California’s San Bernadino County to Vote on Secession from State

There is no doubt that a political divide has occurred in our nation, one that is greater than most folks could have anticipated and more confounding than mere humans can comprehend.

It has been, to say the least, quite distressing to a people whose longstanding traditions have incorporated the esteemed societal values of unity, equality, and harmony.

To compound matters, folks are additionally experiencing a sense of alienation from political, legal, educational, cultural, and religious institutions, which had previously been relied upon by society as well as individuals for both external and internal stability and cohesion.

Here on the Left Coast, one county in California is considering whether or not to segment off into a smaller state.

The Golden State is presently the most populous state in the nation and has (since its admission to the Union in 1850) been the subject of hundreds of proposals to section it off into multiple states.

For decades, residents of rural California have looked at distant state and federal governments as being less than beneficial to them.

A movement to secede actually sprung up during the 1940s, as did a proposed name for the future site, the State of Jefferson. The new state was to be a combination of counties in Northern California and Southern Oregon. There was even a proposed state flag that had a green and yellow design with two X’s that symbolized the renunciation of state governments located in Sacramento, California and Salem, Oregon.

Six California counties officially backed the idea, and the proposal is still being promoted.

Many people have used the idea of secession in a symbolic way as a means to bring attention to regional disparities. But nowadays things appear to be different. Unprecedented actions by governments and corporations over the past two years have moved the subject of succession in the Golden State front and center.

Geographically, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the entire country. It is larger than 9 U.S. states, and it contains more land than the states of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island combined.

Located east of the city of Los Angeles, San Bernardino County has a population of 2.1 million people.

This significant chunk of California is in the process of placing a measure on the upcoming November ballot that would allow the San Bernardino County supervisors to explore the concept of secession of the county from the state.

After the issue had been raised at several board meetings, the county’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to put the secession measure on the 2022 ballot. The mayors of the cities of Upland and Fontana expressed support for the idea.

Regarding the proposed measure, voters would be given the choice to vote Yes or No on the following question:

“Do the citizens of San Bernardino County want the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to study all options to obtain its fair share of state and federal resources, up to and including secession?”

This upcoming week the board will be holding a second and final reading and an additional vote to finalize the ballot initiative.

“I was surprised by the idea, and I don’t believe it’s feasible politically or financially to secede from California,” Supervisor Janice Rutherford said. “However, I absolutely join with my constituents who have a growing, palpable anger about everything from high gas prices to burdensome taxes.”

If the measure were to be approved by voters, it would have several more hoops to jump through.

Article IV, Section III of the Constitution states, “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

This means that for San Bernardino County to able to secede it must have the approval of the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

If the county’s secession from California were constitutionally approved, then San Bernadino County would be able to seek to become its own state or take steps to become a part of a neighboring state.

The scenario that San Bernardino County is contemplating was actually accomplished in the creation of West Virginia back in 1863.

West Virginia was the only state in the Union to separate from a Confederate state during the Civil War. The region that now constitutes West Virginia successfully broke away from the Commonwealth of Virginia to become a separated Mountain State.

We find ourselves at an unusual time in history, one in which many Americans believe that the federal government no longer represents their interests. Additionally, many perceive that state governments are equally unable to handle the geographic and cultural differences and/or meet the diverse needs of constituents.

As the societal chasm continues to grow, so do the possibilities that something like secession could actually take root.

However, infused into the American people is a steadfast determination to forever seek solutions.

This is where hope springs eternal.

Lessons from the Left Coast Primaries

On the minds of Left Coast voters are some major concerns, which happened to be revealed in California’s recent primary elections.

It’s been said, “As California goes, so goes the nation,” so it may be that California’s primaries are also a foreshadowing of things to come in November’s general midterm elections.

Democratic Party turnout in the Golden State was dismal this time around. It may be an indication that liberal and even moderate Dems are experiencing a lack of enthusiasm.

At the same time, the primary election results showed that Republicans and Independents are deeply concerned over rising crime rates, exorbitant gas prices, and soaring food and housing costs.

Two of the Left Coast’s largest cities let their electoral voices be heard loud and clear.

In San Francisco, a far-left prosecutor was actually recalled. The electoral earthquake occurred when voters overwhelmingly chose to terminate District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s job right in the middle of his first term.

Boudin, a public defender-turned-district attorney was fired via a recall election, primarily for his policies of non-prosecution of criminal activity, lenient sentencing of criminals, and abolishment of cash bail, all of which resulted in a horrific spike in violent crime.

The ousting of Boudin should serve as a warning signal for politicians and government officials, apart from political affiliations. Those who promote, pursue, and implement policies that de-fund law enforcement agencies, reduce sentences of convicted felons, release back into society those who have not yet completed their prison time, eliminate cash bail, and abuse prosecutorial discretion may be in for a day of reckoning.

Boudin’s removal may also be a predictor for another elected official, one in Los Angeles County. A campaign is underway to recall District Attorney George Gascón, who appears to be cut from the same left-leaning political cloth as the aforementioned San Francisco prosecutor.

Before Gascón set his sights on destroying the criminal justice system in Los Angeles, he was Boudin’s predecessor as the district attorney of San Francisco.

The primary elections in Los Angeles were illuminating, particularly when it came to the mayoral race. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a former Republican, came in first, with Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass finishing second. The two are set to face one another in November, and right now Caruso appears to have an edge in the upcoming race.

Caruso left the Republican Party in 2019 and registered as a Democrat in 2022. He ran a campaign that emphasized a tough on crime position and a determination to address the homeless crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who survived a recall vote in 2021, was able to avoid any serious competition in the recent primary election, partially due to the unusual manner in which the state currently conducts its primaries. This November, Newsom will face the second-place primary election finisher, GOP state lawmaker Brian Dahle.

A whole lot of voters who participated in the Golden State’s primary were understandably confused by the ballot. What they saw, in addition to the incumbent Newsom’s name, was a dizzying array of 27 gubernatorial candidates, 14 of which were labeled as Republicans. Those who, prior to casting their votes, researched the candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues had quite a difficult and time-consuming challenge.

It wasn’t always like this. Years ago, via a ballot initiative, voters eliminated conventional closed primaries and replaced them with a so-called blanket primary system. Consequently, all candidates appeared on the same ballot in the form of a list. The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

The Supreme Court actually struck down this system, saying that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association. However, with a push from then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California voters passed a new electoral initiative for something called the “top-two” open primary system.

In this system, all candidates on the list from all political parties, along with non-affiliated candidates, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of party, advancing to the November general election.

This system and other types of open primaries frequently have unintended consequences that seriously undermine the main purpose of primary elections – to afford political parties the opportunity to pick their own candidates.

The conventional closed primary limits participation strictly to those who are designated party members. This concept relates to the previously mentioned right of free association contained in the Constitution.

Open primary laws violate the freedom of association of a political party, because they force a party to allow outsiders to select its candidates, a patently unfair and non-representative construct. Such primaries enable members of opposing political parties to subvert the nominating process.

Additionally, the California top-two primary system and similar designs oftentimes create circumstances that are disturbingly disenfranchising to voters.

In 2016, listed on the primary ballot in a run for U.S. Senate were 34 candidates. The top two finishers ended up being members of the same Democratic Party.

The top two vote-getters happened to be Loretta Sanchez and the now-Vice President Kamala Harris. Both emerged from the Senate primary as the lone candidates listed on the general election ballot. Their political parties, ideological positions, and policy proposals were, for the most part, identical.

This left voters with no real choice. However, Harris had the party backing, and she ended up winning the senate seat in a low turnout election.

The top-two primary system hasn’t delivered the increase in voter turnout that its proponents promised either. Since 2012, when the top-two rules took effect, turnout in primaries has averaged just 37.6% of registered voters.

In the recent primary, only 16% of the roughly 22 million mail-in ballots sent to voters were cast, and based on the count thus far experts believe the final turnout will be a record low.

Conversely, in a conventional closed primary system the top vote-getter from each partymoves on to the general election, thereby giving voters a bona fide choice.

This is what a functioning republic looks like.

Maybe it’s time for another visit to the Supreme Court.

Election Irregularities Call for a Full Investigation

The establishment media are ignoring, suppressing, and even dismissing altogether an enormous amount of evidence that indicates significant voting irregularities took place during the 2020 presidential election. Additionally, there are serious inferences of fraud as it relates to the counting of ballots.

Using the coronavirus as justification, prior to the election the Democratic Party pushed through a voting procedure that had never been used before. This resulted in an unparalleled number of mail-in, absentee, and provisional ballots pouring into the system.

This would not be the only segment of the voting process that would earn the label of “unprecedented.” Last minute rule changes, software glitches, count halts, ballot dumps, and statistical anomalies made their ugly appearances this election-go-round, all to the benefit of one Party only.

Make no mistake, though, this election is in no way over. In football terminology, it may be that we are still in the third quarter, with lots of big plays to come.

The mounting evidence that continues to surface presents a pressing need for a complete investigation and judicially supervised remedies, including recounts, audits, and even election do-overs.

