Month: January 2019

In a commentary piece for The Washington Post, GOP Sen. David Perdue of Georgia unleashed on newly minted Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, calling him “Jeff Flake on steroids” and saying that Romney’s own piece in the Post last week is proof of why he lost the 2012 election.

Romney’s column, published Tuesday, excoriated the president for what Romney saw as poor personnel moves and personal failings on Trump’s part.

“It is well known that Donald Trump was not my choice for the Republican presidential nomination. After he became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not,” Romney wrote.

“When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”

Romney wrote that “I will act as I would with any president, in or out of my party: I will support policies that I believe are in the best interest of the country and my state, and oppose those that are not. I do not intend to comment on every tweet or fault. But I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.”

TRENDING: Shock Case: Dad Suspected of Hiring Hitman After 15-Year-Old Daughter’s Molester Found Dead

Perdue blasted Romney for his selfishness in a rejoinder published by the newspaper on Friday.

“With his attempted character assassination of the president, a fellow Republican, Romney put self-interest ahead of the larger national interest: conservative Republican governance,” Perdue wrote.

“Like others who have run for president and failed, Romney has taken a stance that smacks of jealousy and resentment. It does nothing but serve the radical liberal left and further divides conservatives,” he said.

“As the only former chief executive of a Fortune 500 company in Congress, I was initially thrilled by the prospect of welcoming another business guy to the Senate. But Romney’s behavior — before he was sworn in or cast his first vote as the new senator from Utah — was deeply disappointing.”

Romney, Perdue wrote, “ran to the media instead of picking up the phone. That is exactly what is wrong with Washington.”

“The mainstream media and Democrats want to further divide Republicans, and now Romney has played right into their hands,” he wrote.

“Jeff Flake (Ariz.) filled that role before his retirement; the last thing we need now in the Senate is a Jeff Flake on steroids. We certainly don’t need more distractions. We need constructive leaders who want to get things done.”

Flake, of course, is openly considering a 2020 run after spending the last two years of his term brutally attacking Trump at every turn.

Perdue was hardly the only person attacking Romney.

RELATED: Hypocrite Mitt Just Trashed Trump, But Turns Out 11 Months Ago He Was Thanking Him

Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, attacked the Utah senator on Twitter.

POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24/7. For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive. https://t.co/ArhI7Bi7bo

— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) January 2, 2019

“For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive,” she wrote.

Why is that important? Well, McDaniel is Romney’s niece. She was also responding to a tweet from the president in which he compared Romney to Flake.

Here we go with Mitt Romney, but so fast! Question will be, is he a Flake? I hope not. Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful. I won big, and he didn’t. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2019

We don’t know how Mitt Romney will turn out as a senator. He was decidedly average as a presidential candidate (and that’s being charitable) and his time as governor of Massachusetts was solid, if unspectacular.

However, given that he was sniping at the president before his term even began, it’s certainly not a good augury.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

A mother whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant pleaded with Democrats to stop playing “Russian roulette with our lives.”

Sabine Durden told “Fox & Friends” on Saturday that she applauds President Trump for standing his ground on border security.

“I’m giving him a standing ovation,” Durden said.  “He’s doing what somebody should do for America who is in power.”

Durden’s son, Dominic, 30, a sheriff’s department dispatcher, was killed in July 2012 when an illegal immigrant drove a truck into his motorcycle in Moreno Valley, California, according to a KCAL report from the time. The driver, Juan Zacarias Tzun, already had two DUI arrests on his record and no driver’s license, according to the Press Enterprise of Riverside County.

“After I came out of my shock, I realized there are so many more that know my pain – that lost a child, father, husband, because of an illegal,” Durden told “Fox & Friends.”

TRENDING: Shock Case: Dad Suspected of Hiring Hitman After 15-Year-Old Daughter’s Molester Found Dead

Durden founded the Advocates for the Victims of Illegal Alien Crimes group. It is a part of the “Angel Families” network that advocates to prevent illegal immigrant crime.

