 election was very safe, and that may be true. But we also have seen evidence of irregularities and illegalities, some of which were implemented due to the COVID virus, and may have been done with the best of intentions. However, in some states, changes were made to the election process without the direction of the state legislature, which is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, we know from history and human nature that there are people who will do anything to win elections, and there are problems and actual improprieties in many elections. 

The question is: To what extent do these problems and improprieties affect the outcome of local, state and national elections?

Where the 2020 election is concerned, there are two opposing storylines on that question.  The purpose here is not to argue for or against one or the other of those storylines. Election integrity is the focus.

The first step in securing elections is making sure that only eligible people can vote. The best way for doing that is a system in which voters prove their eligibility to election officials, and then have a photo ID that must be used when voting.

At one time many years ago, votes were cast on a paper ballot at a polling place by eligible voters who could prove their identity on election day. Ballots were hand counted and kept on file.

Since that time, that secure system has been weakened by the addition of elements that are more easily corrupted. One aspect of that is the idea of making voting easier or more convenient, which has increased the opportunities for problems. 

But voting is a critical element of our constitutional republic, so keeping the process secure is much more important than making it easier or more convenient.  

Voting by mail/absentee voting, and machine voting have entered the process with both positive and negative results.

The idea of absentee voting is beneficial for voters who have a very good reason for not being able to get to the polling place. Perhaps they serve in the military and are stationed away from their permanent address, or are attending school away from home. Perhaps they are elderly, ill, or disabled and unable to move about. 

But sending thousands or millions of ballots out in the mail to all voters to be returned by mail is begging for trouble. Likewise, having ballots returned by placing them in unsecured bins is dangerous, as is ballot harvesting.

Some voting machines do not use or produce paper ballots that can be checked. Machines used in ballot counting or voting can be hacked or programmed to affect vote totals. 

The Associated Press website warned that “Election officials face a long list of challenges this year, including potential cyberattacks waged by foreign governments [and] criminal ransomware gangs attacking computer systems.”

And a discussion on the National Public Radio website added this: “Basically, every election security expert agrees that we should not have lots of people voting over the internet. The DHS, FBI, the National Academies of Sciences - they've all agreed on this point. And there's really more agreement on this point than almost anything else in election security.”

According to the Brookings Institution, a paper trail is necessary. “Election security experts from Harvard, Stanford and the Brennan Center for Justice all recommend the phasing out of paperless voting, and twelve of the thirteen Democratic candidates who have declared a position on election security support mandating the use of paper ballots,” an article on the Brookings website states.

The idea of every eligible voter having to show a photo ID to vote garners complaints that this is discriminatory. But consider the long, long list of everyday things that require a photo ID. Things like buying alcohol, applying for a job, renting or buying a house, renting a car, applying for government assistance like welfare or unemployment, getting on an airplane. This is a precaution that must be taken.

Questioning election results is an American tradition, with many elections having seen challenges. The more election security is the focus, and the more limits we have on the election process to make it more secure, the fewer opportunities for irregularities and problems there will be, and hopefully fewer challenges to the results.

Any process that puts voted ballots at risk of being stolen or changed, or ballots falsely created, must not be allowed. We cannot make voting easier and more convenient if doing that weakens the security of the election process.

Securing elections is a goal we must achieve before 2024

November 22, 2022

"Some of you probably remember the hotly contested and controversial 2000 presidential election that was highlighted by arguments about vote fraud; voter suppression; hanging, dimpled and pregnant chads; changes in who led in vote totals throughout election night; and legal challenges that delayed the decision for over a month. 

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, called a halt to the craziness, leaving Republican George W. Bush, with his 537-vote margin, the winner of Florida’s 25 Electoral Votes, and the victory over Democrat Al Gore.

In 2002, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to address the wide range of issues brought to its attention by state and local officials and others throughout the country. 

Two years later, it was evident that HAVA had not resolved the arguments over state laws requiring voters to provide photo identification that were generating backlash amid claims of disenfranchisement, new concerns about new voting technology that led to fears of counting errors, and worries about growing numbers of absentee and mail ballots that raised concerns about the possibility of fraud.

"In response to these concerns, former President Jimmy Carter [a Democrat] and former Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, [a Republican] agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election reform issues. The final report, titled ‘Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,’ stressed the important role of elections in the nation’s democracy,” according to the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. 

The report made 87 recommendations, including:
o A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists
o Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card
o Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites
o Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting
o Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

Of the recommendations, the Daily Signal commented: “They called on states to increase voter ID requirements; to be leery of mail-in voting; to halt ballot harvesting; to maintain voter lists, in part to ensure dead people are promptly removed from them; to allow election observers to monitor ballot counting; and to make sure voting machines are working properly. They also wanted the media to refrain from calling elections too early and from touting exit polls.”

