«

»

NOW the media is upset about voter fraud!!! Oh, Crimea river!!

[Note: Please pardon some of the sarcasm in today’s blog, but this is one story you will have a hard time finding on the internet, so I (Jay) took a snapshot of the original and posted it here and decided to go on a rant. This story, exposes the rank hypocrisy of the American Left on the matter of vote fraud. Of course, the hard-core Progressives get it, but  a few of their “useful idiots” in the media must not have gotten the memo.]

 

In a text-book example of what Rush calls, “a random act of journalism,” the McClatchy “news” service accidentally published a very good story about vote fraud in Putin’s Crimean election for “in”dependence.

McClatchy story from News & Observer, Mar 31, 2014, Page A6, headlined "Charges of fraud cast doubt on Crimea referendum."

Please click on image to read the entire article.

The report begins. . .

“On March 16, as Crimeans voted in a referendum on joining Russia, a convoy of Russian minibuses and cars drew up th the center of Lytvynenkove, a village about 15 miles northeast of the peninsular capital.”

“Members of the local self-defense committee on Crimean Tatars, the Muslim minority group who’d been exiled under Stalin but returned here when Communist rule collapsed, watched with trepidation as about 50 men, some in tracksuits and others in military uniform, got out the vehicles.”

“But the passengers hadn’t come to bully the local Tatar population, which had announced a boycott. Instead, they headed into the local polling station.”

“The two white bans and the several cars were registered in Krasnodar, Russia. The men’s accents were Russian, and so from their appearance, were they — those in uniform were Con Cossacks, a famed fighting force that served the Tsars and now, experts say, has become a sort of Praetorian guard for Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

“Political tourists” traveling by the van load from one polling station to the next have been a feature of Ukranian elections going back more than a decade — locals call it “carousel voting” — but this was the first time that anyone had heard of foreigners getting into the act, a Tatar organizer told McClatchy.”

“The ‘Cossack Carousel’ vote is but one of many tales that add to deep doubt about the validity of the snap secession referendum, which took place only nine days after it was announced.”

[The story continues, but we take a break for some analysis. . . .

First, could anybody imagine the howling of “racial profiling” our group would get if we substituted the some key ethnic terms in the article for the groups stealing votes in our nation?!

Second, we’ve heard numerous anecdotes of people arriving in North Carolina in vans from Ohio with the occupants wearing various labor union organization symbols on their shirts and jackets. If our election bureaucracy has no way to prevent such activities in America, we wonder why there is any complaining about this practice as it goes on in other totalitarian regimes.

Third, this delicious irony is not lost on the Voter Integrity Project, but we have to tip our hats to the hard-core Progressive from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who, according to McClatchy, “viewed the referendum as legitimate.” The Senator and I may be on opposite sides on this issue, but at least she is one Proggie who realizes the danger in throwing stones while living in a glass house!

While she defended the Crimean election theft on CNN’s “State of the Union,” high-brow entertainment show, the McClatchy reporter appears to have gone native when wrote his report. Excerpts from the story continue below.]

“”But there are many reasons to doubt that the referendum was conducted fairly.”

“A reporter for the local Tatar ATR television station said he was able to register and vote in four separate polling stations. In Sevastopol, the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, initial results spoke of a 123 percent turnout. The ATR television station showed film of Russian bikers” visiting one lolling location and a man departing carrying a sub-machine gun.

[My Analysis: How quaint! I wonder if McClatchy ever reported on the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia that Dept of “Justice” Grand Poobah, Eric Holder dismissed. Oh wait. They only had billy clubs, so I guess that wasn’t technically a story that would have interested the American public. Oh, and what’s up with that 123 percent??!! Is that the best they could do? Rookies!] Gutman’s article continues. . .

“Putin’s claim of a 96 percent margin out of an 82 percent turnout also appears to be mathematically impossible. Both the local Ukrainian community and the Tatars, who make up just under 30 percent of the 2.2 million residents of Crimea, organized a boycott. Even with defections, and there were some, both the alleged turnout and margin of victory would be impossible, without pro-Russian voters voting repeatedly.”

[Analysis: Great reasoning, Roy. I get it, but I studied things like Calculus and Inferential Statistics. Too bad American public schools have adopted Common Core to the point that most people have no idea what you just said. Gutman’s (last?) words continue.]

“Putin ‘was using percentages out of North Korea,’ said Vladimir Kazarin, a professor of journalism at Simferopol’s Russian language Vernadsky University and a former high official in the Crimean and Sevastopol government. ‘It’s not truthful.'”

“‘I’ve been following Crimean politics for a long time,’ he told McClatchy. ‘I know what an election is, and what voting is. And I know our people. Even if they are in favor of something, they never vote more than 65 to 70 percent. Some go to drink vodka. some go fishing Some go out with women.'”

[More math??!! What did I tell you, Roy?! You lose your argument when you resort to sneaky stuff like math and reasoning! anyway, the article continues for a few more paragraphs, but I think you see where it’s going.

Now for some JD wrap-up analysis on this entire episode of stolen election “over there somewhere.”

I’m not the first to say this, but I certainly agree with anybody who does: There are four aspects to voting that — if secret (or “private”) — point to totalitarian governments and — if transparent — point to freedom. They are . . .

1. Who can vote? The public must understand who is eligible to vote and be able to understand how to remove somebody from the list whom they know to be ineligible. California Governor Jerry Brown dumped one million new on-line voter registrations into the process less than 90 days before the 2012 election, according to the Election Integrity Project (of California) and has recently vowed to add millions more on-line registrations soon. There is no way for the electorate to confirm the actual residence of such voters and it makes a mockery of the entire system that elected politicians are manipulating the system in such a manner.

2. Who did vote? The public must clearly understand who casts every single vote. This is why Jimmy Carter called for voter ID more than ten years ago. Every developed nation in the world has voter ID, except for one. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? The U . . .  U . . . US! That’s right. We want it, but the a fore mentioned Grand Poobah is fighting us tooth and nail. Forget just having a few observers who get abused by Chief Judges and are told to go stand in the corner. We need facial-recognition imagery and streaming video (with audio) at every polling station in the country so that anyone can see if somebody tries to vote more than once.

3. How are the ballots counted? Counting the ballots must be done in the open, with the public watching. No internet voting. No mail-in voting and no black-box (or touch-screen) voting. “The will of the voter” must be confirmed by the voter through a paper audit system before the vote is submitted. Of course, a machine can tabulate those ballots, but the pieces of paper serve as an audit mechanism and must never be replaced (due to the arrogance of technology) by a black box. Recording the votes on a tape that the voter never sees is unacceptable, because we don’t know if the machine was programmed to change votes for the other side. Also, when one votes on the internet, s/he loses any chance of casting a secret ballot and the system is compromised such that millions of voters (I among them) will simply give up and boycott all elections.

4. Chain of custody. How the ballots are handled after the polls close is a source of eroding trust across the nation. Just a few weeks ago in (now) occupied Virginia, the Attorney General’s race was lost by the Republican candidate, after a Fairfax election official “found” a stack of ballots that she somehow knew had not been counted. this same “found” ballot narrative played out in the Washington Governor’s recount a dozen years ago too, but who could forget the Minnesota Senate race of 2008?! In all three cases, the candidate who was behind (all Democrats, for what that’s worth) were the lucky beneficiaries of an election official who “found” enough ballots to flip the outcome of the election and then declare the race over before the Republicans could raise enough money to pay attorney fees.

Let’s be real. There is always a partisan aspect to election law, but don’t waste your energy dismissing these words I’ve penned simply because I pointed out the Democratic advantage in these examples. The dirty secret is that, as bad as “gerrymandering” is painted out to be, North Carolina’s “Jim Crow” Democratic Party has controlled ALL of our election laws (and not just the redistricting) for 140 years and they wrote those laws to extend their power. Not saying it was wrong of them to do it, but it was what it ain’t any more and they are the ones who are suddenly blaming the ref.

The maddening part of this entire discussion is that some continue to scream that “vote fraud is just a ploy by Republicans in order to suppress the votes of minorities and the poor,” when it’s the entire election franchise of a free nation that’s at stake. If we can’t do a simple task like getting people off the voter rolls when they no longer live at their stated address, then we’re in deeper doo doo than I realized.

And that’s what’s going on in our Buncombe County challenge proceeding. We’re using the state-authorized proof that people are not where they claim to be and their community’s Progressives are fighting us as hard as they can to make sure we get beat up in the media over this effort.

First, they called us racists, but (since we challenged something close to five times more white people than we did any people of color) that dog won’t hunt.

Next, they will say we hate the homeless. Rather than help the poor and downtrodden among us find places to live, they stand on the corner during elections and offer them five bucks or even a pack of smokes if they will come back with an “I Voted” sticker on their shirt and they say WE are abusing those folks!

In Pembroke, according to their recent transcribed hearing, the poor people would stand around the liquor store and the “haulers” would provide round-trip service to the polls. Oh yes. That’s how Progressives “care” for the poor. Something like this in the Ukraine is to be frowned upon, but not necessarily in the US. The motto of Progressives seems to be (with apologies to Nat Hentoff) “Vote fraud for me, but not for thee.”

Today, we accidentally caught a glimpse inside the Ukraine that shows how totalitarian governments control the electoral process to their own political advantage. If we are a nation with a state-controlled media, then a story like this probably won’t get much coverage. If we still have freedom, then who knows? Maybe people will pass this along to other people. How about tweeting it to 12,000 of your closest friends??!

-30-

Citation: “Charges of fraud cast doubt on Crimea referendum,” Roy Gutman, News and Observer, March 31, 2014, 6A.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail