Replies

The 2024 Election Is NOT About The Machines

The 2024 Steal is About Phantom Votes, Produced and Directed by the DOJ

https://miamiindependent.com/the-2024-election-is-not-about-the-machines/

Excerpt:

Recently, Obiden’s AG, Merrick Garland, scurried to Selma AL to make a speech. In a church, of course. Followers of Lucifer only go to houses of worship to make a point - or score points. It was pretty much as you might expect, but even more bold.

They’re desperate.

Garland openly stated that the DOJ was going to interfere with states’ rights in the 2024 voting.

He is getting the DOJ involved in those “discriminatory, unnecessary and burdensome restrictions to the ballot.” that exist in the states. You know, those restrictions like voter ID, citizenship, and registration requirements? Yeah, those.

States, of course, have the constitutional mandate to run everything “elections”, but this SCOTUS-reject, like most of the rest in DC right now, chooses to ignore our founding documents.

Two KEY points came out of Garland’s speech. NB:

First, The unelected government in DC is openly gearing up to interfere with our votes. They will bring the full force of their DOJ against the states. His reasons - “racial descrimination” (remember, he was in Selma) and difficulty of access to voting, thus the need for mail-in voting, ballot harvesting (left unsaid) and drop boxes. Blah, blah, blah.

Also, the illegal government in DC is desperate to have their invading armies vote. Many thousands have already been registered, citizenship be damned.

Second, The most important part of what Garland revealed was the DOJ/Globalist focus on the voter and NOT the machines. DO NOT MISS THIS CHANGE! It is the key to securing our vote.

For years, the Globalists focused on the machines, and how they were “hacked” by foreign powers. They used “election security” as a ruse to attach nearly every county in the country to the DHS with Albert Sensors. Under the auspices of the CIS (Center for Internet Security) The data which flows from little Albert, unbeknownst to county election officials, goes to a DHS facility hidden away in upstate NY, manned 24/7 by 300+ workers. They get our personal information 24/7/365. WHY do they need this? Frankly, I think Albert is part of the surveillance state. Just sayin’…

Few, if any county election officials even know of Albert because it is behind their firewall and invisible to them. Forget the BS about your vote in your state is not connected to the internet.

The OBiden criminals’ plan is to take control of this well-spring of phantom voters, found in mail-in’s, drop boxes, ballot harvesting, unregistered and NON-CITIZEN VOTERS. Will little Albert help? My guess is, quite probably.

Whether it’s Albert with his hidden connections; ERIC (Becker’s Electronic Registration Information Center) and its millions of phantom registrants, or any other toadie, human or computerized, KNOW THIS >>> The enemy is telling us that THIS is how the next election will be stolen. It’s people not machines.

Garland is doubling the number of legal wind-up dolls in his employ, for his”Election Threats Task Force”, as he begins to “signal intent to intrude on states’ authority”, says the Indiana AG, Todd Rokita, who wrote a letter of “concern” to Garland, following the Selma speech, which letter was signed by 15 other state AG’s.

.....The lawyers and other reptiles know the machines have been PROVEN insecure by the work of Professor David Clements, his wife, Erin, and top-line machine security professionals like Clay Parikh. Watch Let My People Go, or buy it and share it with neighbors and friends. Talk about “eye-opening”. Undeniable proof of the insecurity of our voting machinery.

.....Jurski, FRA Election Integrity VP, for example, has found and removed over 1 million phantoms from the roles in Florida. There, it was about addresses, being used as play-toys with which to cheat. His computer program now is run monthly, on each county.

The DOJ knows that the insecure voting machines have been “outed” by these tireless patriots. The Globalist enemy hopes, though, that lots more time and money will be wasted by others, looking at the voting machines and vying among themselves for attention, while the Globalist cabal switch focus to promoting drop boxes, mail-in voting, ballot harvesting - horribly in concert with the RNC - and same-day registration, without proof of citizenship. The RNC, in all of their attitudinal ignorance, has fallen in step, promoting ballot harvesting, and extra lawyers at polling places. Do they think we don’t NOTICE??