“Had Congress and state governments adopted many of the panel’s recommendations, the 2020 post-election mess between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden might have been avoided,” said Carter-Baker Commission member Kay C. James, now the president of The Heritage Foundation, in the Daily Signal report. 

“So many of the problems we’re now hearing about in the aftermath of the 2020 election could have been avoided had states heeded the advice of the Commission on Federal Election Reform,” James continued. “Simple protections against fraud, like voter ID and updated voter registration lists, make perfect sense if we truly believe that every vote must count. Election officials should take another look at the commission’s recommendations and make sure they’re doing everything possible to protect the integrity of our elections,” she said.

Organizations concerned with election security have suggested many ideas for secure voting, which include:
o Voter rolls must be updated and accurate prior to every election.
o Photo IDs will be required, and assistance must be provided to those with difficulties getting IDs made.

o Voting will be in person on Election Day, except when voters will be away on Election Day, or are physically unable to vote in person. In these cases, ballots will be requested and furnished to registered voters, will be signed and verified by signature matching and returned to the designated location. 
o Election Days should be named as holidays, or voting should be accommodated by employers.
o There will be no ballot harvesting.
o Votes are to be made on paper ballots; may be counted by machines that are not online; must be verified by hand-counting done with transparency.
o Post-election audits will be conducted that can verify that outcomes are correct.

The National Election Defense Coalition makes the case for using paper ballots: “Hand Counted Paper Ballots are considered the "Gold Standard" of democratic elections. Only paper ballots provide physical proof of the voter's intent. Paper ballots can be safely recounted in case of a contested result. Counting paper ballots in public provides 100% oversight and transparency. Unlike computer voting systems paper ballots can't break down or malfunction; are not programmed secretly by unaccountable private corporations; and cannot be hacked or rigged.”

We are reminded that every registered citizen has the right to vote, and therefore it should be made convenient and easy. Yes, voting is a right. But it is also extremely important in our country. 

And because of its tremendous importance, convenience in voting must yield to procedures that provide the highest level of security we can achieve. Some inconvenience is a small price to pay for being able to trust that the election process and procedures are as secure as possible, and that every legitimate vote is properly counted.

Our states must secure their elections.

Federal control of elections, and getting the filibuster out of the way

Good Congressional legislation that benefits the country and its citizens will have broad bi-partisan support. If a bill has strong support from one side, but little or no support from the other, it likely is good for the majority and/or bad for the minority.

Many bills, perhaps most, have only one party supporting them, the party in the majority, and are hotly contested.

A bill currently with this partisan split is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late Georgia congressman and civil rights leader. The “voting rights” bill has strong support from Democrat majority, but strong opposition from the Republican minority.

As reported by Politifact, “Supporters say the bill would renew the power of the federal government to oversee state voting laws and protect minority voters at a time when more GOP-led states have passed new restrictions. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT., who introduced the bill, said it would ‘ensure that the Voting Rights Act continues to have the effect long intended: to protect the right to vote.’”

The report continues, “But Republicans say the John Lewis bill is federal overreach and would make it too easy for plaintiffs to challenge state election laws that Republicans say are designed to prevent fraud. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, has called it ‘unnecessary’ and said that ‘it's against the law to discriminate in voting on the basis of race already.’”

Republicans view their election laws as mechanisms to reduce fraud, and Democrats view them as efforts to restrict voting to certain groups. Democrats see their election laws as making it easy for people to vote, while Republicans view them as mechanisms that make fraud and cheating easier.

The Democrat bill will transfer much of the control over elections that now resides with the states to the federal government. The system of federalism under which the United States was formed left much power to the states, deliberately not giving the federal government total control. The control of election procedures resides with state legislatures.

In addition to trying to federalize control over elections, Democrats also are now talking about eliminating the Senate filibuster, or eliminating certain of its uses. The filibuster, however, is a mechanism that both protects the Senate minority from being run over by the majority, and also helps to encourage the introduction of bills that will have bi-partisan support, which do not encourage a filibuster. 

Some Democrats now favoring the changing or elimination of the filibuster have done an about face from just a few years ago.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, who in 2017 as Minority Leader spoke to the Senate, saying there should be a "firewall" around the legislative filibuster. "Let us go no further down this road," he said. "I hope the Republican Leader and I can, in the coming months, find a way to build a firewall around the legislative filibuster, which is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House."