The term used in the law of negligence, res ipsa loquitur, has a counterpart appropriateness here. The Latin term, which means “the thing speaks for itself,” stems from its use in Roman trials. In tort law, it provides elements of a cause of action, when a tortious injury would not ordinarily occur without negligence.

In the case of this election, there are results that would not ordinarily occur without fraud.

In Democrat-run swing states, where on election eve President Donald Trump was leading over Democratic challenger Joe Biden, ballot counting inexplicably came to a screeching halt.

A few hours later, massive amounts of ballots suddenly appeared. Few, if any of the votes, went in President Trump’s favor.

The Numbers Story

In Michigan, Democratic presidential candidate Biden at one point received a block of 138,000 votes. Nearly all of the votes added to his tally. This is a statistical impossibility.

Data scientists have noticed other mathematical patterns that raise serious inferences of election fraud. Benford’s law is a forensic tool that is commonly used to detect potential fraud in accounting and vote tallies.

The Benford principle dictates a specific distribution of digits in data to determine whether such data are random and natural.

The digits of the vote counts are expected to follow an exponential distribution across the integers. When the analysis of numerical data samples indicates that the samples are not actually random, i.e., a numerical violation of Benford’s law, an inference of fraud is produced and has been used to detect fraud in elections. Numerical data that deviate from Benford’s law have been admitted in court as evidence of vote fraud.

Informal analyses of Trump’s numbers show no violations of Benford’s law; however, candidate Biden’s numbers do show violations that indicate fraud.

There are other ways that numbers become indicators of election fraud, including the vote total differential between candidate Biden and other down ballot candidates as well as precincts that have more than 100% voter participation.

As of this writing, the GOP has not lost a single seat in the House. Instead the Party has picked up several new House members and added at least three state legislatures, a result that appears highly inconsistent with a win by candidate Biden, who experienced record low enthusiasm across his entire campaign.

In Pennsylvania, due to a lack of signature verification, the rate of rejected mail-in ballots is almost 30 times lower this year than it was in the 2016 presidential election; this is yet another statistical anomaly.

During the inevitable coming litigation, based on claims of irregular voting and election fraud, data from Democrat-controlled swing states will be analyzed, and statistical anomalies and violations of Benford’s law will be presented to the courts.

The Software Story

Dominion Democracy Suite software was used for tabulating ballots in Michigan’s Antrim County. A reported “glitch” caused at least 6,000 Republican votes to be counted as Democrat votes, according to Michigan GOP Chairwoman Laura Cox.

When corrected, the miscalculation, which was first reported by a county clerk, changed the results of the county from candidate Biden to President Trump.

Forty-seven other counties in Michigan may also have suffered a similar glitch, due to the same software. If each of these counties, when corrected, were to have a switch-over of 6,000 votes, it would result in President Trump receiving 282,000 additional votes, likely changing Michigan’s election results.

Dominion Democracy Suite software is reportedly used in 30 other states, including all of the other swing states.

The Election Law Story

Election rules in the United States are made by the state legislature. In order to be counted, election law in Pennsylvania requires ballots to be received by November 3.

The state legislature in Pennsylvania turned down the governor’s request to allow ballots to be counted that were postmarked by November 3, but not actually received until November 5.

The governor then went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to obtain a court order to continue counting the ballots. It was an illicit move and merely a way in which to circumvent the state legislature. The Democrat-controlled court issued the illegal order, one that violated state law.

Although the precincts have been counting late-received ballots, the U.S. Supreme Court via Justice Samuel Alito issued Pennsylvania an order to segregate the late-received votes and remove them from the counted totals.

The validity of late-received votes will almost inevitably end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the ballots received after November 3 are thrown out for violating Pennsylvania election law, the result of the election in that state will likely change.

The Coming Story

President Trump and the GOP have obtained sworn witness testimony that alleges poll watchers were denied entry to the polls, election officials took actions that were not authorized by the state legislature, a post office manager ordered postal workers to back-date ballots to November 3, and election workers illegally created new voter files; all this, in order to create more ballots for candidate Biden.

These claims must be fully examined and litigated. Getting to the bottom of all of it is not just about the 2020 election. Rather, it is about all future elections in America and whether representative democracy survives.

President Trump’s Success Boosts African-American Support

There are some intriguing indicators that suggest President Donald Trump is going to do better than expected in garnering votes in the upcoming election from the African-American community.

Emerging signs include the president’s demonstrable track record of policies that have benefited the Black community, as well as the record high approval number that he now experiences with African-American voters.