If you feel betrayed by this RNC, millions of us share your frustration and anger. We can and must REPLACE THEM, in as many towns, counties, and states as possible. Forming your own strong active citizens’ groups is THE answer, moving forward. It can and IS BEING DONE by the Republican Assemblies nationwide. Florida (FRA) is taking the lead.

.....Last - but certainly not least - please note the state AG’s who did NOT sign the letter to Garland. Missing were the “GOOD RED STATES” of Florida, TN, SD, OK, and others. Do they agree with Garland? Are they afraid to disagree? Or don’t they want to blow their conservative cover? Everyone in a state that chose silence on this, should call/email their AG immediately. Inquiring minds deserve to know. Our freedom is on the line here.

Link to referenced letter from Indiana AG:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:dcca0813-4b35-4853-8252-b288a7a957b8

Synopsis of referenced letter:

Dear Attorney General Garland: We, the Attorneys General of Indiana, West Virginia, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah, write to you today to address the concerning comments you made on Sunday, March 3, 2024, at the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama regarding our country’s elections and election security laws passed by the states.1 In your speech, you claimed that democracy is under attack by “discriminatory, burdensome, and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot.”2 In response to these allegations, you announced that you “double[d] the number of lawyers in the civil rights division” and “launched the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force,”3 signaling your intent to intrude on our states’ authority. Your actions in the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) amount to a weaponization of the DOJ against the states, and your views about elections are not only a serious threat to the principles of federalism and separation of powers, but also to democracy and the rule of law.

The Constitution explicitly reserves to the states the primary role of establishing “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” Const. Art. I, § IV. “‘[T]he Framers of the constitution intended the States to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections.’” See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 461-62, (1991) (citing Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 124-25 (1970)). The Framers left our election process in the hands of the people through their elected representatives at the state level, thereby making the regulation of elections a sovereign duty and right for the states.4 Further, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] State indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006) (per 1Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Deliver Remarks on Bloody Sunday at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, Office of Public Affairs U.S. Department of Justice (Mar. 3, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-deliver-remarks-bloody-sundaytabernacle-baptist. 2Id. 3Id. 4See THE FEDERALIST No. 59 (Alexander Hamilton). 1 curiam). Any subversion of these clear mandates would be undermining our Constitution and law and order. And we think your remarks undermine these principles in a few ways.

First, in your remarks, you stated that voter ID is an “unnecessary restriction[] on access to the ballot.”5 On the contrary, voter ID laws prevent voter fraud by stopping those who attempt to impersonate others at the polls. In 2005, Indiana led the charge to preserve election integrity by implementing the first-in-the-nation voter ID law, which requires in-person voters to present a valid government-issued photo ID to vote. Interest groups challenged the law in order to see Indiana’s elections devolve into unsecure contests with winners being chosen by anyone, not just those legally eligible to vote. However, the United States Supreme Court held that voter ID laws were constitutional and did not impose a burden on the electorate. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 200-02 (2008). The Court stated that the states have a “broad interest[] in protecting election integrity.” Id. With both the Supreme Court’s approval and 80% of Americans supporting Voter ID,6 36 other states—including West Virginia—have followed Indiana’s example.7

Voter fraud and voter impersonation is very real. For instance, in 2014, “Rosa Maria Ortega, a non-citizen, was found guilty on two counts of voter fraud for voting in the November 2012 general election and the 2014 Republican primary runoff.”8 Frederick Gattuso was charged with one count of fraudulent voting in New Jersey because he voted twice during the November 2020 presidential election as different people with similar names.9 In 2022, Krista Michelle Connor plead guilty to one count of felony attempted illegal voting in Arizona after signing and casting an early mail in ballot in the name of her mother who passed away prior to the 2020 general election.10

With these repeated instances of voter fraud, the DOJ should be championing these laws and encouraging enforcement of them. Individuals are required to use an ID to prove identity when driving a car, boarding an airline, buying cigarettes, or purchasing alcohol, and none of these identification requirements are considered “discriminatory”11 or “burdensome.”12 Requiring an ID to vote in an election is no different.

Second, you claim states have imposed “unnecessary restrictions” related to absentee voting, including “mail-in voting” and “the use of drop boxes.”13 Numerous security risks exist with mail-in voting and drop boxes, and these methods of voting have led to the proliferation of election fraud.14 For instance, surveillance videos of a Connecticut woman stuffing papers into an absentee ballot box in a mayoral primary has led to an investigation by election officials.15 If election fraud at drop boxes occurs for small, local mayoral primary races, then it’s likely the same type of fraud occurs during state-wide and federal elections at those same drop boxes. In another case, a woman was convicted for a voter fraud scheme in Iowa in November of 2023.16 She “submitted or caused others to submit dozens of voter registrations, absentee ballot request forms, and absentee ballots containing false information” as well as “signed voter forms without voters’ permission and told others that they could sign on behalf of relatives who were not present.”17 In still another case, a West Virginia mail carrier was convicted after he was found to have altered the party affiliation on several absentee ballot request forms.18 And that was certainly not the first time absentee ballots had been used to manipulated elections just in West Virginia; for instance, Democrat officials in Lincoln County, West Virginia were convicted of falsifying absentee ballots in a vast election scheme years before.19

These incidents demonstrate that election security laws passed by the states are necessary to curb election fraud, especially for absentee voting. States have the right to regulate mail-in and absentee voting. .......

The Seventh Circuit found that Indiana’s absentee voting statute and common-sense restrictions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Id at 616-17. The court further stressed that the fundamental right to vote does not extend to a claimed right to cast an absentee ballot by mail, but rather that the fundamental right to vote is protected. Id at 611; see also McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners of Chicago 394 U.S. 802, 807 (1969). An individual has the right to vote, but they do not have the right to vote in their preferred manner of choice. .......

As shown, absentee voting can lead to fraud. In the 2005 bi-partisan commission report “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,”21 former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker noted that “[a]bsentee balloting is vulnerable to abuse” and could lead to voting “pressure, overt [or] subtle, or to [voter] intimidation.”22 The Commission recommended that states “reduce the risks of fraud and abuse in absentee voting by prohibiting ‘third-party’ organizations, candidates, and political party activists from handling absentee ballots” and that states should “make sure that absentee ballots received by election officials before Election Day are kept secure until they are opened and counted.”23 No wonder, then, that so many States (including Indiana and West Virginia) have refused to adopt so-called “no-excuse” absentee voting.24

.....The Voting Rights Act is not under attack. Election security measures passed by state governments do not “make voting more difficult,” nor are they dismantling the right to vote.27 Instead, common sense election laws strengthen our electoral process to ensure free and fair elections are conducted among the states; especially since voter fraud does exist. The Heritage Foundation alone documented over 1,500 proven instances of voter fraud.28 It is critical that we continue to ensure that our elections are safe and secure for those who possess the legal right to vote.

In reality, the right to vote is under fire in our country by certain radical elected officials. Numerous states and localities have passed laws allowing aliens to vote in certain elections, including New York City,29 San Francisco,30 and Washington D.C.31.......Radical politicians would rather dilute the vote of those who can legally vote in favor of those who cannot. Even so, the United States banned noncitizens from voting in federal elections in 1996.33

Finally, as you mention, the Department of Justice is “fighting back” against these commonsense election security measures passed by the states in numerous ways.35 You touted “doubl[ing] the number of lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division” and “launched the Department’s Election Threats Task Force.”36 The DOJ’s expansion serves as a direct attack on the states’ role in regulating elections. Instead of working with the states to secure elections, you suggest weaponizing the DOJ through the civil rights division to undermine anything that you subjectively believe is a “threat [to] democracy.”37 Instead of guaranteeing that each legal and eligible vote counts, your goal seems to be to expand the Democrat party votes. And by using the justice system in this way, you diminish any democratic principles you claim to defend.

Across the country, the 2020 general election generated mass confusion and distrust in the system. Public confidence in our election system is at record low.38 By using the DOJ against the states, you continue to sow the seeds of distrust among the American electorate. The DOJ has no authority to dictate to the states in matters that concern their sovereign right to ensure safe, secure, and free elections. Although we do not know exactly the strategy the DOJ intends to take with its numerous election attorneys, we intend to vigorously defend our election laws. We will not allow intimidation and fearmongering to supersede the will of the people.