He and other Democrats condemned efforts by Republicans to challenge the filibuster back then. Here are some of their comments:

From Schumer: 

• “They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way you change the rules.”
• “Change the rules in midstream to wash away 200 years of history.
• “Ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.”
• “It’ll be a doomsday for democracy.”

President Joe Biden, D-DE, when he was in the Senate: 

• “It raises problems that are more damaging than the problem that exists.”
• “You’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.”
• “Nothing at all will get done.”
• “It is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”
• “Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.”
• “It is a fundamental power grab.”

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL: 

• “That would be the end of the Senate.”
• “You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.”
• “Preserve checks and balances so that no one party can do whatever it wants.”

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ: 

• “You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game because you do not like the outcome.”
• “Partisan power grab that will stomp on the rights of the minority and leave fundamentally changed for the worse.”
• “I will not stand by when a party drunk with power tries to overturn 200 years of precedent.”

Sen. Chis Coons, D-DE: 

• “I’m committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster.” 
• “The one most important rule that requires compromise requires working across the aisle.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ: “The legislative filibuster should stay there and I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA: “I don’t think that we ought to be coming in willy-nilly and changing the rules.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY: “If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.”

Isn’t it interesting how politicians forego their support of important things when they get in the way?

Congress creates H.R. 1/S. 1 to address varied election processes

With the chaos of the 2020 presidential election, much of it due to the COVID-19 pandemic, something desperately needs to be done to stabilize and secure election procedures.

Under the direction of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures have the duty and authority to establish how elections are handled in their state. Consequently, there are lots of variations in election processes.

Responding to this chaos, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have created legislation to fix this. Titled H.R. 1 in the House, and S. 1 in the Senate, the “For the People Act of 2021,” this legislation is designed “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes,” according to the introduction to the bill.

That description certainly identifies some good and needed improvements. And while drastic action is called for to repair the heavily damaged election process in many of the states, two organizations have published reasons why they believe the “For the People Act of 2021” is seriously flawed, unworthy of passage, and even dangerous.

AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, “is centered on American values, freedom of the individual, free speech, and exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, rule of law, and love of family,” it’s website states. “This legislation – 791 pages – is a monstrous federal takeover of elections and an assault on the First Amendment. AMAC is working to block this bill from ever becoming law.”

The other organization is Heritage Action, a component of The Heritage Foundation. Heritage Action states that the “For the People Act of 2021” “is full of unconstitutional and unnecessary policies that liberals want to use to further hijack America’s election processes. It is ANYTHING but ‘for the people.’”

Yes, these two organizations are conservative in nature. And some find that fact enough to ignore anything and everything associated with them. But an objective analysis of H.R. 1/S. 1 shows many significant problems.

Heritage Action cites three major problems with the bill:

“1. It forces taxpayers to finance political campaigns. If it passes, you’d be paying for the campaigns of self-professed socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC. To add insult to injury, H.R. 1 will also allow politicians to double dip and take a second salary from their campaigns. 

“2. It eliminates the ability of states to control their own elections. H.R. 1 forces states to enact same-day voter registration, automatically register voters, implement online voter registration, allow voters to cast ballots outside of their precinct, keep ineligible voters on voter rolls in perpetuity, register voters without verifying eligibility, and allow people to vote without showing any identification.

“3. It undermines our 1st Amendment rights. H.R. 1 unconstitutionally increases government censorship over political campaigns, activity, and speech. Using a very vague standard, the bill regulates any speech that is deemed to impact an election (which is almost anything). 

“H.R. 1 would also force political nonprofits to publicly disclose donors, but don’t be fooled, this isn’t about transparency. This is about making it easier for the militant Left to dox conservatives, threaten their families, and get them fired from their jobs.”

The government of the United States of America is a federal system. In such a system, much power and authority are not held in a central government, but are retained by the individual states. Remember, it was through the agreement of the states that the nation was created.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a fundamental element in our nation’s creation, and is part of the Bill of Rights.

Much of what H.R. 1/S. 1 proposes would transfer some authority now held by the states to the federal government, against the design of the nation, and the 10th Amendment.

Further, the items in point 2 of the Heritage Action objections would open voter registration, voter eligibility and voter identification to massive fraud, and make it possible for thousands of ineligible people to cast ballots, or to cast ballots in places other than where they may legally do so, or even in more than one place.

In many instances, this bill will legalize many of the questionable and illegal goings-on of the past election, where at least four states changed election procedures, ignoring the Constitutional mandate to make changes through the state legislature.

The weakening of the voter registration process and other elements of voting are preposterous. Their lack of secure requirements invites voter fraud. These same weaknesses were present in several states in the 2020 election.

