Hillary. Projecting.

Hillary Clinton: “Right-Wing Extremists Already Have A Plan To Literally Steal The Next Presidential Election”

If she were serious, and constrained by logic, she would be supporting some voting process which would:

    1) Ensure every voter is a) a citizen, b) who they say they are, c) not deceased, d) registered in a single state (yes, c and d are redundant with b, but Jocelyn Benson isn’t the only Dem SecState who had to be sued to purge voter rolls of dead people);

    2) Ensure ballot integrity. Meaning a) no illegitimate vote (see 1) is counted, b) polling places are closely monitored by both major parties without interference, c) voting machine software is open source, d) no unsolicited mail in ballots are sent (for example, to the P.O Boxes of vacant lots), e) ballot harvesting is outlawed, f) military ballots are counted, if properly postmarked, in any state where the number of military personnel could potentially change the outcome, even when delivered a month after election day.

That would be, literally, a good start on stopping ‘election theft.’ The only thing on that list about which reasonable might disagree is voter ID.

Therein lies a problem. Some of the people putatively portrayed as reasonable by the legacy media (Stacy Abrams, Joe Biden), still invoke Jim Crow laws as a reason to suppress the votes of living citizens by insisting deceased and/or non-citizens have a right to dilute legitimate voter rolls.

We are substantially past the Jim Crow era.

On the other hand, we are not past ballot fraud. Technology and the relaxing of ballot verification have made it easier than ever. No one worried about ‘election theft’ would countenance it. Much less promote it.

I won’t go into the simple utilitarian argument that voter ID is a much smaller threat to the Republic (it is not a Democracy) than violating the other restraints I have mentioned. You could look this up and form your own opinion.

Given Hillary’s history, do you think her advice is credible? Or is it partisan political maneuvering and personal spite?

Let’s hear your proposal, Ms. Rodham. Does it involve Sid “Vicious” Blumnenthal as Federal Election Czar?

The pre-theft of election plots, like suppression of the Hillary email story, and the Hunter Biden laptop story, is left to another post.

Voters less likely to vote for Obama are less equal than others.

Obama campaign sues Ohio over early voting law for military

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have filed a lawsuit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier.

If you’re a Seal Team 6 member from Ohio, Obama thanks you for your usefulness in campaign propaganda service, but he doesn’t think you’re mature enough to vote.

He’s not the first Democrat to attempt this, of course. So did AlGore.

I suppose the rationale is that military voters already have picture ID’s, so they should lose their franchise, no matter their superficial melanin content. Anything else would be racist.

ID This

Flying requires an ID and a State-sanctioned groping, so it’s hard to figure why casting a vote should not require you to at least identify yourself. But in Attorney General Eric Holder’s opinion showing an ID to vote is a “racial burden.” Of course, he also thinks complaints regarding his own prevarications about supplying guns to Mexican drug gangs are racist. He wants to limit you to purchasing one handgun per month, but voting more than once is not to be hindered.

Requiring ID has a history of being used to keep blacks from owning firearms. Since voting and owning a gun are Constitutional rights, Eric Holder should advocate disbanding BATFE, a clearly racist organization by his own definition.

If it’s OK to require ID and registration to buy a gun, a clearly Constitutional right, why should voters not have ID? Which is most dangerous to the Republic, flying without ID, unlicensed guns or voter fraud?