Friday, April 24, 2020


Trump cranks up populism as virus threatens reelection

President Trump is revving up his populist message, appealing to his base on issues such as immigration, abusive behavior by large corporations, and coronavirus-related economic lockdowns that have decimated small businesses and workers.
Trump suspended some categories of legal immigration, shamed big businesses and well-endowed universities for taking federal aid, and encouraged protests against Democratic governors who have supported extended shutdowns of the economy. This populist offensive, though not risk-free, could help shield the president from political fallout generated by the coronavirus and a pandemic-induced recession that has left millions unemployed by motivating grassroots Republicans to stick with him in November.
“Trump's populist rhetoric and action during the pandemic is helping to keep some parts of his coalition behind him,” said Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington think tank. “While most Trump voters support the lockdowns, a significant minority, between one-quarter and one-third, would prefer a faster reopening. His populist moves keep them in his camp, even while he pursues policies that generally support continued lockdowns.”
More than 26 million people in the United States have lost their jobs since mid-March, when Trump led the charge to shutter major sectors of the American economy through at least late April as part of an aggressive national strategy to stop the spread of the coronavirus. At one point, the president went so far as to consider issuing national shelter-in-place orders and enforcing a regional quarantine of metropolitan New York City, although he decided against the actions.
Then, with frustration over the lockdowns mounting in conservative circles, Trump tweeted “liberate” in support of protests against stringent social distancing mandates implemented by Democratic governors in battleground states critical to his reelection prospects. The peaceful protests on the grounds of state capitol buildings have been filled mostly with grassroots Republicans.
Next came the president’s executive order limiting legal immigration and sharp comments demanding that unnamed corporations and Harvard University return coronavirus relief funds obtained from a massive federal rescue package.
Trump’s move to infuse his management of the pandemic with sometimes polarizing populist rhetoric is a familiar refrain. The message dominated his 2016 campaign and has prevailed through his presidency. Some Republican insiders believe it could pay dividends this fall against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
“The Trump brand is a combat brand, and he understands that,” said Brad Todd, a GOP strategist and co-author, along with Washington Examiner columnist Salena Zito, of The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, a book about the coalition of voters that elected Trump in 2016. “People did not pick him to get along with anyone.”
But there is a downside, and it could cost Trump his reelection.
His approach is alienating suburban voters, especially women, and could turn persuadable independent voters into Joe Biden supporters. Polling has shown this is a vulnerability for the president. In two Fox News polls conducted Saturday through Tuesday, Biden led the president among female voters by a whopping 20 percentage points, 56% to 36%, in Michigan, and by 21 points in Pennsylvania, 56% to 35%.
Still, some Democrats agree with their Republican counterparts on the efficacy of Trump's populist message despite mocking the president as a phony populist who threatens corporations even as he negotiates government aid for them and criticizes governors for carrying out the very coronavirus mitigation policies he supports.
Dane Strother, a Democratic strategist, accused Trump of name-checking Harvard not because he is legitimately concerned that the university is receiving rescue funds it does not need but because doing so taps into the angst of his core supporters and distracts them from his administration’s failings. “It’s cultural,” he said. “His people devalue education — and they certainly hate Harvard."
Strother conceded, however, that it just might get Trump reelected despite a historic economic downturn amid a pandemic. “Any time he can deflect blame, which he’s a master of, it helps him,” he said.