Proof of identity — not the mere say-so of a person — and proof of eligibility must be provided at voter registration, when requesting absentee ballots or voting by mail, and when showing up at polling places. No exceptions!

Additional censoring of political speech is an outright contravention of the First Amendment.

The “For the People Act of 2021” is a disaster waiting to be unleashed.

Is Election 2020 the most unusual presidential election in history?

If nothing else, the election saga is certainly interesting. It has created great misery and hand-wringing across the political spectrum. 

Based on the projections of news outlets relying on state voting totals, former Vice President Joe Biden, D-Pa., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Cal., were declared the winners. That, however, does not make them the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect.

The process has not yet reached the stage where any candidates are officially declared to have won.

Every election has problems, like human error and fraud. The question always is, how much of an effect do the errors and fraud really have?

This election was doomed to be controversial from the beginning, with the potential for more problems than usual due to the fear of the coronavirus pandemic and the restrictions it created. More people wanted to vote early or by absentee or mail-in ballot than usual to avoid the crowds at polling places. 

And then there were potential problems from the tens of millions of universal mail-in ballots sent out, many/most from states that were ill-prepared to handle that situation.

The dangers of mail-in voting are well known. We were warned about problems by such important voices as former President Jimmy Carter and The Carter Center, Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and The New York Times.

And now that the voting is done, there are claims that confirm those warnings: Lost ballots, ballots found in trash cans, more votes in some precincts than registered voters, vote count observers prevented from observing the process, among them.

The Constitution gives the sole power to establish election procedures to the state legislatures. Yet in several states these procedures were recently changed by judges, secretaries of state and others who do not have that authority. 

Since changes were made by unauthorized persons, how many ballots were counted that were received after the previous -- legal -- deadline, or under previous requirements for signatures and such? Those ballots are not valid!

There are many charges of mistakes and fraud being looked into. President Donald Trump’s lawyers have filed multiple lawsuits challenging various aspects of the election process in several states. 

This has greatly angered Trump’s enemies; lots of people are urging Trump to concede, severely chastising him for not having already done so. This, despite that what he is doing is both legal and not uncommon. In the 2000 race, for example, Democrat candidate Al Gore challenged things for more than a month; Trump has done so for only three weeks, as of today.

And, given the array of false charges and hoaxes Trump was tortured with for the last four years, starting when he first declared himself a candidate, perhaps he has good reason to hold off conceding until challenges are resolved. Note: his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, still has not acknowledged Trump won, and she advised candidate Biden not to concede “under any circumstances.”

Democrats felt confident that a blue wave was coming, expecting that they would win the presidency, expand their House majority and perhaps win control of the Senate.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, Republicans increased their numbers in the House, flipping possibly a dozen seats from blue to red, and leaving the Democrats with a very slim majority. 

While the Democrats gained a seat in the Senate, Republicans may possibly retain their majority, depending upon the run-off elections for two Georgia seats.

Despite the losses in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., claimed victory, touting the popular vote tally showing House Democrats collected more votes than Republicans. Apparently, the number of votes for Democrats is more important than the number of Democrats that will be in the House.

Perhaps the most interesting, or the strangest, issue is the alleged massive fraud by voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems based in Canada. The Dominion machines are alleged to have actually thrown the election to Biden/Harris through manipulative software.

It is a complicated scenario that many people have discounted because of a lack of evidence having been revealed to support it. However, supporters say there is plenty of evidence, adding that evidence is critical and necessary for legal proceedings, but is not needed merely to assuage doubting reporters and Trump opponents. The Trump legal team cites dozens of sworn affidavits, filed under the threat of perjury, alleging vote fraud in some states.

Dominion has denied all charges, and its officials had agreed to testify before a Pennsylvania legislative committee. Then, Dominion strangely cancelled out the night before the hearing. 

These days computers are capable of doing fantastic things. But can they control the votes of tens of millions of voters in hundreds of different voting locations?

Georgia’s experience with Dominion computers used in the state’s primary raised questions and concerns over the company’s voting system. But Georgia stuck with them.

And the head of another computer voting system, Smartmatic, admitted in 2017 that his company’s computers and software created at least one million additional votes in the Venezuelan election.

Most view Trump’s efforts to prove he won as improbable. But with the vast array of problems and potential fraud, taking a few weeks to investigate them is not asking too much.

How to hold elections during the age of the coronavirus pandemic?

Every true American understands the importance of her/his right to vote and the importance of secure national, state and local election systems that allow us to express our preferences for elected officials.