Durden said Democrats should work with Trump for the sake of the country’s safety.

The Fox segment cited numbers from the Department of Homeland Security, which spoke to the level of criminality present at the Mexican-American border.

The figures show that in fiscal year 2018, the Border Patrol stopped 17,000 adults with criminal records, detained 6,000 gang members, 3,755 known or suspected terrorists, and seized 1.7 million pounds of narcotics.

Trump “needs to stand his ground. He promised us that,” Durden said. “All the politicians should actually stand with him instead of trying to dismiss him.

“It’s immoral not to build that wall and protect other Americans from having the same fate that I suffered.”

By contrast, recently elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the border wall is “immoral” and doesn’t honor American values.

Durden appealed to Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to “stop playing Russian roulette with our lives and get that wall built.”

Durden wondered how Pelosi could refuse funding for the border wall when she poured money into “other foreign governments.”

RELATED: US Border Patrol Reports 300% Increase Of Border Violence, Illegal Immigrants Assaulting Agents

Durden asked Democratic leaders to be American heroes instead of bowing down to politics.

Check out the interview here. The whole thing is worth watching, but Durden is particularly moving beginning about the 3:55 mark.

“Here are the ashes of my son,” Durden said, holding up an urn.  “Does Nancy or Chuck have to have the ashes of their loved ones before something is done?”

“It’s insane,” she said. “I think politics are being played big time … You have to love Americans more than you hate the president.”

That’s a message even Democrats should be able to understand.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The King Abdulaziz Camel Festival in Saudi Arabia will begin later this month with organizers hoping to avoid the controversy that saw 12 camels disqualified in 2018 after their owners were found to have used Botox to plump up the lips, noses and jaws of their entries.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of spectators and more than 30,000 camels travel to the desert region of Al-Dahnaa for the festival, just outside Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Attendees are intent on venerating the contribution camels have made to Saudi culture through the centuries.

The festival, which lasts for 28 days, awards around $57 million in prizes for camels based on their overall beauty. There are also sub-categories touching on camel racing, obedience training, camel hair art, and camel photography.

Last year the beauty contest segment was thrown into confusion when the guilty camel owners were expelled for trying to give their dromedary entrants an unfair advantage. The offenders were shown the door before the contest even started.

This year organizers are focussing on the positive, Australia’s ABC News reports, and the King Abdualaziz Camels Festival website says it looks forward to accentuating “camel tradition in the Saudi, Arab, and Islamic culture.”

The contest is only open to purebred female camels from Saudi Arabia. No international camels are allowed and cheating is met with instant dismissal.

“They use Botox for the lips, the nose, the upper lips, the lower lips, and even the jaw,” Ali al-Mazrouei, the son of a camel breeder, told the National after last year’s controversy. “It makes the head more inflated so when the camel comes it’s like, ‘Oh, look at how big is that head is. It has big lips, a big nose.’”

The festival is named after King Abdulaziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, who formed the kingdom through military conquest, often on the back of camels.

As Breitbart News has reported, the event takes place in a so-called “heritage village,” which includes food stalls, souvenir shops, petting zoos, and even a camel museum, while organizers claim the festival will be expanded in coming years.

“The vision is for the (festival) to become a global, pioneering forum for all classes of people to come for entertainment, knowledge, and competition,” added Fahd al-Semmari, a member of the Camel Club, which was established by royal decree in July 2018.

However, camel competitions are just one aspect of the Mohammed Bin Salman’s wider modernization movement known as the “Vision 2030,” which was officially approved by Saudi leadership two years ago. As well as promoting economic growth, the program also intends to loosen some of the rules around women’s rights.

Follow Simon Kent on Twitter: Follow @SunSimonKent or e-mail to: skent@breitbart.com

 

JERUSALEM (AP) — President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, said Sunday that the U.S. military withdrawal from northeastern Syria is conditioned on defeating the remnants of the Islamic State group, and on Turkey assuring the safety of Kurdish fighters allied with the United States.

Bolton, who traveled to Israel to reassure the U.S. ally of the Trump-ordered withdrawal, said there is no timetable for the pullout of American forces in northeastern Syria, but insisted it’s not an unlimited commitment.

“There are objectives that we want to accomplish that condition the withdrawal,” Bolton told reporters in Jerusalem. “The timetable flows from the policy decisions that we need to implement.”

Those conditions, he said, included the defeat of remnants of IS in Syria, and protections for Kurdish militias who have fought alongside U.S. troops against the extremist group.

Bolton’s comments mark the first public confirmation that the drawdown has been slowed, as Trump faced widespread criticism from allies and the resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for a policy that was to have been conducted within weeks.

Trump announced in mid-December that the U.S. will withdraw all of its 2,000 forces in Syria. Trump’s move has raised fears over clearing the way for a Turkish assault on Kurdish fighters in Syria who fought alongside American troops against IS extremists. Turkey considers the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG, a terrorist group linked to an insurgency within its own borders.

Bolton, who is to travel on to Turkey on Monday, said the U.S. is insisting that its Kurdish allies in the fight against the Islamic State group are protected from any planned Turkish offensive. He is to deliver a warning to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week.

“We don’t think the Turks ought to undertake military action that’s not fully coordinated with and agreed to by the United States,” Bolton said. He said in meetings with Turkish counterparts, he will seek “to find out what their objectives and capabilities are and that remains uncertain.”

Trump has stated that he would not allow Turkey to kill the Kurds, Bolton said. “That’s what the president said, the ones that fought with us.”

Bolton said the U.S. has asked its Kurdish allies to “stand fast now” and refrain from seeking protection from Russia or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government. “I think they know who their friends are,” he added, speaking of the Kurds.

He said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford would continue negotiations with his Turkish counterparts this week to seek protection for America’s Kurdish allies in Syria.

Additionally, Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, who has been serving since August as the special representative for Syrian engagement and was named last week as the American special envoy for the anti-Islamic State coalition, is to travel to Syria this week in an effort to reassure the U.S.’s Kurdish allies that they are not being abandoned, Bolton said.

Bolton said U.S. troops would remain at the critical area of al-Tanf, in southern Syria, to counter growing Iranian activity in the region. He defended the legal basis for the deployment, saying it’s justified by the president’s Constitutional authority, adding “I’m a strong believer in Article II.”

The U.S. is also seeking a “satisfactory disposition” for roughly 800 Islamic State prisoners held by the U.S.-backed Syrian opposition, Bolton said, adding talks were ongoing with European and regional partners about the issue.

Bolton is to have dinner Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sunday evening to discuss the pace of the U.S. drawdown, American troop levels in the region, and the U.S. commitment to push back on Iranian regional expansionism. Bolton was expected to explain that some U.S. troops based in Syria to fight IS will shift to Iraq with the same mission and that the al-Tanf base would remain.

Bolton also was to convey the message that the United States is “very supportive” of Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria, according to a senior administration official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss Bolton’s plans before the meetings and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bolton on Sunday also toured the ancient tunnels beneath the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. He watched a virtual reality tour of the historic site and dined there with his Israeli equivalent, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman and Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer.

Visiting American officials typically avoid holding official meetings in parts of east Jerusalem, which is contested between Israelis and Palestinians. Trump himself, however, also toured the area in a previous visit.

Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it from Jordan in the 1967 war, a move not recognized by most of the international community. Palestinians seek east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

This is an issue that may be taken up by the Supreme Court that hasn’t gotten a lot of national attention. It involves an Indiana law, referred to as the “Eguenics Statute,” passed in 2016 that makes it  illegal for women to have an abortion on the basis of race or sex or because they learn they will otherwise give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.