Poll: Nearly 6-in-10 Americans Worry Mail-In Voting Will Spike Voter Fraud

Election worker Ruth Ard opens vote-by-mail ballots for the presidential primary at King County Elections in Renton, Washington on March 10, 2020. (Photo by Jason Redmond / AFP) (Photo by JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images)
JASON REDMOND/AFP via Getty Images
Nearly 6-in-10 American likely voters say they are worried that nationwide mail-in voting will increase voter fraud, a new poll reveals.
The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 likely voters finds that about 58 percent of Americans, or almost 6-in-10, are concerned over a spike in voter fraud should there be nationwide mail-in voting for upcoming elections.
A plurality of 36 percent of Americans said they are “very concerned” about more voter fraud because of mail-in voting, and another 22 percent said they are “somewhat concerned.” A minority of 39 percent said they are not concerned that mail-in voting will lead to more voter fraud.
Close to 80 percent of Republican voters said they are concerned about more voter fraud spurred by mail-in voting, along with more than half of swing voters. A majority of Democrats, 53 percent, said they are not concerned with voter fraud.
Working and middle-class Americans are much more likely to be concerned with voter fraud from mail-in voting than wealthy Americans.
For example, more than 6-in-10 likely voters earning less than $30,000 a year said they are concerned about voter fraud, as well as 58 percent of voters earning $30,000 to $50,000 a year and 63 percent of voters earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year.
Among those earning more than $200,000 a year, though, only 35 percent said they are concerned about voter fraud, while 65 percent said they are not concerned.
The survey comes as elected Democrats are lobbying for nationwide mail-in voting for the November presidential election — a move that would potentially deliver ballots to an estimated 24 million ineligible voters. The plan is being bankrolled by organizations funded by billionaire George Soros.
Voters were surveyed from April 14 to 15 with a margin of error +/- 3 percentage points.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Pelosi Pushes Vote-by-Mail — ‘Every Person Registered to Vote Should Receive a Ballot’


Friday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,”  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said “much more than” than the initial $400 million for a vote-by-mail initiative will be included in the next coronavirus stimulus bill to enable “every person registered to vote” to receive a ballot at home.
When asked about President Donald Trump not favoring bailout funding for the post office, Pelosi said, “The post office has over 90% favorability among the American people. They depend on the post office as a public institution. Seniors now are getting —they have always been getting their medicine by mail for a long time now and now even more urgently. People are buying things that are telemarketing and the rest, and they’re being delivered by the post office. So at this time, any time it’s a bad idea. It’s what they’re about, privatization, privatization, privatization. Let someone else go make money off someone that should be a public service for the American people. We will have to have that fight. We tried to get funding for the post office in the CARES one bill. We had some money in a bipartisan way, but the president I understand personally rejected it.”
She continued, “Let me tell you another reason he might be against it. We have to save the lives and livelihood of the American people. We also have to save our liberty, the life of our democracy. Voting by mail is central to this in any event, but at the time of the coronavirus, very essential. We had $400 million in CARES one. We have to have much more than that in CARES two so people can vote by mail.”
She added, “When the Supreme Court acting like party hacks said that the state of Wisconsin had to vote on that day and limited the importance of voting by mail, they were doing a Republican agenda, but the fact is is that having those people vote at that time was as if we invited them all to the Mardi Gras, probably caused more infections. People were standing in long for a very long time, keeping social distancing but nonetheless having to be out when they should be home. This issue of vote by mail and also saying every person registered to vote should receive a ballot and that we should have same-day registration for those who have not registered to vote. Opening the process, this is what our country is about, the vote, the sacred right to vote. I’m a former state chair of the party, and our purpose was always to remove obstacles for participation, whether they were Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or whatever they were.”
Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN

California Wants to Secede? Let's Help Them!