Elections must be conducted in a secure, fair and sensible manner. Only eligible voters — which, in most every case, involves only citizens — must cast ballots in our elections. And measures are required to assure, to the greatest possible extent, that only eligible voters vote.

Conveniences have been made a part of the election system to make voting easier. But elections are far too important to allow measures to weaken the systems for no better reason than for a little voter convenience. Having to endure a little inconvenience in order to secure this vital process is a small price to pay.

In certain circumstances, absentee ballots may be allowed. Military personnel and others who must be away from their voting district on Election Day, as well as seniors and others who are unable to get to the polls, are legitimate candidates for mail-in ballots. But we must recognize that voting by mail is an insecure process — one with great opportunity for fraud.

And can you guess which voting convenience has the most support among those who wish to transform the country?

Absentee voter fraud — voting by mail — was so great a problem in Florida, Missouri, New York and North Carolina that some elections in those states were overturned.

The case in North Carolina involved the 9^th Congressional District race, which the state election board overturned due to illegal vote harvesting, including forging and altering absentee ballots.

Under present circumstances, tens of millions of eligible American voters are under restrictions, including no gatherings of more than 10 at a time, social distancing, masks, gloves, stay-at-home orders or recommendations, etc. The primary elections are upon us and Election Day, 2020 is a bit more than six months away.

Some opportunists want existing election system weaknesses to remain in place into the future, and for the upcoming elections to be carried out by mail. All in the name of safety, they say. As genuine as these concerns may be for some of them, this suggestion is a prescription for voter fraud at a previously unimagined level.

And with the help of absentee voting the evil orange man, if he has his way, will easily win reelection.

Or, perhaps the other side will do the better job of “getting out the vote,” particularly since it is the liberals/Democrats that are campaigning for voting by mail.

Currently, millions of those whose names are on voter rolls are deceased, have moved, or are ineligible for various reasons. Automatically mailing ballots to these people does not merely allow for the ballots to be stolen, marked, and returned, it invites that result.

If you are still not convinced that voting by mail is fertile ground for fraud, consider this: a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch against the city of Los Angeles and the state of California alleging failure to maintain accurate voter registration rolls has been settled.

California and Los Angeles agreed to remove 1.5 million individuals who were not removed when they became ineligible to vote. It is fair to wonder what might happen to 1.5 million ballots mailed to people who are ineligible to vote, many of whom no longer reside at the address on their registration.

Naysayers contend that there is no real voter fraud threat. And those in the “nothing to see here; just move along” faction prefer a system that can be manipulated for political gain.

But even if the contention is true that no real threat exists, what harm is there in continually examining election systems, and strengthening them to prevent fraud?

However, voter fraud is a true threat. More than 1,200 instances of proven fraud can be found in The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database. These cases include absentee ballot fraud.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, saying, “flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists [including] Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor … [and] demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

The most secure voting procedure is when poll workers are presented required evidence by potential voters proving they are who they say they are, and that the person is properly documented as being an eligible voter. That evidence is a valid photo ID.

Accurate voter rolls, and eligible voters with a photo ID appearing at the appropriate polling place, staffed by people dedicated to allowing only eligible voters to vote are essential elements in a secure system.

Even if the COVID-19 virus has not completely run its course before Election Day, or if it reappears during flu season, as has been suggested, polling places can be operated safely. Voters and poll workers must conduct themselves appropriately.

Under such circumstances voting in person at polling places is safe, and is also the most secure method of holding elections.

Elections and voting are important and demand effort and honesty

Elections are one of the most important rights and sacred duties of American citizens. Therefore, the nation must do whatever is necessary to assure that elections are free of fraud and abuse. 

Accusations of fraudulent activity are common. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people are on voter rolls who have passed away, moved to another jurisdiction, or who are not eligible voters. Elections must be limited to citizens who are legal voters and registered in the states and localities in which they live.

Some elected officials keep trying to make everything related to voting, from registration to actual ballot-casting, easier. Many believe these efforts are beneficial, and to an extent, they are. But we must work hard to protect the rights we have, and that includes our right — and our duty — to vote for those who will serve us in public office. We must not allow convenience to become the enemy of a fair and just election.

We should not mind putting forth the effort needed to get ourselves properly registered to vote, and get to the polls on election day to cast our ballots. We should not mind spending the necessary time studying those running for office so that we make educated choices. Important things deserve our putting out some effort for them.

Some people, however, cannot negotiate the rigors of registration and voting, so most states have mechanisms to help those people, and some private organizations also assist them.

Some of the “conveniences” created to make voting easier weaken the system. Early voting, for example, is a loser, as many Democrats learned recently. Three candidates dropped out before voting on Super Tuesday, meaning those who voted early for those three wasted their votes. 

Absentee ballots for people who are away from their voting district on election day are a reasonable option, but that idea, too, may result in wasted votes if the ballots are submitted too early.

And we see several other truly bad ideas for the election process that are currently being pushed. Among them are:

* All mail-in ballots - All ballots will be distributed and returned by mail

* Ballot harvesting - Permits individuals to collect ballots and supposedly return them to a sanctioned voting office to be counted

* Automatic voter registration - People are automatically registered to vote when they register a vehicle at the DMV, and must “opt out” if they are not eligible to vote

* Abolishing voter ID requirements - Show up at the polls and vote; no ID of any kind required

* Abolish voter residency requirements - Normally, name, birthdate and residential address are required, but this would do away with the residential address requirement

* Same-day voter registration - Show up at the polls and vote, and if you are not registered when you get to the polling place, you register, then vote

* Out-of-precinct voting - A variation of same-day registration

These measures are a flashing neon sign inviting election fraud, taking the control of election results out of the hands of election officials, and delivering it into the hands of cheaters, who do not want an honest system, and therefore look for weaknesses to exploit. 

And here are two more foolish ideas being floated by those wishing to weaken the election system:

* Lax enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act - Discouraging the cleaning of dead or ineligible persons from voter rolls 

* Doing away with the Electoral College - Making the popular vote determine who will be president, which allows a few high-population areas to make the decision and the rest of us are at the mercy of their choice

These ideas are, generally speaking, being advanced by individuals and organizations on the left, and more specifically by Open Society Foundations (OSF), which are organizations that have contributed $1.5 billion to 199 other organizations in the U.S. Formed in 1979 by billionaire George Soros, OSF received $18 billion from Soros in 2017, which was more than 70 percent of his total wealth of $25.2 billion, as estimated by Forbes Magazine.

During the 2004 election cycle when George W. Bush was seeking reelection, Soros contributed some $25 million to liberal and Democrat groups working to defeat Bush, according to Judicial Watch.

Since that time, he has supported Democrat candidates for national office, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Of course, Soros is not the only one seeking to influence our elections.

Campaigns cost too much, these days, and the more money that is in the system, the more likely it is that mischief will occur. Former President Barack Obama warned Americans of the perils of “dark money” in elections, saying it “pulls us into the gutter” as a nation.

Why should any person or organization be allowed to contribute to any political campaign they choose, anywhere in the country? Why should someone in one state be able to contribute to campaigns of people seeking office in other states? If someone has no direct interest in who wins or loses a particular election, why should they be able to support those candidates?

Let us all want and work for clean, fair and just elections.

Democrats exercising new-found power: some good, some not so much

Since Democrats reclaimed the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives last November, they have wasted no time in putting their agenda into action. 

Unsatisfied with the special counsel’s investigation of then-candidate, and now-President, Donald Trump’s alleged illegal interaction with Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton, there has been a lot of talk about starting new Trump investigations, all while serious national problems are left waiting for attention.

But the House has produced and passed one piece of legislation, H.R. 1, which the Democrat majority calls the “For the People Act.” It is intended “To expand Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.”

H.R. 1 has some potentially good features, if properly structured, such as reducing big money in politics.Money for political campaigns should come only from those who are eligible to vote for those candidates or measures on the ballot, and who will be directly affected by those elections. That includes businesses in districts where they actually operate, which should be able to make limited contributions.

However, H.R. 1 contains campaign-spending restrictions that benefit incumbents, including President Donald Trump. Why should incumbents receive favored status?

One poorly considered feature is that Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16. They argue that 16 year-olds are old enough to drive, get married, rent an apartment, work and pay taxes, therefore they are old enough to vote. However, that list contains things that are not universally allowed for 16 year-olds across the nation, and other things that require parental approval.

We are reminded that voting is a right. But it is also a serious responsibility; it should not be available to just anyone, or to everyone. Voting requires maturity, knowledge and forethought. Are 16 year-olds really mature enough, and knowledgeable enough to vote responsibly?

When the voting age was lowered from the age of majority – 21 years of age – to 18, the rationale was that anyone old enough to fight, be injured or perhaps die for their country is old enough to vote.

Whether one is capable of voting responsibly is not a question of age, but of preparation and maturity. At what age is someone adequately versed in the way our country is organized, and why it was designed that way? At what age are they knowledgeable enough about political issues and candidates?

Therefore, a better idea would be that someone 18, 19 or 20 who is actually serving in the military would be able to vote. Otherwise, that right and responsibility comes at age 21.