The law was declared unconstitutional in the lower courts, but Indiana has appealed to the Supreme Court. The court privately reviewed the case this past Friday and will decide as early as next week whether to hear arguments.

What makes this particular case so significant is that it will be the first major abortion case to come before the court since Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Washington Examiner:

State lawmakers in Indiana appealed the case about a week after Kavanaugh was sworn in, arguing that “technological advances have improved … prenatal testing that screens for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities,” which results in most women choosing abortion when they receive a diagnosis.

The latest available data, from 1995-2011, show that 67 percent of pregnancies that test positive for Down syndrome end in abortion. Pregnant women can screen for Trisomy 21, a chromosomal abnormality, through a blood sample.

The Indiana abortion ban was signed by Vice President Mike Pence, who was governor of the state at the time. It contains exemptions for conditions that “with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three months after the child’s birth.”

In 2016, a federal judge blocked the Indiana law from going into effect, and a 3-0 ruling in the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago ruled it unconstitutional. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s Roedecision, saying the choice to have an abortion was not up to the government but was to be a decision between a woman and her doctor. In June, a dissenting opinion urged the appeals court to reconsider its ruling, with one of the judges saying that the Supreme Court had not ruled on what he termed a “eugenics statute.”

Kavanaugh gave little clue during his Senate testimony as to where he might stand on challenging Roe v Wade:

The question over whether Kavanaugh would cast a deciding vote to overrule or weaken Roe featured prominently in Democratic attacks early during his confirmation hearings. Later, the messaging centered primarily on sexual assault allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who said he touched her inappropriately and covered her mouth while he was drunk and they were both in high school.

When asked by senators about abortion, Kavanaugh cited Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that legalized the procedure nationwide up until fetal viability, generally understood as up to 24 weeks. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion but prohibited them from placing an “undue burden” on women who seek an abortion.

Kavanaugh did not say during the hearings how he would rule on abortion or whether he believed women had a right to abortion, stressing instead that Casey created a “ precedent on precedent.”

If the court took the case, they may be inclined to rule narrowly on the issue, confirming or striking down the law, without really dealing with the underlying problem of abortion on demand.

An elective abortion cannot be justified as medically necessary, meaning that other reasons not related to the health of the woman are used to justify it. If you can abort a child based on the fact that it will be a burden to its parents because of some condition they are born with, why not have the right to abort a girl baby because you wanted a boy? It’s a slippery slope that the Indiana law seeks to address. If confirmed by the high court, the law could become the basis for severely restricting the reasons a woman can have a legal abortion.

Activists know this, of course, which is why they are fighting the law tooth and nail. While no one can guess where Justice Kavanaugh might stand on the issue, he could support a ruling that would keep Roe intact, but make it much harder to get an abortion. That would maintain both the Roe and Casey precedents while carving out new restrictions on abortion.

This is an issue that may be taken up by the Supreme Court that hasn’t gotten a lot of national attention. It involves an Indiana law, referred to as the “Eguenics Statute,” passed in 2016 that makes it  illegal for women to have an abortion on the basis of race or sex or because they learn they will otherwise give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.

The law was declared unconstitutional in the lower courts, but Indiana has appealed to the Supreme Court. The court privately reviewed the case this past Friday and will decide as early as next week whether to hear arguments.

What makes this particular case so significant is that it will be the first major abortion case to come before the court since Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.

Washington Examiner:

State lawmakers in Indiana appealed the case about a week after Kavanaugh was sworn in, arguing that “technological advances have improved … prenatal testing that screens for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities,” which results in most women choosing abortion when they receive a diagnosis.

The latest available data, from 1995-2011, show that 67 percent of pregnancies that test positive for Down syndrome end in abortion. Pregnant women can screen for Trisomy 21, a chromosomal abnormality, through a blood sample.

The Indiana abortion ban was signed by Vice President Mike Pence, who was governor of the state at the time. It contains exemptions for conditions that “with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three months after the child’s birth.”

In 2016, a federal judge blocked the Indiana law from going into effect, and a 3-0 ruling in the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago ruled it unconstitutional. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s Roedecision, saying the choice to have an abortion was not up to the government but was to be a decision between a woman and her doctor. In June, a dissenting opinion urged the appeals court to reconsider its ruling, with one of the judges saying that the Supreme Court had not ruled on what he termed a “eugenics statute.”

Kavanaugh gave little clue during his Senate testimony as to where he might stand on challenging Roe v Wade:

The question over whether Kavanaugh would cast a deciding vote to overrule or weaken Roe featured prominently in Democratic attacks early during his confirmation hearings. Later, the messaging centered primarily on sexual assault allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who said he touched her inappropriately and covered her mouth while he was drunk and they were both in high school.

When asked by senators about abortion, Kavanaugh cited Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that legalized the procedure nationwide up until fetal viability, generally understood as up to 24 weeks. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion but prohibited them from placing an “undue burden” on women who seek an abortion.

Kavanaugh did not say during the hearings how he would rule on abortion or whether he believed women had a right to abortion, stressing instead that Casey created a “ precedent on precedent.”

If the court took the case, they may be inclined to rule narrowly on the issue, confirming or striking down the law, without really dealing with the underlying problem of abortion on demand.

An elective abortion cannot be justified as medically necessary, meaning that other reasons not related to the health of the woman are used to justify it. If you can abort a child based on the fact that it will be a burden to its parents because of some condition they are born with, why not have the right to abort a girl baby because you wanted a boy? It’s a slippery slope that the Indiana law seeks to address. If confirmed by the high court, the law could become the basis for severely restricting the reasons a woman can have a legal abortion.

Activists know this, of course, which is why they are fighting the law tooth and nail. While no one can guess where Justice Kavanaugh might stand on the issue, he could support a ruling that would keep Roe intact, but make it much harder to get an abortion. That would maintain both the Roe and Casey precedents while carving out new restrictions on abortion.

I admit that I already despise Rep. Ilhan Omar for multiple reasons. Her apparent marriage to her brother, evidently to accomplish visa fraud, her friendships with anti-Semites, and her views on Israel, for example.

But this much less consequential fraud really bothers me:

The #116thCongress has SO much to be proud of:



✅1st Somali-American + Refugee

✅1st Muslim women (@RashidaTlaib & I)

✅1st Indigenous women

✅1st Palestinian-American

✅Youngest (28) @AOC

✅Record 100+ women

✅Largest ever Black (55), Hispanic (37), & Progressive (98) caucuses

Her first item contains the claim to be both the first Somali-American (which is true) and the first refugee. That latter claim is utterly false, and disregards two Jews who survived and fled the Holocaust, the historic abomination that her Muslim Brotherhood friends would like to carry out to the ultimate solution end, and a third Jew, whose family fled Castro.

It’s always about her.

Her Twitter Picture

Ron Kampeas writes in The Jerusalem Post:

Seffi Kogen, the Global Director of Young Leadership for the American Jewish Committee, counts at least four other lawmakers who in their lifetimes had refugee status, and two of them are Jewish:



* The late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor who made human rights a hallmark of his leadership on the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.



* Former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, R-Minn., who as a toddler fled Nazi Germany with his family for the United States and who also has played a prominent role in human rights advocacy.

* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., just retired, who is of Jewish descent, arrived in Florida as a child of a family fleeing Cuba.



* Rep. Joseph Cao, R-La., the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress, served one term (2009-2011).



I’d add former Republican Florida Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart, also born in Cuba to a family who fled after Fidel Castro seized power.

My guess is that it never occurred to her that anyone else could have been a refugee who entered Congress. Like so many on the Left, she probably has no interest in any history but her own story of Victimhood.

She owes a few more apologies, but that list is already long.

I admit that I already despise Rep. Ilhan Omar for multiple reasons. Her apparent marriage to her brother, evidently to accomplish visa fraud, her friendships with anti-Semites, and her views on Israel, for example.

But this much less consequential fraud really bothers me:

The #116thCongress has SO much to be proud of:



✅1st Somali-American + Refugee

✅1st Muslim women (@RashidaTlaib & I)

✅1st Indigenous women

✅1st Palestinian-American

✅Youngest (28) @AOC

✅Record 100+ women

✅Largest ever Black (55), Hispanic (37), & Progressive (98) caucuses

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 3, 2019

Her first item contains the claim to be both the first Somali-American (which is true) and the first refugee. That latter claim is utterly false, and disregards two Jews who survived and fled the Holocaust, the historic abomination that her Muslim Brotherhood friends would like to carry out to the ultimate solution end, and a third Jew, whose family fled Castro.

It’s always about her.

Her Twitter Picture

Ron Kampeas writes in The Jerusalem Post:

Seffi Kogen, the Global Director of Young Leadership for the American Jewish Committee, counts at least four other lawmakers who in their lifetimes had refugee status, and two of them are Jewish:



* The late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., a Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor who made human rights a hallmark of his leadership on the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.



* Former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, R-Minn., who as a toddler fled Nazi Germany with his family for the United States and who also has played a prominent role in human rights advocacy.

* Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., just retired, who is of Jewish descent, arrived in Florida as a child of a family fleeing Cuba.



* Rep. Joseph Cao, R-La., the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress, served one term (2009-2011).



I’d add former Republican Florida Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart, also born in Cuba to a family who fled after Fidel Castro seized power.

My guess is that it never occurred to her that anyone else could have been a refugee who entered Congress. Like so many on the Left, she probably has no interest in any history but her own story of Victimhood.

She owes a few more apologies, but that list is already long.

Judicial Watch has forced the state of California and Los Angeles county to end its practice of keeping ‘inactive’ voters on the voter rolls as is required by federal law. Here’s the news from the legal watchdog:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. These removals are required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The NVRA is a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations from the voter rolls after two general federal elections (encompassing from 2 to 4 years). Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.

Los Angeles County has over 10 million residents, more than the populations of 41 of the 50 United States. California is America’s largest state, with almost 40 million residents.

The state of California, run completely by Democrats, of course, resisted this (at least until the midterm was over). They decided that cleaning up inactive voters from the rolls wasn’t in their interest and federal laws were for other states, little states. And as a result, nearly a quarter of California’s counties had more voters registered than actual eligible voters. And surprise, surprise, the state has suddenly turned solid blue.

L.A. county’s approximately 1.5 million inactive voters on those rolls (112% of age-eligible citizens alone) had been perfect fodder for ballot-harvestors, not this last time at midterms (all of the Democratic ballots harvested in the last midterm have made their voters active voters), but for upcoming elections. That rich bank of potential Democratic votes from ballot-harvesting is now gone with this Judicial Watch agreement.

Ballot-harvesting is a disturbing phenomenon so prone to abuse it’s illegal in most states. In California, where it’s not, Democratic operatives selectively pay visits to the homes of indifferent voters who don’t want to go to the polls or mail in their ballots, engage those voters, and then ”help” them fill out their ballots in the way Democrats want. That’s why conservative areas such as Orange County were suddenly flipped blue and popular candidates such as Young Kim, who had been winning by large margins on election night – suddenly saw their results flipped. Democrats learned that by extending the election count for weeks, turning in harvested ballot after harvested ballot, they could win any election. 

But the harvest had been incomplete, and with many inactive voters, Democrats would need that bank of more potential votes, which likely explains why California’s Democrats resisted any cleanup of voter rolls. California may have mailed these people ballots whether they liked it or not or asked for it or not, as they did with all of us, and well, Democratic ballot-harvestors could have easily gotten hold of those unasked for ballots in the mailboxes of dead, moved-away, or incapacitated voters and saw to it that they somehow got cast.

(Judicial Watch is investigating that one, too.)

The state’s chief vote counter, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, insists that not a single voter will be disenfranchised, given all his ‘safeguards.’ His official plan is to mail in a confirmation form to inactive voters and strike their names if they don’t respond, but somehow, I suspect the ballot-harvestors will be paying visits to these inactive residents, who may be indifferent and incapacitated voters, and somehow will get them to mail those forms in, too, thereby subverting the process.

That said, Judicial Watch’s victory is a great one and frees them up to focus on other areas of abuse that are rife in California, such as non-citizen registrations (the state still says it has no idea how many there are), illegal immigrant votes already cast, ballot harvestors using coercion, foreign ballot-harvestors, gerrymandering, straight out fraud, and the whole cavalcade of Democrat tricks that have disenfranchised conservative voters in the state.

It’s a welcome glimmer of light from a one-party state.

 

 

 

Judicial Watch has forced the state of California and Los Angeles county to end its practice of keeping ‘inactive’ voters on the voter rolls as is required by federal law. Here’s the news from the legal watchdog:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. These removals are required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The NVRA is a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations from the voter rolls after two general federal elections (encompassing from 2 to 4 years). Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.

Los Angeles County has over 10 million residents, more than the populations of 41 of the 50 United States. California is America’s largest state, with almost 40 million residents.

The state of California, run completely by Democrats, of course, resisted this (at least until the midterm was over). They decided that cleaning up inactive voters from the rolls wasn’t in their interest and federal laws were for other states, little states. And as a result, nearly a quarter of California’s counties had more voters registered than actual eligible voters. And surprise, surprise, the state has suddenly turned solid blue.

L.A. county’s approximately 1.5 million inactive voters on those rolls (112% of age-eligible citizens alone) had been perfect fodder for ballot-harvestors, not this last time at midterms (all of the Democratic ballots harvested in the last midterm have made their voters active voters), but for upcoming elections. That rich bank of potential Democratic votes from ballot-harvesting is now gone with this Judicial Watch agreement.

Ballot-harvesting is a disturbing phenomenon so prone to abuse it’s illegal in most states. In California, where it’s not, Democratic operatives selectively pay visits to the homes of indifferent voters who don’t want to go to the polls or mail in their ballots, engage those voters, and then ”help” them fill out their ballots in the way Democrats want. That’s why conservative areas such as Orange County were suddenly flipped blue and popular candidates such as Young Kim, who had been winning by large margins on election night – suddenly saw their results flipped. Democrats learned that by extending the election count for weeks, turning in harvested ballot after harvested ballot, they could win any election. 

But the harvest had been incomplete, and with many inactive voters, Democrats would need that bank of more potential votes, which likely explains why California’s Democrats resisted any cleanup of voter rolls. California may have mailed these people ballots whether they liked it or not or asked for it or not, as they did with all of us, and well, Democratic ballot-harvestors could have easily gotten hold of those unasked for ballots in the mailboxes of dead, moved-away, or incapacitated voters and saw to it that they somehow got cast.

(Judicial Watch is investigating that one, too.)

The state’s chief vote counter, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, insists that not a single voter will be disenfranchised, given all his ‘safeguards.’ His official plan is to mail in a confirmation form to inactive voters and strike their names if they don’t respond, but somehow, I suspect the ballot-harvestors will be paying visits to these inactive residents, who may be indifferent and incapacitated voters, and somehow will get them to mail those forms in, too, thereby subverting the process.

That said, Judicial Watch’s victory is a great one and frees them up to focus on other areas of abuse that are rife in California, such as non-citizen registrations (the state still says it has no idea how many there are), illegal immigrant votes already cast, ballot harvestors using coercion, foreign ballot-harvestors, gerrymandering, straight out fraud, and the whole cavalcade of Democrat tricks that have disenfranchised conservative voters in the state.

It’s a welcome glimmer of light from a one-party state.