Connect with us

Northeast

Why the Left hates election integrity and the secret ballot

Published

on

Why the Left hates election integrity and the secret ballot

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

They’re still counting ballots in Pennsylvania and California – or, more accurately, they’re still finding ballots. 

Advertisement

In Pennsylvania, three Democratic counties defy their liberal state Supreme Court by counting ineligible ballots. The pool of bad ballots isn’t enough to overturn the election for either President-elect Trump or Sen.-elect Dave McCormick, so why the push by the left to include ineligible ballots? 

The reason is simple and sinister: to set bad precedent for future elections.

Republican Sen.-elect Dave McCormick and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey (Getty Images)

In California, a similar effort is underway. There, a couple of U.S. House elections remain to be decided. In California, a state with no effective voter ID requirement, runs its elections almost entirely by mail. State law allows mail-in ballots with no postmark to be counted up to a week after Election Day if the person completing the ballot affixes a date on or before Election Day. 

WHY THE MAGA MOVEMENT IS THE 1776 REVOLUTION OF OUR TIME

Advertisement

Thus, if there is a close race that requires “fortification” – the left’s 2020 euphemism for election theft – Democratic operatives need only find a few voters who haven’t voted, “help” them fill out a ballot, and back date the signature – and voila! The late-breaking votes magically skew Democratic. 

To the average voter, about 85% of whom support presenting an ID to vote, these mail-in ballot manipulations are shocking. They degrade faith in our election processes. 

That the Left pushes election law past the breaking point is understandable on a pure will-to-power basis. But for many on the left, especially the ideological vanguard that has pushed the Democratic Party to the far left, there is another, deeper and more disturbing reason: they don’t view voting as an individual task of a citizen acting on their enlightened self-interest, rather, they see voting as a collective right. 

Voting as a Collective Right

Democrats, particularly their critical race theory (CRT)-driven factions, view voting as a collective right rather than an individual one. This ideology prioritizes group identity over individual agency, arguing that elections must deliver racially and socially “just” outcomes, regardless of procedural fairness. 

MORNING GLORY: TOP 10 LESSONS FROM THE LANDSLIDE

Advertisement

This view aligns disturbingly with the concept of concurrent majority espoused by John C. Calhoun, the early 19th-century political theorist who served as a congressman, senator and vice president under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. The bitter historical irony here is that Calhoun was an ardent supporter of slavery. He would heartily agree with the idea of race determining political outcomes.

John C. Calhoun, the early 19th-century political theorist who served as a congressman, senator and vice president under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

A stark example is California’s ballot trafficking system, which allows paid operatives to pressure voters at their homes, destroying the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot. This system, institutionalized over the past decade, has yielded dramatic gains for Democrats, with union-aligned operatives ensuring ballots are “completed correctly.”

This was brought home to me a week before the election when I participated in a forum on voting rights at a local college. My sparring partner was an officer with the League of Women Voters. Just after declaring the sanctity of the secret ballot, she described, without a hint of irony, helping senior citizens in nursing homes vote by mail. The idea that all those ballots were completed in secret by voters who have lost their mental acuity strains credulity. 

NANCY PELOSI IS FINISHED — NO ONE DESERVES MORE BLAME FOR DEMS’ $1B ELECTORAL COLLAPSE

Advertisement

But the CRT lens justifies such measures, framing elections not as neutral mechanisms of choice but as tools to rectify historic wrongs and redistribute power.

Destroying Election Safeguards

The left’s assault on election safeguards predates COVID-19 but gained momentum during the pandemic. Emergency rules, initially billed as temporary, have hardened into fixtures of the electoral landscape. Pennsylvania’s and California’s current ballot-handling controversies are emblematic of this shift.

In Pennsylvania, the deliberate counting of ineligible ballots, despite court rulings, exemplifies contempt for the rule of law. California’s lax standards for mail-in ballots – combined with partisan Postal Service unions – invite abuse. These practices are less about counting every vote than about creating systems vulnerable to manipulation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

What’s at Stake

Election integrity measures, such as requiring voter ID and restricting ballot trafficking, are derided as voter suppression by CRT adherents. However, these measures aim to preserve the individual’s free and secret vote—a core pillar of democracy. 

Advertisement

The battle is not between partisans but between those defending democracy’s principles and those seeking to redefine them.

Left unchecked, these developments risk eroding public confidence in elections. States like Florida and Texas, which have resisted California-style systems, provide a counterpoint, but the trend is clear: Unless systemic safeguards are reinforced, elections will increasingly be determined by paid operatives or left-wing activists, not voters.

As the 2024 elections demonstrate, the stakes are higher than ever. The Left’s collectivist voting philosophy justifies election manipulation under the guise of social justice, jeopardizing the integrity of democratic processes. 

To safeguard our republic, Americans must confront these dangerous trends and demand reforms that prioritize the individual’s right to a free, fair and secret ballot.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM CHUCK DEVORE

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pittsburg, PA

Intruder claimed to be ICE agent during burglary, police say

Published

on

Intruder claimed to be ICE agent during burglary, police say


A man is in custody after Pittsburgh police say he attempted to impersonate an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent during a burglary.

Police were called to a reported burglary in progress Saturday night at a home in the 500 block of Climax Street in the city’s Beltzhoover neighborhood after a landlord said a man smashed a window and broke into a residence, authorities said.