California is a part of America. But it’s no longer American. It is a foreign state. It is a fugitive state. The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law no longer apply in California. Call it, “The People’s Socialist Republic of California.” It’s a state without a country. But it’s certainly no longer American in any way. 
Liberals in California want to secede. They are trying to put it on the ballot. They call it “Calexit.” I say, “Glory Hallelujah."  Let’s help make it happen. I propose 63 million Trump voters join the team. Let's work 24/7 to turn their dream into a reality!
Millions of illegal aliens live in California; drive in California with official state-issued drivers’ licenses; and of course, use those licenses to vote in California. Millions. That’s precisely how Hillary won California by over 4 million votes.
California supports illegal aliens over legal, law-abiding American citizens. They support illegals getting free college tuition, while children of native-born Americans pay full fare. They support illegals over police and ICE. Many liberals in California want to abolish ICE. They want no borders and no immigration law. 
The Attorney General of California has warned any business owner who cooperates with ICE will face prosecution by the state of CaliforniaYou heard correctly. California will put the business owner in prison, for cooperating with federal law, to protect the criminal breaking the law.
The Mayor of Oakland famously played Paul Revere to warn illegal felons “ICE is coming. ICE is coming.” The Feds report over 800 felons evaded arrest because of that stunt. How many legal, law-abiding, native-born Americans will be robbed, raped, or murdered in the coming weeks because of that act of sedition?
A California judge just sided with the ACLU and barred LA County from enforcing gang restrictions that dramatically lowered crime. California has once again sided with hoodlums and gang-bangers over the law-abiding taxpayers. 
In Oakland, a coffee shop prohibits employees from serving police, in order to create a “safe space” for their customers. Californians hate and distrust police more than illegal felons and thugs who speak no English and wear gang tattoos. Really.
All of this is sheer madness. But California has taken it to a whole new level. 
Just this week the California Senate appointed the first-ever illegal alien to an official statewide post. Lizbeth Mateo, a 33-year old illegal alien-turned-attorney, will serve on the official state committee that doles out money to illegals attending college. In California, illegals now decide how taxpayer money is spent.
President Trump loves to brand (see "Crooked Hillary"). Let’s brand California. It’s not a “Sanctuary State.” It’s a “Fugitive State.” It’s a place that chooses to let felons and fugitives run free. It’s a place where the rights of criminals are far more important than protecting legal, law-abiding American citizens who pay taxes. We are the second class citizens in California. 
Here’s the way to fix the problem. Liberal Californians want to secede. I'm joining the movement. How about you? 
Conservatives should beg California to secede. We should make it easy for them. We should help pay for it. Pass the hat. Every conservative should chip in $20. I’ll throw $1000 to get the ball rolling.
Just think of elections. Without California, Trump and all future Republican presidential candidates would win, without breaking a sweat. Without California, we’d easily win the popular vote. And we'd win the electoral vote by a landslide.
Next think of Congress. California has 53 House seats. Democrats lead 39-14, for a net gain of 25 seats. Send California packing and the GOP gains a 25 House seat lead. We would dominate the House for decades to come. 
And of course, the GOP would gain an automatic two seats in the Senate through the subtraction of California. As it stands now, those two U.S. Senate seats are deep blue Democrat forever. But if California secedes a 51-49 GOP lead instantly moves to 51-47. 
If 63 million Trump voters just gave an average of $20 each to the "Calexit movement" that’s over $1.2 billion dollars. That’s enough money to help California secede, with enough left over as a down payment on building a wall…
with California.

January 6, 2019

California admits it has no idea whether non-citizens voted in last primary

After a hard-fought battle to obtain records by the Sacramento Bee, we now learn that California's electoral officials are admitting that they have no idea how many illegals and other non-citizens voted in the last primary, based on the state's motor-voter registration, which has been shown to have registered thousands of non-citizen voters. The Bee reports:
California officials still can’t say whether non-citizens voted in the June 2018 primary because a confusing government questionnaire about eligibility was created in a way that prevents a direct answer on citizenship.
Apparently, tens of thousands of foreign nationals and other ineligible voters, maybe 16 year olds, got registered to vote at the DMV when they applied for their drivers licenses whether they asked for it or not.
Investigators can see that people marked themselves as ineligible to vote or declined to answer eligibility questions, but they can’t tell why. 
“We can’t assume why they declined to answer eligibility questions or why they said they were not eligible,” the Secretary of State’s Office wrote in an internal memo on Oct. 8, 2018.
That email and other documents The Sacramento Bee obtained through the Public Records Act shed light on why the Secretary of State has been unable to say clearly whether non-citizens voted last year. The Bee filed a legal complaint for the records when the Secretary of State initially withheld most of them.
The email shows that, for months, California officials have been examining whether non-citizens voted last year. On Thursday, Secretary of State Alex Padilla confirmed for the first time that his office has an active internal investigation into the matter.
“The Secretary of State’s office does not comment on the details of ongoing investigations,” the office said in a statement. “Determining whether ineligible individuals who were erroneously registered to vote by the DMV cast ballots requires a complete review. The Secretary of State’s office is doing its due diligence by conducting a thorough investigation.”
Spokesmen for the office declined to say how the department could otherwise determine citizenship of those registered.
This doesn't even include the undoubtedly significant numbers of voters who answered that they were eligible to vote when they were not. Could that have happened when the ballot-harvestors were out patrolling illegal immigrant neighborhoods in search of votes? At a minimum, it most certainly was possible, especially, since claims to voter-eligibility on drivers license forms are never checked in California (it's the honor system), according to voter-integrity activists. It also doesn't help that California sneakily had residents sign to certify on their yellow mail-in ballots that they were California residents(rather than voting-eligible citizens) so as to prevent for illegals any potential perjury charges in addition to vote-fraud charges.
If California has no idea who's a citizen, and has resisted every effort out there to get that information (it has defied cooperation with President Trump's electoral integrity commission), well, then what we can conclude is that they don't want to know if a non-citizen is voting and now the word is out that they don't. Apparently, Democratic interests in 'counting all the ballots' as they say, means counting illegal ones, too.
They don't know, they don't want to know, and they aren't about to clean this up. Keep after them, Sacramento Bee. In this case, the Bee is a newspaper that's doing its actual job.

January 6, 2019

Ballot-harvesting gets just a little harder in California, thanks to Judicial Watch

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.

Bienvenidos a Mexico: California's ballot-harvesting, sure enough, is borrowed from Mexico

In an extraordinary investigative piece on how ballot-harvesting works by Steve Miller, published on Real Clear Investigations, we learn an amazing amount of information about how ballot-harvesting works and why it's so closely connected to election fraud, skewing elections in directions they normally wouldn't go. Themust-read piece is focused on how Texas is dealing with the seedy issue, enforcing the law, prosecuting more than twice as many cases of electoral fraud as California, even hampered as Texas is by weak penalties for violators. But a little detail stands out much deeper into the piece: Ballot-harvesting, which is at the root of considerable fraud of all kinds, is a practice specifically borrowed from Latin America, with a very impressive Latino analyst, K.B. Forbes, who has electoral experience in both countries, citing Mexico. Here's the passage:
The practice has its roots in Latin America, said K.B. Forbes, a political consultant and Hispanic activist who has served as an elections observer in Sonora, Mexico. “In the Latin culture, they have colonias, which is ‘little colony,’ literally,” he said. “In these, they sometimes have the equivalent of a precinct boss, and that’s how people move up. The [politiqueras] deliver the vote and when the candidate moves in, the theory is that they get a good post inside the government.”
That brings up California, where ballot-harvesting is perfectly legal, and normal voters have to wonder how the heck that happened. Ballot-harvesting has been a disaster for Republicans in California, with all conservatives now shut out from any representation in once-red Orange County. Most congressional elections there showed Republican candidates in the lead on election night in the last midterm, but all of them flipped to Democrats as the Democrat-led ballot-harvesting brought in votes and votes and votes from supposed precincts, harvested by their political operatives, until the result went the other way. (This by the way, didn't happen in districts where Democrats held a small lead, nothing flipped in their cases and ballots did not keep rolling in).
If ballot harvesting is a practice imported from Mexican politics, what does that say about California politics, whose legislators would embrace Mexican electoral practices over the U.S. standard? As I mentioned earlier, Mexico has been called "a perfect dicatorship" by none other than Nobel Prize-winning literary lion Mario Vargas Llosa, owing to the continuous power of the Mexican Partido Revolucionario Institucional (or P.R.I.), which up under a decade or two ago, had a hammerlock monopoly on Mexican politics, winning every single election in what was then a one-party state. That's a system so bad people emigrated illegally from that country to get away from it. Now, the cultural practice is right there waiting for them in California, albeit, virtually nowhere else.
And like the P.R.I.'s Mexican electoral practice of ballot-harvesting, it's noteworthy that the ruling Democrats of California also are famous for doling out the goodies to the loyal voters. They've promised amazing things to California's illegal immigrant population, with the latest thing free heath care. California's insurance commissioner, the respected non-partisan Steve Poizner, was, conveniently, ballot-harvested out of office after an election-night lead several days after midterm by utterly leftist Democrat Ricardo Lara who openly declared his support and big plans for free health care for illegals. He's tried it before in the legislator and now he's going to do it this time through the executive. California's incoming governor, of course, is all in for the goody-slinging. In Mexico, they used to pass out bags of beans for votes. In California, the prizes are considerably higher, and they go well beyond free health care.  I've already noted the weird similarities to how California is run, and P.R.I-style politics here.
Any wonder California is going way out of its way to welcome illegal immigrants? "You're all welcome here," as Gov. Jerry Brown famously said. California already hosts a quarter of the nation's illegals, and with middle class families now moving out due to high living costs and punitive taxation, the California P.R.I. likes new bodies coming in who have a lot of needs, which keeps the congressional seats numerous and the federal funds flowing.
It all makes a normal person wonder about the weird closeness of California officials and their Mexican counterparts, too. Newsom has already paid a visit to Mexico to discuss the caravan with the Mexican government in Mexico City (not Tijuana, where he would have gotten a earful from the generally conservative and more dissident-oriented Tijuana locals), and he has declared he plans to withdraw National Guard troops from the U.S. border. With his party now embracing the P.R.I's style of governance and having some unnaturally close ties to Mexican officials (I've seen it myself at Los Angeles functions as a guest of the Mexican government), it looks like a growing merger of Mexican and California politics.
Mexico knows how bad the system is, and its citizens did rebel against it with a Trump-like leftist president, Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador, who won on a vow to end corruption. One can safely take that as a sign that Mexicans are trying to move away from that kind of politics, which of course would include ballot harvesting. California, on the other hand, is moving toward it, embracing what Mexico is trying to reject. That speaks pretty poorly for the sorry state of affairs in California. It's only great for the rulers and those they patronize, until the money runs out.
 Until then, clarification about California's Mexico borrowings need to stand as an incentive to other states about what not to do.



Pelosi proposes massive state bailout in next spending measure

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will seek a massive federal cash infusion for struggling state and local governments that would be equivalent to the nearly $700 billion Congress has pumped into struggling businesses that have shut down due to the coronavirus outbreak.
“There will be a bill, and it will be expensive,” the California Democrat told reporters Friday in the U.S. Capitol.
Pelosi told reporters that the size of the state and local government bailout “is probably a number equivalent of what we’ve done for small businesses.”
The House Thursday cleared a $484 billion measure that included $310 billion for programs to help small businesses stay open. The measure is aimed at replenishing a small-business funding package signed into law on March 28 that allocated nearly $350 billion in aid.
The package cleared Thursday also includes $60 billion for economic disaster relief programs.
Democrats are now writing yet another spending bill that has put them on a course to clash with Republicans, who want to slow the federal spigot that has caused the debt to balloon significantly.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has flatly rejected new legislation that would provide billions of dollars that could be used to bail out underfunded pension programs in many states, including New York, Oregon, and Illinois.
McConnell has also warned that Republicans are not as eager to rush through new spending.
But Pelosi said Democrats, who control the House majority, are not going to back down.
“There will not be a bill without state and local” funding, she said.
The March 28 spending measure, which cost $2.2 trillion, allocated $100 billion to state and local governments that have suffered economic losses due to the coronavirus outbreak and government-ordered lockdowns.
Pelosi and Democrats argue that governments will be forced to cut back on firefighters, police, and other essential government workers if they do not receive federal aid.
She accused McConnell and Republicans of “rejecting governance” and compared it to President Trump’s widely ridiculed comments on disinfectants made during Thursday night's press briefing.
“The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs, and Mitch is saying that states should go bankrupt,” Pelosi told reporters. “It's a clear, visible, within 24 hours, of how the Republicans reject science and reject governance. If you don't believe in science and you don't believe in governance, that’s their approach.”
McConnell told the Hugh Hewitt radio program this week that his party will not back the kind of state and local spending Pelosi is planning in the new legislation.
“There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations,” McConnell said. “These are all taxing authorities just like we are, and I think that’s why we need to have a fulsome conference-wide discussion among Senate Republicans before we go down this path.”
McConnell said he would support a change in the law allowing states to declare bankruptcy before greenlighting a federal bailout of underfunded pensions.
Democrats think there are many Republicans who will support legislation to provide more state and local federal aid. And Trump has tweeted his support for providing additional money for state and local governments that have suffered economic losses due to the coronavirus.
Pelosi said Democrats are writing a new spending bill that will include worker protections, “pension support,” additional unemployment insurance, and healthcare funding, among other things. The measure would also provide a $25 billion bailout of the U.S. Postal Service's debt, she said.
Pelosi said Republicans are attempting to privatize the postal services, which she said that “the public should be aware of and reject.”