Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Legislation to Ban Ballot Harvesting

Ballot harvesting is a voting related practice that allows paid political operatives to collect an unlimited number of ballots and subsequently deliver them into the hands of election officials.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, recently introduced legislation called The Election Fraud Prevention Act, which if passed would effectively slow down or even put a halt to ballot harvesting.

The legislation could potentially be in effect in time for November’s all-important 2020 presidential election.

When Rep. Gabbard made a run for the Oval Office during the Democratic presidential primaries, the public learned that she was a proud member of the Army National Guard, having served in two Middle East deployments. Currently, she is a major in the Army Reserves.

Rep. Gabbard’s proposed legislation, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis, R-IL, would amend a 2002 act, and if passed would deny certain federal payments to states that permit ballot harvesting.

This type of reform could go a long way in helping to prevent a particularly heinous kind of corruption of the electoral process.

If ballot harvesting remains in place, or worse, if its use becomes widespread across the country, special interest groups that are aligned with a particular candidate or political party may be able to manipulate the results of legitimate elections.

As Rep. Gabbard noted in a statement, “While some states have prohibited vote harvesting, many states lack any regulations that would stop third-parties from fraudulently collecting and mishandling ballots as has occurred in recent elections.”

The bi-partisan bill, if passed, will incentivize states to prevent political parties or outside special interest groups from, in Rep. Gabbard’s words, “interfering with our sacred right to vote.”

The bill would still allow voters in need of assistance to obtain it from household members, relatives, and caregivers, as well as election officials and mail carriers who are acting in an official capacity.

Ballot harvesting is one-half of a voting scheme that Democrats have already used to effect election outcomes. Universal mail-in voting completes the insidious circle.

Both practices involve the use of unreliable and erroneous voter rolls, which are then used to send out ballots that can eventually be picked up by paid harvesters.

Data show serious problems with existing voter rolls. There are 24 million ineligible or inaccurate voter registrations on state voter rolls; this according to the Pew Research Center.

There is also the question of the reliability of the post office in its capacity to promptly, accurately, and effectively deliver the ballots. According to federal election data, during the six years between 2012 and 2018, more than 28 million mail-in ballots went missing.

Ballot harvesting lays out a virtual blueprint for voter fraud.

There is a built-in disregard for the time-honored secret ballot. There are multiple opportunities for ballots to be filled out under untoward influence, duress, and/or even coercion, all at the hands of unaccountable harvesters.

In the event voters happen to be of a different party than their assigned harvesters, it becomes easy for any number of ballots to be collected but never rightfully delivered.

Californians, of which I am one, can recount for all who are willing to listen the shocking scenario of the 2018 mid-term elections.

In 10 congressional races, Republican candidates were the clear election night winners. Then within days, or for some races weeks, the results of all 10 races were reversed, and the Democrat candidates were proclaimed to be the winners. This was the first time ballot harvesting was used in the Golden State, and its reverberations are still being felt.

Ballot harvesting used to be illegal everywhere. In a sign that there’s still hope for our cherished system, the state of Utah has made the practice a crime. And recently a federal judge upheld a Michigan law that disallowed ballot harvesting. A Democrat aligned super PAC, Priorities USA, had filed suit to preserve the corrosive practice.

However, things are different in Nevada, where a new ballot harvesting provision was recently passed along with a universal mail-in voting system.

Every state, including Nevada, had previously prohibited any non-family member from turning in another individual’s absentee or mail ballot. But The Silver State’s Democrat-controlled legislature used a night session and party-line vote to pass a measure that allows a ballot harvester to actually sign ballots on behalf of another.

Nevada’s new legislation also allows vote counting to continue for a period of up to three days after Election Day, giving paid harvesters additional time to go out on a ballot gathering spree.

Nevada’s Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak signed the misguided legislation into law.

Making himself look even worse, Gov. Sisolak summarily rejected a request by Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske that would have required anyone who was collecting and turning in ballots for more than 10 voters to register and provide their contact information.

So go California and Nevada, so goes the nation?

Not if enough people make their voices heard and show support for the legislation that Rep. Gabbard has introduced.

Netflix Descends into the Child Porn Business

The giant streaming company Netflix acquired a French film at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. It turned out to be a very bad purchase.

The film is the debut work of a French director who won a best directing award at Sundance. The truth is, the film should never have won any kind of an award or ever have made it to the screen in the first place.

Why? Because it is actually child pornography.

The movie features a main character named Amy, who in a rebellious act against her Muslim parents joins a school dance troupe of 11-year-olds known as “Cuties,” hence the title of the film.

Among other sordid things in the film, young girls dressed in provocative outfits are shown engaging in highly erotic dance moves known as “twerking.”

During the lead-up to its release, the movie’s promotional materials included a poster that displayed the pre-teen dancers in various exploitive poses. Backlash to the movie poster on social media and elsewhere was immediate and explosive.

In August of 2020, Netflix apologized and quickly tried to switch tracks. It came out with a revised film poster that displayed a colorful backdrop and cast members who were more appropriately attired.

Netflix’s apology was largely an admission that the movie poster had crossed the line. Still, the company continued to insist that there was no problem with the film itself.

This would turn out to be a blatant lie.

The Internet Movie Database puts out a guide for parents that warns of sexual scenes in “Cuties,” which, among other things, luridly expose parts of the children’s bodies.

The public has now been left with the impression that a portion of the entertainment industry and news media is attempting to mainstream this form of sexualized content.

The Telegraph has awarded the film four out of five stars. And the New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum is claiming that the movie has been taken “out of context.” In her words, it merely “critiques just what its haters think it supports.”

Meanwhile the film has triggered an online petition as well as a trending Twitter hashtag, #CancelNetflix.

The salacious nature of the movie has prompted a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers to call for the Justice Department to take legal action against Netflix for its streaming of the film. Included in the congressional group are Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

“Like any parent, I find ⁦@netflix⁩ decision to peddle child pornography disgusting. And it’s criminal. ⁦@TheJusticeDept⁩ should take swift action,” Sen. Cotton tweeted.

Sen. Cruz joined the group with his own letter to Attorney General William Barr, noting that the film “sexualizes young girls, including through dance scenes that simulate sexual activities and a scene exposing a minor’s bare breast.” The Texas senator urged the Justice Department to find out whether the company, its executives, or other involved individuals violated “any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography.”

Sen. Hawley sent a letter to Netflix Co-CEO Reed Hastings requesting the removal of “Cuties” from the on-demand platform. He noted that “depicting children being coached to engage in simulated sexual acts, for cameras both onscreen and off…raises major questions of child safety and exploitation, including the possibility of copycat behavior and exploitation of child actors.”

Rep. Banks told the Daily Caller, “Not only is this movie fodder for pedophiles, it encourages very young girls to defy their parents’ wishes and share pornographic images of themselves with strangers.”

Banks added that the“DOJ should be readying charges against Netflix for distribution of child pornography.”

Rep. Gabbard indicated on Twitter that the film could “whet the appetite of pedophiles & help fuel the child sex trafficking trade.” She additionally posted, “Netflix, you are now complicit. #CancelNetflix.”

There has been a long-held belief in our country that the physical and psychological well-being of our children must be protected. As a result, we have passed laws to shield children from being used to produce sexually provocative materials.

It is important to distinguish, however, the manner in which adult pornography and child pornography have been and still are being treated by the courts.

Adult pornography is generally protected speech, unless it is ruled to be obscene.

Child pornography is in category all its own. The first law to ban commercial child pornography was passed in the late 1970s. Subsequently, in 1982, the Supreme Court held child pornography, even if not deemed to be obscene, is not worthy of First Amendment protection.

During the 1990s, nineteen states had laws on their books prohibiting child pornography possession. Today every state in the country has such a law.

According to law, any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor is child pornography.

“Cuties” fits the description completely. The film features scenes depicting children in ways that are nauseatingly explicit.

Unfortunately, Netflix persists in trying to justify the unjustifiable. The streaming service is attempting to put forth the argument that “Cuties” is somehow a “social commentary” that is just trying to alert people to the issue of the sexualization of young children.

This is duplicitous and only serves to further endanger children while filling the company’s wallet with the filthiest of profit.

“Cuties” remains on the streaming service but is currently accompanied by footage that features the director explaining why it was made.

Netflix is defending the film and urging critics to watch it.

Don’t do it. The viewing of child porn can make one an accomplice.

Netflix is an internet based company. Its leaders know that people who wish to harm children operate online.

In its doubling down on this vile piece of cinema, here’s hoping that Netflix has just cancelled itself.

How Mail-in Voting Will Ruin Elections Forever

Lord Acton’s quote gave birth to a paraphrase that seems to perfectly capture what we have all seen happen to so many that have risen to power and are subsequently left to their own devices: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our founders were wise enough to place within our system of government a number of checks and balances.

What they may not have anticipated, though, is that there would have been a moral breakdown in segments of the country. This would eventually result in having more individuals than not in leadership positions, whose personal ethical components had been compromised and whose internal check and balance systems had essentially been wiped out.

With regard to our governmental system, the number one check and balance, bar none, is a free and fair election. But over the course of the past several years, concurrent with the aforementioned moral breakdown, there has been a deliberate chipping away of our system’s self-policing mechanism.

The perpetrator that is largely to blame for the deterioration that has occurred is none other than the Democratic Party.

Democrats have a bad habit of giving lip service to the whole concept of democracy, while behind the scenes they are doing everything possible to undermine its very essence.

For example, when it comes to implementing anything that might help eliminate voter fraud, such as cleaning up the voter rolls, requiring voters to show IDs before casting ballots, etc., they fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.

At the same time they persist in trying to implement things that are tailor-made for voter fraud, including early voting, late voting, pop-up voting centers, same day registration, and scores of other schemes.

Democrats also keep trying to hand out voting privileges to anyone who will join their latest election pick-up game, including non-citizens, felons, and even those who have already exited their earthly home.

Along with their buddies in the media, Democrats have been massaging the public psyche to sign-on to the notion that voting ballots for the upcoming November election should be sent out willy-nilly to everyone.

Hyping concerns over COVID-19, they are trying to convince everyone that in-person voting would be hazardous to your health and the health of your neighbors. Therefore, you are supposed to conclude that the smartest thing to do this election-go-round would be to just have everyone vote by mail.

A few stats are helpful in bringing truth to light. According to data from the Election Assistance Commission, between 2012 and 2018, over 28 million mail-in ballots went missing.

In Spring of 2020 about 20 percent of the mailed absentee ballots in a municipal election in Paterson, New Jersey, were rejected due to fraud concerns.

And in June of 2020, New York City botched the handling of an unduly large amount of mail-in ballots.

Mail-in ballots are a setup for the implementation of another strategy that was crafted by the Democratic Party. It’s called “ballot harvesting,” and it is designed to disenfranchise certain Americans from their voting rights, namely those who align with an opposing party.

It allows third parties to be paid to gather mail-in, absentee, and/or other types of ballots on behalf of voters, and then deliver the ballots to election officials. It’s not hard to spot the problems that can and will inevitably occur with a strategy like this in place.

Because having third parties who are paid to go out and gather ballots is a formula for fraud, the practice of ballot harvesting has been outlawed almost everywhere in the country.

But interestingly in 2016, California quietly legalized a version of ballot harvesting that permitted any person to collect an unlimited amount of mail-in ballots and receive compensation for their efforts.

Then when the mid-term elections of 2018 took place, several Republican congressmen in Orange County ended up losing their House seats. And Nancy got her gavel back.

Nevada recently passed legislation during a night session. The vote tally ended up following strict party lines. Universal mail-in balloting, along with a ballot harvesting provision that follows the California model of allowing third parties to collect ballots, passed.

Same as California, the Nevada version imposes no limit on how many ballots can be collected. But Nevada’s version goes even further. It allows an individual to sign a ballot on another’s behalf.

Here’s the bottom line. Universal mail-in voting works as the opening act for ballot harvesting. Once the mail-in ballots are sent out, harvesters can go out to the homes of voters and collect ballots.

Some ballots may be blank. No problem, they can be completed later. If ballots are filled out, operatives are in a position to discard the ones of an opposing party. This can be done without any accountability. No checks, no balance.

Here’s the dastardly duo: mail-in voting and ballot harvesting.

We need to do everything we can to bar the polling place doors from these evil twins.

Otherwise free and fair elections will become a thing of the past.

Culture Is Politics and Vice Versa

rs-143230-rectangle

Andrew Breitbart once famously said, “Politics is downstream from culture.”

What Andrew was conveying is the idea that changes manifested in the culture will likely produce parallel changes in politics.

I myself contend that the country has changed so dramatically, the culture is now inseparable from politics and politics is inseparable from the culture. In other words, culture is politics and politics is culture.

There is no place in which the culture has been kept sequestered from the political, and likewise there is no place in which the political has been kept at arm’s length from the culture. In a very real sense it has taken on an eerily seamless quality.

An additional aspect that has affected the political-cultural relationship is the social media. In its advent, social media literally took the nation by storm. People, though, were too busy living through an immersion experience for the records to fully realize the unprecedented phenomenon it truly was.

Then there is the whole notion of search engines. These are the vehicles that enable us to gain access to the storehouses of information contained on the internet.

We all know that the use of digital devices has exploded. To millions of people, it feels as though these mini-computers are extensions of our bodies. If denied them for any length of time, the psyche may operate as though a piece is somehow missing and experience digital deprivation anxiety in the process.

And so it is that we find ourselves racing headlong into a confluence of digital forces. How were we to know that the power to control digital life itself would ultimately be concentrated in the hands of a few select individuals who run the Big Tech companies?

This year COVID lockdowns and woke content altered the way in which Americans consumed their digital amusement. Some eye-opening ratings help to tell the tale.

Recently, The New York Times took a hiatus from attacking the president long enough to notice that a watershed moment was taking place in the viewing habits of a central medium of our age—television.

While under COVID house arrest, the prime-time viewing audience preferred to watch one network over all of the others. The network of choice was none other than the oft-maligned Fox News.

This constituted a major shift of the culture, so much so that even the Times felt compelled to report it.

It is not surprising that Fox News would be on top when compared to other cable news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC. Fox has dominated this space for 18 years running.

But for Fox News to become the preferred prime-time destination over the increasingly woke broadcast and cable entertainment offerings? This was unexpected and turned out to be downright scary for the left.

“In June and July, Fox News was the highest-rated television channel in the prime-time hours of 8 to 11 p.m. Not just on cable. Not just among news networks. All of television. The average live Fox News viewership in those hours outstripped cable rivals like CNN, MSNBC and ESPN, as well as the broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC, according to Nielsen,” the Times reported.

“That three-hour slot is a narrow but significant slice of TV real estate, and it is exceedingly rare for a basic-cable channel to outrank the Big Three broadcasters, which are available in more households and offer a wider variety of programming,” the Times added.

“Even the return of live sports did little to stop the momentum: The Fox News programs hosted by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity drew more live viewers than competing baseball and basketball games, including a Yankees-Nationals matchup on Opening Day,” the Times said.

Fox News is a place where folks can uniquely experience a pushback against virtually all of the other media outlets. They also get treated to a healthy dose of American exceptionalism.

In the past, the formation of American culture, even when dominated by the left, was still occurring in a free market environment. This is what we know as the American model, the one that allows more innovation and creativity than any other governmental approach ever has.

But now we see signs that our nation is moving towards a new model, one that embraces authoritarianism and seeks to implement a political agenda.

It is an emerging totalitarian model in which elected leaders impose selective lockdowns and arbitrary mandates using public health as a pretext. A model in which the same elected leaders allow, facilitate, and even cheer on criminal, insurrectionist, and terrorist acts. A model that encourages the erasure of national history, heritage, and identity in order to fit a far-left narrative.

Most tragically, it is an emerging totalitarian model that looks more like the Chinese communist system of governance than anything previously associated with the United States of America.

Chief Justice Roberts’s Rogue Ruling Pattern

Supreme Court

As the final arbiter on the rule of law, The Supreme Court has always been a part of presidential campaigns to some extent. But this time around the issue has been catapulted to front and center.

For the last eight years one individual has played a pivotal role in some of the most significant societal-altering decisions that have come down from the High Court. That lone figure is Chief Justice John Roberts.

The past term is one in which Justice Roberts seems to have shed any trace of conservative jurisprudence. But for a while now he has regularly sided with leftists members of the High Court. Evidently, Vice President Mike Pence felt the need to speak out on the subject.

“Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” the vice president recently told David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He then had the guts to say something out loud that a whole lot of people had been feeling.

“… Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives — whether it be the Obamacare decision, or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel,” Vice President Pence said.

With the Supreme Court firmly on the electoral radar, it seems as though it is 2016 all over again. But now it appears as if there’s even more at stake for the country.

In June of 2020, President Donald Trump pledged to unveil a new list of potential justices ahead of November’s general election.

“He did that [an unveiling] in 2016. He kept his word,” Vice President Pence said of President Trump’s list. “He’s going to do that in the fall of 2020, and in the next four years, he’ll keep his word and appoint more principled conservatives to our courts.”

It goes without saying that the vice president’s criticism of the chief justice is completely warranted. All anyone has to do is look at the series of appalling rulings that have piled up at the feet of Justice Roberts. Over and over again he has chosen to side with left-leaning Democrat appointees to the High Court.

Curiously, Justice Roberts’s rogue tendencies began to surface in 2012. He facilitated the High Court’s upholding of Obamacare when, as the swing vote and writer for the majority, he penned an opinion using a contorted rationale that was almost totally devoid of legal reasoning.

He framed the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate as a “tax” even though the Obama administration had never even argued that the mandate was a tax.

In 2019 Justice Roberts voted with the far-left justices to reject a restriction on the overly powerful federal bureaucracy. This enabled federal agencies to continue to interpret their own regulations.

In another case, for no apparent legal reason Justice Roberts again joined with liberal justices, this time to invalidate a 2020 census citizenship question.

In the most recent term, Justice Roberts appears to have put the pedal to the metal in his judicial activism. He voted with left-leaning justices in adding the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s workforce protections.

The chief justice also went renegade when he struck down President Trump’s executive order that canceled a previous Obama administration executive order that was illegal. This ended up allowing the program called the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to continue.

Justice Roberts also joined the leftist justices in preventing the citizens of Louisiana from implementing a duly passed law that would have required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. He claimed that he really didn’t want to vote with the liberals on this one. His excuse, in effect, was that precedent made him do it.

Four years ago Justice Roberts dissented from the majority ruling in a case that had similar facts. In his current concurring opinion, he writes, “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided.”

In a case that may come to haunt Justice Roberts in the future, he joined with the far-left justices in rejecting a Nevada church’s request to block the state’s COVID cap on church attendees. The disregard that was on display with respect to the Constitution was obvious to legal scholars as well as everyday folks.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was able to refute the legal gymnastics of the majority with a single paragraph dissent.

“…the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

Reacting to the decision, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted, “John Roberts has abandoned his oath. But, on the upside, maybe Nevada churches should set up craps tables? Then they could open?”

Many court watchers have speculated about what could be motivating Justice Roberts to move so far leftward.

The truth is it doesn’t really matter.

With the track record that he has laid down, it is clear that he is willing to play the role of unelected legislator for cases that have a huge impact on society, cases involving the power of the administrative state, the right to life, and the right of free religious expression.

As the vice president stated, these shameful extrajudicial decisions “are a reminder of just how important this [November 2020] election is for the future of the Supreme Court.”

This is especially true since Justice Roberts can’t be voted out of office. The only practical way his now-established rogue ruling pattern can be offset is to elect a president who will appoint justices that revere the Constitution and adhere to it.

That would be President Donald J.Trump.

Tables Turn as Bibles Burn

burnbibles_0

Good folks all over the place are so tired of being told that what’s been going on in cities like Portland and Seattle are peaceful protests.

Instead of trying to understand the wobbly language that’s being bandied about, the better route is to take a long hard look at what’s actually happening.

For more than two months street thugs armed with rifles, lasers, bombs, flame throwers, swords, spears, and an assorted array of sick weaponry have terrorized to the hilt average everyday people.

Meanwhile Democratic Party hacks and their media toadies give attaboys to the perpetrators. They insist that there’s no violence going on anywhere. They while away their leisure lockdown hours plotting ways in which they can torment their political enemies. And cruelest of all, they turn a deaf ear to folks who cry in the dark for help that never comes.

Here’s a little animal tale to ponder.

Early in June while on a walk through the park some Portland police came across a pig that had fallen asleep on the ground. The officers took to Twitter to see if the pig’s owner could be located. A photo of the little guy was displayed on the official police page along with a phone number and message that encouraged a happy reunion.

The presence of the animal in the park would be an eerie foreshadowing of something insidious that would take place about a month and a half later.

Last week rioters sent yet another symbolic message of the appalling kind. They set a pig’s head on fire. Atop the animal’s head was a police hat. An American flag completed the smoldering scene.

As if an incinerated pig’s head in police attire and a torched American flag didn’t assault the psyche enough, footage of another ugly event was posted on the internet. It showed participants, who were wielding Black Lives Matter signs and being cheered on by bystanders, happily hurling stacks of Bibles onto a blazing bonfire.

Providentially, Twitter user Ian Miles Cheong would catch the whole thing on tape.

Burning books is very much a specialty of fascists. The Nazis did it in the 1930s. But burning the Holy Bible? Even in fallen away corners this is not going to sit well.

Guess it should have been apparent though, considering the recent comments made by BLM activist Shaun King, who used a series of Twitter posts to urge the destruction of images and statues of Jesus Christ, his Blessed Mother Mary, and other figures from scripture.

“Yes I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy,” King tweeted.

King also posted that “white Jesus is a lie” and is a “tool of white supremacy,” which in King’s words was created to help white people use Christianity as a “tool of oppression.”

King then wrote that all of the Christian imagery should be taken down, including “murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends.”

It was inevitable, being the Marxist-based global organizations they are, that BLM, Antifa, and like-minded radicals would attempt to defile, denigrate, and destroy the biblical message and its mystical messengers. After all, Judeo-Christian scriptures hold within them the very ideas upon which America in particular, and the whole of Western civilization in general, are built.

The Bible has often been viewed by the left with contempt, and for good reason. A government based on the Rule of Law, which sprang forth from laws transcribed by Moses and enshrined in the Ten Commandments, frequently prompts negative reactions on the part of those who are threatened by absolutes.

Donald Trump Jr. used his Twitter account to comment on the recent Bible burning.

“Now we move to the book burning phase. I’m pretty sure ANTIFA doesn’t actually stand for what they say it stands for. Maybe just remove the anti part of [its] name and it’s perfect,” Trump Jr. posted.

Organizations lurking behind the aforementioned street thugs are hell-bent on destruction.

Like all of the committed Marxists before them, the “utopian” world they seek can only exist when freedom dies.

The Bible is Truth. Truth will set you free. Freedom is forever.