Some Democrats would go even farther in allowing unprepared and otherwise ineligible people to vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), for example, recently proposed a truly irresponsible idea. Citing what she termed the wondrous things immigrants bring to America, she said: “And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.” She left unaddressed the question of whether they are here legally or illegally.

Given the Democrats consistent obstruction of Trump’s efforts to halt the entry of thousands of illegal aliens across the southern border, it appears that she not only prefers no restriction on who comes into America, but also thinks that once here they should be able to vote in elections.

It is incomprehensible that so many actually think this idea is sensible. Many or perhaps most of those wanting to enter America are good people looking for a better life. But not all are. They need to prove they deserve to be admitted, before they come in, and not receive any benefits until they do.

Though not a part of H.R. 1, the Electoral College is a target of the Left. Many of them, still feeling the sting of defeat more than two years after the election, think it denied Clinton the presidency after she collected more of the popular vote than did Trump.

The Electoral College is an original element in the Founders’ design of the government, being addressed in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the way presidential elections are conducted. It was a brilliant element of our government’s structure.

In reality, Clinton lost because she ran a bad campaign, choosing not to campaign in some states that ended up voting red. This helps explain precisely why the Electoral College is necessary: because Americans who do not live on the coasts and in other population centers – who live in what is called “flyover country” – deserve something to balance their desires and electoral preferences against those of the population centers.

Ask yourself: Do we really want presidential candidates focusing only on New York, California and a few other highly populated places during campaigns, telling them what it takes to get their votes, and ignoring the rest of us? 

The Electoral College helps balance the electoral power of large states and large cities with the tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be at their mercy. It must be protected from the power seekers.

The people’s will is at risk from election fraud and carelessness

When the topic of election fraud comes up, a lot of people say there is not much of that, except for the Russians.

The problem is that there is a good bit of evidence for domestic election irregularities, and little or none for the Russians having had a real effect in 2016.

Two recent inconvenient items remind us just how real election fraud really is.

The first is especially inconvenient for Democrats, as a college student working as a staffer for Harrisonburg Votes, described as being affiliated with the Democrat Party in Harrisonburg, Va., gets jail time. 

James Madison University student Andrew J. Spieles will spend 100 days in jail for knowingly turning in false Virginia voter registration forms during the 2016 election containing the names of dead people and other faulty information.

And, a woman in the country legally, but a non-citizen, has been sentenced to eight years in prison and fined $5,000 for voting illegally five times over a period of years. Rosa Maria Ortega of Grand Prairie, Texas, was sentenced earlier this year for the 2^nd-degree felony.

Ortega had applied to vote in Tarrant County, but acknowledged she was not a citizen, and was turned down because she was not a citizen. Despite being told she was not eligible to vote in the United States, five months later, she applied again, claiming to be a citizen.

She did not vote in Tarrant County, but did vote in Dallas County, authorities say.

Four employees of the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) were arrested earlier this month in a scheme to produce false identification documents enabling illegal immigrants to vote in Boston. In addition to the employees of the RMV, people selling illegal documents were also arrested for selling Puerto Rico licenses and official state ID cards to illegal aliens.

According to the Department of Justice website in Massachusetts, the document dealer sold Puerto Rican birth certificates and U.S. Social Security cards to the document vendor for $900 who then sold the stolen identities for over $2,000 to clients seeking false identities in Massachusetts.

This fraud was only discovered when Massachusetts State Police received an anonymous letter telling them what was going on in the RMV.

In October of last year The Washington Times published a list of states where regularities have been found:

** Colorado discovered that dead people voted in elections in several different years.

** Illegals were found voting in Virginia, but were only discovered after they self-reported.

** In Pennsylvania 700 voters might have voted twice in recent elections, and 43,000 others potentially had duplicate registrations in Pennsylvania or in Pennsylvania and another state.

** The secretary of state’s office in Pennsylvania mailed about 2.5 million voter registration postcards to people who are not registered voters, but are licensed drivers.

** At least 86 non-citizens have been registered voters in Philadelphia since 2013.

** Allegations of voter fraud in Tarrant County, Texas, prompted a state investigation. Of concern are mail-in ballots, which allow for people to vote from their homes without any ID or verification of identity. And then they found so-called “vote-harvesting” where political operatives fill out and return other people’s ballots, without their consent.

** An Indiana voter fraud investigation grows to 56 counties where police believe there could be hundreds of fraudulent voter registration records with different combinations of made up names and addresses with people’s real information.

** Three people are under investigation in Oklahoma for voting twice in the presidential primary. All three submitted absentee ballots before showing up to their polling place on March 1 and voted again in person.

** Underage voters were found voting in Wisconsin’s presidential primary. This involves six under-age students that voted, and the election workers didn’t even check their birthdays on their IDs.

All of these examples are evidence of both dishonesty and incompetence, or at least carelessness.

So, there is no question that there is election fraud in the United States, but how serious a problem is it?

In a free country founded on following the will of the people, voting is of paramount importance. Without a clean and honest election system, the will of the people may be subverted.

It’s time we get serious about protecting elections from illegal voters and others who work to weaken its security, or who fail to do their jobs competently.

We are reminded frequently that voting is a right and it should be easy to vote. But voting is a solemn duty that must be properly supervised and operated.

One of the best ways to discourage voter fraud is requiring a photo ID obtained by proving eligibility to vote. A long list of everyday activities requires a photo ID, like buying liquor and cigarettes, but not voting. Many people oppose this helpful, common sense mechanism for one of the most important things people do.

They complain that somehow helping to assure only eligible voters can vote disenfranchises some people. But there are steps that correct that problem, and they are already in effect in many states.

Requiring a photo ID to vote is a necessary change, along with steps to help eligible voters register.

News media has abandoned honesty and integrity

The news media has been referred to as the “Fourth Estate” for a long time. Thomas Carlyle, in his book "On Heroes and Hero Worship," attributes the origin of the term to Sir Edmund Burke: "Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all." Burke believed the Fourth Estate to be far more important than the other estates because its job was informing the public of what Parliament was up to.

The high regard for the Fourth Estate carried over to the colonies, and when the United States was formed the work of what we now commonly refer to as the news media warranted protections in the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, because its function was viewed as essential to the republic and protected the purveyors of important information from those who might prefer their activities to not receive wide dissemination, and who might use the courts or other means to keep important information from being made public.

Where news media is concerned, the First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”

However, while the Constitution can protect the media from those who dislike it by guaranteeing its freedom to tell all it knows, it does not have the ability to enforce integrity, honesty and fairness on the media. Those qualities are expected to be organizational and personal, ingrained in news providers and students of journalism, who should be taught and adopt the ethics of journalism and practice them always.

People in certain positions in our society have the job and the duty to play it straight down the middle, without allowing whatever personal feelings they may have to enter into the performance of their job. Among these are referees and other sports officials; judges in legal proceedings and other adjudicatory activities; and the news media, the people who provide the public with the critical information necessary for people to be able to make informed decisions.

The mechanisms for defending news reporting remain intact, but sadly the same cannot be said for the ethical imperatives of news reporting, as is being demonstrated daily in the national media. The most glaring example of this lack of ethics and integrity is the coverage of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump vs. that of Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton.

One of many examples arose during the final presidential debate. When asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace if he would pledge to accept the results of the election, Trump’s answer was influenced by his oft-stated belief that the election system has many flaws, and he said, “I will look at it at the time.” Clinton slammed him for his answer, saying he is “undermining the pillar of our democracy,” the peaceful transfer of power.

Well, no, he was not. Who can really blame someone for wanting to wait until the election is over before deciding whether is was handled fairly? But Clinton’s position on that issue is much more highly favored by the media than Trump’s, so guess what the major news outlets told the world?

Things like this fire Trump’s claims that the news media are biased against him, and a new Quinnipiac University poll finds agreement among a majority of those polled. Fifty-five percent of likely voters agree the press is biased against Trump.

Earlier this month, Trump said some American soldiers “can't handle” the horrors of war, which causes their PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder). This statement was then distorted to suggest Trump disdains those who suffer PTSD.

This farcical misinterpretation was identified by Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, no great friend of Trump, who said: "The bias that is in the media. What he is saying is that some people, for whatever reason, and we really don’t understand why, suffer from PTSD, and others don’t.”

The news media's reaction to Trump’s PTSD comment appears to be the reaction of someone with an IQ south of 70, but we know that most media types are not stupid: Lack of intelligence is not the problem; media bias is the problem.

The media’s yearlong thinly disguised dislike for Trump has erupted into an open sore, and the collapse and disgracing of a critical component of our society is now inarguable. Attempting to justify this flagrant abandonment of professional ethics, New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg writes, “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that … That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, non-opinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

But some reporters, editors and producers regard Trump as so bad that normal standards no longer apply, and journalistic ethics that once were sacrosanct and provided a substantial measure of balance and fairness in news reporting have become obstacles to a media agenda.

One of the worst possible situations is when the source of critical public information abandons neutrality and takes sides. Like widespread corruption in government, widespread corruption in the information system is deadly to liberty.