While officers were en route, dispatchers reported that a tenant inside the residence had struck the suspect in the face with an object, knocking him unconscious.

Police said the suspect, later identified as William Gregory, was found lying unconscious on the floor when officers arrived. A juvenile victim was standing in a doorway with minor injuries to his right ankle and hand, police said.

Advertisement

According to police, the juvenile told officers that Gregory entered through the kitchen window, went upstairs and shouted that he was an ICE agent demanding to see paperwork. Police said Gregory then pulled out a pocketknife, threatened to stab the juvenile and began stealing a PlayStation console and controllers.

Police said Gregory also forcibly took the juvenile’s cellphone, leading to a physical altercation. The juvenile eventually punched Gregory in the face, knocking him unconscious before officers arrived.

When officers attempted to handcuff Gregory, he regained consciousness and resisted arrest, police said. Gregory continued to pull away as multiple officers tried to take him into custody before he was eventually tased and subdued.

Medics responded to the scene and sedated Gregory before transporting him to Mercy Hospital for treatment. Police said Gregory appeared heavily intoxicated and under the influence of drugs.

Officers later learned Gregory had multiple outstanding warrants, including for burglary and possession of a firearm. Police said they plan to request arrest warrants for Gregory based on the investigation and the reported offenses.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Twelve people displaced in Waterbury fire

Published

on

Twelve people displaced in Waterbury fire


Eight adults and four children are displaced after a basement fire in Waterbury on Sunday night.

The Waterbury Fire Department responded to a call around 5:10 p.m. for a structure fire at Country Club Road.

Upon arrival, firefighters located heavy smoke on the first floor of the building. They then discovered a fire in the basement.

The heavy fire has been knocked down.

Advertisement

There are no reports of injuries.

The American Red Cross is working to assist those who have been displaced.

The fire marshal is investigating the single alarm fire.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Maine

Maine AG argues state police can’t be sued in police brutality case – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Maine AG argues state police can’t be sued in police brutality case – The Boston Globe


“The Supreme Court has held that a State is not a ‘person’. … Likewise, a state agency that is an arm of the state also is not a ‘person,’” Frey wrote in a motion filed with the US District Court in Portland, Maine.

In a similar vein, Frey argued state agencies are not liable for violations of the Maine Civil Rights Act because they are not individual people. He also argued the Maine Tort Claims Act provides “sovereign immunity” to the state and its agencies from civil suits, except in narrow circumstances.

The lawsuit was filed by Justin Savage, who suffered a broken nose during a March 2024 arrest in Limerick, Maine. The York County district attorney’s office eventually dropped all charges against Savage stemming from the incident, including assault on an officer.

In September, Savage and his girlfriend, Shawna Morse, sued the state, the Maine State Police, its top official, Colonel William Ross, and three individual officers involved in the arrest for assault, violation of civil rights, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, and destroying evidence, among other claims.

Advertisement

After the arrest, the Maine State Police cleared its officers of any wrongdoing, including then-trooper Jamie Fenderson, who was captured on dash cam footage repeatedly punching Savage in the face while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. A joint Maine Monitor and Bangor Daily News investigation of the video footage and police records from the incident determined the Maine State Police misrepresented the events of the night in both police reports and public statements.

The Maine State Police did not initially investigate the incident as potential “serious misconduct,” tasking Fenderson’s commander with the investigation instead of the Office of Professional Standards. Only after a series of public records requests related to the incident prompted fear of litigation did State Police leaders ask the Office of Professional Standards to review the incident.

While the review was still ongoing, the agency promoted Fenderson — his first promotion in 16 years.

In addition, the Monitor/BDN investigation found that the Maine State Police had investigated nearly three dozen complaints alleging excessive force by its troopers over the past decade and cleared its troopers of wrongdoing in every case.

Frey asked the court to dismiss Savage and Morse’s claim that State Police disposed of evidence, including a spit mask used on Savage and the gloves Fenderson was wearing during the arrest. The attorney general argued that “spoliation of evidence” claims can only be addressed during criminal proceedings, not civil lawsuits.

Advertisement

The filing also argued the lawsuit’s defamation claim should be dismissed against the state and the Maine State Police because Savage and Morse did not allege that Maine State Police social media posts had an “adverse effect” on their legal status, such as being fired or demoted from their jobs.

Frey’s filing did not address the facts alleged in Savage and Morse’s lawsuit and did not seek to dismiss the bulk of the claims made against Ross or the individual officers involved in the arrest.

The attorney general’s office is also representing Ross and the three officers, according to court records.

In an amended complaint filed in late October, Savage and Morse alleged that Fenderson punched Savage in the face between 11 and 13 times while Savage was “fully restrained.”

Earlier this month, during an appearance before the Legislature’s criminal justice committee, Michael Sauschuck, commissioner of the Maine Department of Public Safety that oversees the State Police, said he would not answer any questions related to the Savage case, citing the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Shortly after filing the lawsuit, Savage and Morse’s attorney, Jeffrey Bennett, called on York County District Attorney Kathryn Slattery to open a grand jury investigation into the actions of the officers who arrested Savage. Slattery did not respond to requests for comment, and no charges have been filed.





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending