Longtime conservative radio host Larry Elder has raised almost $4.5 million in the first 19 days of his campaign to replace Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom in a special recall election on September 14. “The fundraising numbers are tallied from July 12, 2021,More
Longtime conservative radio host Larry Elder has raised almost $4.5 million in the first 19 days of his campaign to replace Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom in a special recall election on September 14.
“The fundraising numbers are tallied from July 12, 2021, the day Elder announced his candidacy, to July 31, 2021, the end of the latest reporting period,” Elder’s campaign said in a statement. “Some 46,000 donors contributed, making the average daily donation over $235,000, and the average donation $84.00. This reflects the overwhelming grassroots support for Elder, the commonsense candidate now leading in the recall polls.”
“The numbers announced by my campaign today solidify my candidacy to defeat Gavin Newsom in the upcoming recall election,” Elder said. “Californians have shown up and believe in our mission to recall Newsom and elect me in his place. Newsom can raise an unlimited amount of funds for this election; therefore, every single donation to my campaign counts, whether small or large.”
“In mere weeks, his total eclipsed what fellow Republicans had raised in months, and daily filings show Elder has pulled in another $440,000 in the first few days of August,” Politico reported.
Recent polls show Elder leading among the 40 candidates on the ballot to replace Newsom with 23% support, according to polls from Survey USA and Emerson Polling. At the same time, support for recalling Newsom has continued to gain traction with an increase of 40% in March to 43% in mid-July, and an equivalent increase to 46% two weeks later, according to polls from Emerson College and Nexstar Media’s “Inside California Politics.” Another Survey USA poll drew an even worse picture for Newsom, with support for his recall at 51%
Would you vote to recall, or to keep Governor Newsom?
— Emerson College Polling (@EmersonPolling) August 3, 2021
23-year-old former assistant press secretary in the Trump administration has announced her congressional bid in New Hampshire on Monday. If elected, Karoline Leavitt would be the youngest woman elected to Congress in American history.
Most recently, Leavitt was the communications director for Republican powerhouse New York Representative Elise Stefanik. Leavitt is running in New Hampshire’s 1st congressional district against Democratic Representative Chris Pappas.
In her announcement, Leavitt released a video stating, “In D.C., I watched in disgust as President Biden and the radical Democrats completely dismantled the progress we made under President Trump in just six months. The radical Left has one goal: stealing more power for themselves and taking our freedoms to do it, even if it means destroying our country along the way.”
Leavitt also was one of the many silenced conservative voices on Twitter, although Twitter claimed temporarily suspending her account was a mistake. “Everywhere you look, conservatives – myself included – are being censored and silenced. And our freedoms to speak freely, think independently, go to church and operate our own businesses are being infringed by radical Democrats.”
Leavitt will be the fourth Republican to enter the race to unseat Pappas who has been in the congressional seat since 2018. In an interview with New Hampshire’s WMUR, Leavitt discussed her personal upbringing and connection in the state.
“It’s not just about me. It’s about conservatives in New Hampshire and across our country who truly feel like their voices are not being heard…Getting into this race for me truly is personal because I love this sate so much.”
“I think it’s incredibly important that our elected officials can resonate with voters because they understand the voters because they were raised here and truly adhere to New Hampshire values in their own lives” she added.
The Supreme Court ruled that two election security laws in Arizona do not violate the Voter Rights Act of 1965, stating that a “disparity in impact does necessarily mean a system is not equally open,” and “very small differences should not be artificially magnified.”
“The case involves a 2016 Arizona law that made it a crime to provide another person’s completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers. Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. Ballot collection is legal in most states, with varying limitations. Republican critics call the practice ‘ballot harvesting,’” Reuters reported.
“The 6-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority, held that the restrictions on early ballot collection by third parties and where absentee ballots may be cast did not violate the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting,”
In her dissent, far-left Justice Elena Kagan called the ruling “tragic,” and wrote, “So the court decides this Voting Rights Act case at a perilous moment for the nation’s commitment to equal citizenship. It decides this case in an era of voting-rights retrenchment – when too many states and localities are restricting access to voting in ways that will predictably deprive members of minority groups of equal access to the ballot box.”
While Kagan’s claim in her dissent that “too many states and localities” are putting laws in place that “deprive members of minority groups” suggests there are a number of “states and localities” that she believes should be putting those types of laws in place, the Court found that the election security laws in question do “not result in minorities having unequal access to the political process.”
The Court’s decision noted, “The percentage of ballots invalidated under this policy was very small (0.15% of all ballots cast in 2016) and decreasing, and while the percentages were slightly higher for members of minority groups, the court found that this disparity ‘does not result in minorities having unequal access to the political process.’”
The Court stated, “But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote. The size of any disparity matters. And in assessing the size of any disparity, a meaningful comparison is essential. What are at bottom very small differences should not be artificially magnified.”
The Supreme Court of the United States upheld two provisions of Arizona voting law. One is of restricting the practice of ballot-harvesting and the other of requiring ballots cast at the wrong precinct on election day be discarded.
The majority decision from the highest court is a blow to Democrats’ vigorous hunger to “count every vote” regardless of fraudulent circumstances. Judge Alito wrote in the Court’s majority opinion that there was not enough evidence to prove that either of the provisions caused discrimination.
[adsanity_group num_ads=”1″ align=”aligncenter” num_columns=”1″ group_ids=”2381″/]
Democrats alleged that the Arizona law discriminates against minority voters. However, “The plaintiffs were unable to provide statistical evidence showing that,” wrote Alito. The ballot-harvesting restriction “had a disparate impact on minority voters” the opinion added.
“The modest evidence of racially disparate burdens caused by [the law], in light of the State’s justifications, leads us to the conclusion that the law does not violate” the Voting Rights Act, states the opinion.
Ballot harvesting is when a third party collects ballots from registered voters during an election to attempt to get as many voters’ ballots as possible. Arizona law prohibits ballot harvesting unless the person collecting a ballot is a family member, caregiver, or election official.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich defended the state’s voting laws in place in the days leading up to the Court ruling. “There is no more sacred duty for a public servant than preserving both the people’s right to vote and their confidence in the election process,” Brnovich said in a released statement.
“Arizona’s ballot box safeguards are shared by many states, were recommended by a bipartisan commission, and are constitutional because they equally protect us all” added Brnovich.
Move along. Nothing to see here. That, in essence, is the message of The New York Times in a lengthy front-page story headlined this way:
77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election
Hours after the United States voted, the president declared the election a fraud — a lie that unleashed a movement that would shatter democratic norms and upend the peaceful transfer of power.
Stunningly the piece makes only passing reference to the circus that was the election in Pennsylvania, blithely and completely ignoring the state’s vivid history of voter fraud – even when the paper itself had once reported on it. Ignored now completely, for example, was this story in…yes….the February 19, 1994 edition of….The New York Times. The headline:
Vote-Fraud Ruling Shifts Pennsylvania Senate
The Times reported the story this way, bold print for emphasis supplied:
“Saying Philadelphia’s election system had collapsed under “a massive scheme” by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a Federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.
In making such a sweeping move, the judge, Clarence C. Newcomer of Federal District Court here, did for the Republicans what the election had not: enable them to regain control of the State Senate, which they lost two years ago.
Judge Newcomer ruled that the Democratic campaign of William G. Stinson had stolen the election from Bruce S. Marks in North Philadelphia’s Second Senatorial District through an elaborate fraud in which hundreds of residents were encouraged to vote by absentee ballot even though they had no legal reason — like a physical disability or a scheduled trip outside the city — to do so.
In many instances, according to Republicans who testified during a four-day civil trial last week, Democratic campaign workers forged absentee ballots. On many of the ballots, they used the names of people who were living in Puerto Rico or serving time in prison, and in one case, the voter had been dead for some time.”
Got that? The New York Times itself once took detailed notice that a Pennsylvania election had been stolen in a “massive scheme” of “elaborate fraud” by Democrats.
In fact, Pennsylvania has a very, very long record of voter fraud. Which The Times ignored in their long, theoretically investigative piece. Not mentioned as well in that Times election subversion piece was this news from 2020 about Pennsylvania election subversion. The headline from The Philadelphia Inquirer:
South Philly judge of elections admits he took bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democratic candidates
The story began:
“A former judge of elections and Democratic committeeperson from South Philadelphia has pleaded guilty to accepting thousands of dollars in bribes to inflate the vote totals for three Democratic candidates for Common Pleas Court judge in 2015, and for other Democratic candidates for office in 2014 and 2016, U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain announced Thursday.
Domenick J. DeMuro, 73, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to deprive Philadelphia voters of their civil rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for the judicial candidates and for other candidates seeking office in the 2014 and 2016 primary elections. And he admitted violating the Travel Act, which forbids the use of a cell phone to promote illegal activity, McSwain’s office said.
DeMuro, who could not be reached for comment, was paid between $300 and $5,000 for each election, the office said.”
Then there was this related story two months later, with this headline in The Inquirer:
A former Pa. congressman caught in 1970s Abscam sting has been indicted again — this time for election fraud
This gem of a story began:
“A former Pennsylvania congressman convicted in the 1970s Abscam investigation was charged Thursday as a result of new allegations that he bribed a poll worker to stuff ballot boxes in local elections.
Federal prosecutors said former U.S. Rep. Michael “Ozzie” Myers, now working as a campaign consultant, paid a South Philadelphia judge of elections to fraudulently add votes for candidates who had hired him for their races from 2014 to 2016.”
And just where in that New York Times story on alleged Trump election subversion was any mention of these two stories? There was none.
One would think that the election record of a state with a very long record of voter fraud that literally goes back centuries – and can be documented – would be news in a New York Times story about election subversion. One would think The Times would be curious about, say, the late Pennsylvania U.S.Senator Arlen Specter’s description in his memoirs that “tampering with voting machines, (is) a standard Philadelphia ploy.”
But obviously, all news is not fit to print in The New York Times, particularly if it undermines the false storyline that President Trump was trying to subvert an election.
Let’s cut to the chase.
The New York Times spent most of the Trump term lying about “Trump-Russia collusion.” Now the paper is insisting that we ignore blatant truths about the 2020 election, particularly in Pennsylvania.
Which is to say, The New York Times is trying to subvert the truth – again.