But perhaps the most interesting indicator of all is the large number of prominent public figures who now go by the title of “formerly known as Democrat.”

The Democratic Party has typically relied upon a strong showing of support over the years from African-American voters. However, as the public in general and the Democratic Party in particular have learned, when you’re talking about President Trump there is very little that can be characterized as “typical.”

In the 2016 presidential election, CNN exit polls (https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) indicated that then-candidate Trump received 8 percent of the African-American vote and 13 percent of Black male voters. The latter percentage was a historically high number for Republicans.

What has surprised many in recent days is the fact that some well known hip-hop artists made headlines in their Trump-supportive opining, and for some, in their tacit and/or explicit endorsements. This has obviously caused concern on the part of certain Democrat strategists and candidates alike.

Recently, rapper 50 Cent gave a social media endorsement to President Trump, expressing his wariness with the stratospheric tax rates that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s tax plan portends. Predictably, the artist was deluged with social media haters who were intent on hurling insults.

Following the backlash, 50 Cent doubled-down via his Instagram account, sharing a Fox News video about his Trump endorsement and attaching a pithy caption: “I don’t want to be 20 cent,” adding, “62% [income tax rate] is a very very bad idea.”

Senior advisor to the Trump campaign Katrina Pearson used her Twitter account to reveal that actor and hip-hopper Ice Cube was actively helping the Trump administration to connect with the African-American electorate. Cube’s detractors attempted to smear him for being a Trump supporter, and the cancel culture launched an attack.

Undeterred, the rapper has confirmed his assistance to the president, but he has yet to endorse him outright.

Cube is advising President Trump on an administration initiative titled “The Platinum Plan,” which will reach out to African-American communities in an effort to improve overall economic circumstances using the Trump administration’s innovative “Opportunity Zones.”

Another hip-hopper, Waka Flocka Flame, was recently blasted by social media trolls for the comments he expressed about President Trump being a better president than the previous occupant of the White House, former President Barack Obama.

Joining in with more hip-hop Trump energy are BlocBoy JB, Fivio Foreign, and longtime Trump ally Kanye West.

Jason Whitlock, sportswriter for Outkick, is an African-American Trump convert himself, who has observed the rap community’s growing esteem for Trump and has a grasp on the phenomenon.

Whitlock, who also recently conducted a focused interview with the president, told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, “I think there’s some clear momentum for President Trump, particularly I think with black men. I think we’ve been carrying on a facade for three and a half years as black men that somehow we can’t relate to Donald Trump, that we didn’t celebrate him in hip hop music for decades, that he wasn’t friends with countless black athletes, entertainers.”

The truth is the president’s name has been part of the hip-hop repertoire since the genre’s inception. The rap world has long-embraced success and all of its attendant parts.

Across his lifetime, President Trump has been the quintessential symbol of success, and as destiny has made manifest, this has never been more true.

In a track that emerged back in 1989, rapper Ice-T’s collaborator Donald D shouted out, “Yo Ice, I did a concert at the White House. And after that, me and Donald Trump hung out!”

Consequently, many hip-hop artists placed the Trump name within their lyrics. Rapper Rick Ross had the most Trump mentions, nine songs between 2008 and 2015. Hip-hopper Nas recorded seven songs with Trump mentions between 1996 and 2012. Artists Migos and Young Thug had six each, and Lil Wayne and Raekwon featured five Trump references.

After the rise to hit status of NBC’s “The Apprentice” in 2004, President Trump’s brand as sensei of success was cemented into the cultural fabric. The then-New York tycoon appeared in tunes by hip-hoppers Chingy, Mystikal, Lil’ Kim, Diddy, and Young Jeezy.

Enduring Trump supporter West, who is ostensibly running for president and is reportedly on ballots in some states as vice president, appears to remain a Trump backer.

In an April interview with GQ magazine, West said, “It’s unclear if Ye’s vote will still be for Trump as he is running for president as well. In any event, perhaps we’ll find out on Election Day.”

Whitlock wrote, “Kanye said he and President Trump shared ‘dragon energy,’ natural instincts for leadership.”

West’s ‘dragon energy’ characterization, in my opinion, refers to a special kind of steadfastness that it takes to make any desired objective a success.

Those who impartially examine the track record of the Trump administration can’t help but notice a string of laudable successes, including energy independence, de-regulation, defeat of ISIS, NATO finance reform, improved trade deals, record low unemployment, record wage growth, and progress towards peace in the Middle East, just to name a few.

Additionally, a growing segment of African-Americans, along with many of the artists in the hip-hop world, also know that they have a powerful advocate in the White House. Employment, school choice, university funding, prison reform, and pro-life policies have made an impression on leaders in the Black community.

Social media legend and “Blexit” originator Candace Owens, NFL legend Herschel Walker, civil rights attorney Leo Terrell, and “Grey’s Anatomy” star Isaiah Washington, all former Democrats, have become vocal supporters of the Trump presidency and of his re-election campaign.

As President Trump said at the recent second presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, “Success is going to bring us together.” 

The truth is it already has.

New Patriotic-Themed Music COMING SOON

Proceeds to Tunnel to Towers Foundation

A charity committed to ensuring we never forget the events of 9/11 and the sacrifices that were made and continue to be made by our first responders. Through the Fallen First Responder Home Program, Tunnel to Towers aims to pay off the mortgages of fallen law enforcement officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty that leave behind young children.

‘Never-Trumper’ Means ‘Always-Sellout’

Billy Crystal and Bill Kristol

The term “sellout” can be used to describe someone who is willing to trade his or her deep personal convictions in exchange for some momentary fame or short-lived gain.

It is also a word that can aptly apply to the “never-Trumpers” of today’s politically fractured society; i.e., those who steadfastly maintain a hate-filled mindset and who indulge in retaliatory thoughts and behavior.

Over the course of his first term in office, President Donald Trump laid down a clear track record of conservatism in the face of untold liberal pressure.

Unmatched in his efforts to rectify years of “progressive” wrongs, he succeeded in transforming the judiciary, de-regulating the economy, reforming national trade policies, and reducing tax burdens on working class folks.

He did all this in the midst of a cadre of so-called conservative Republicans, which grew to become nothing short of a heavily greased and well-funded political machine.

One recent ad campaign is as instructive as it is disturbing.

The advertisement video features the former editor of the now-defunct Weekly Standard magazine Bill Kristol as well as the Hollywood actor and celebrity comic Billy Crystal.

The attempted gag has the two individuals of differing backgrounds and similar names uniting in an effort to persuade Jewish voters to throw their support behind the current Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Directed by Rob Reiner and written by Phil Rosenthal, the ad was produced for a group called the Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) in partnership with a super PAC called Jews Defending American Values.

“Jimmy Kimmel Live” was the select venue for its debut airing.

It turns out that the JDCA is a left-leaning front group, which was launched in August 2017 as part of the “resistance” movement that was working against the administration of President Trump.

The group’s launch event was attended by an interesting line-up of prominent Democrat officeholders, which included future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

More than twenty elected Democrat politicians chose to take to the podium to speak at the event.

Following a previous ad campaign, which was initiated by the JDCA and included Nazi imagery, criticism poured in from several Jewish organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Republican Jewish Coalition, the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League.

Kristol, who in the new ad self-identifies as a “Republican” and a “conservative,” is the quintessential never-Trumper. He has worked non-stop with Democrats to attack and undermine President Trump.

Fox News’s Tucker Carlson notes that for quite a long time Kristol and his never-Trumper buddies have been “advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us…”

In addition, Carlson points out that the never-Trumpers have pushed “trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change.”

In my estimation, never-Trumpers are merely your average everyday garden-variety leftists.

What is not your average everyday nugget of info, though, is the fact that never-Trumpers receive their money from uber-wealthy leftists.

The name Pierre Omidyar may not ring a bell, but he is the founder of eBay. He became a billionaire at the young age of 31, with the company’s initial public offering in 1998.

Omidyar has given more than $200 million to left-wing groups, including the Open Society Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Center for Public Integrity, and the Center for Responsive Politics.

During the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2008, Omidyar donated to the campaigns of both then-Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Over the course of several years, Omidyar and his wife also donated $200,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $150,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

As Julie Kelly reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer, another group, Republican Voters Against Trump, is “tied to a nonprofit that has received millions in contributions over the past few years from Pierre Omidyar.”

And Kelly also noted that in 2016 Omidyar donated $100,000 to an entity called the NeverTrump PAC.

Kelly additionally revealed that the Lincoln Project, a prominent never-Trumper organization, received financing from billionaire Democratic donor and leftist Hollywood producer David Geffen, who is a longtime Democratic Party cash source.

During the 2018 mid-terms, never-Trumpers and their ally organizations helped elect far-left radical Democrats to Congress, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., which helped facilitate Pelosi’s rise to House Speaker.

Anyone who does a cursory review of the Biden/Harris candidacy realizes that never-Trumpers have not just sold out their principles, they have sold out the country.

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.