RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/08/muslim-congressional-candidate-attends-radical-joe-kaufman/

Broward County Commissioner Barbara Sharief has the distinction of having been Broward’s first black female mayor and first Muslim mayor. For the past 12-plus years, since she has held different elected political offices, she has, for the most part, kept a distance between herself and Islamist groups, of which there are many in South Florida. In fact, in 2016, it was reported that Sharief had not “been in a mosque since she was a teenager.” As a current candidate for US Congress, though, things have changed, as she now appears to have embraced radical Islam in a big way. This article was written to expose the potential danger she poses to the community.

Barbara Muhammad Sharief, in her youth, had a close relationship with the Nation of Islam (NOI), the black separatist group headed by rabid anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. Sharief had been a student at NOI’s Clara Mohammed School (CMS), located in Miami, and she, her mother Bobbie, and her late father James, had been active members of Masjid Al-Ansar (MAA), the mosque where the school was and still is housed and where boxing champion Muhammad Ali reportedly worshiped during his earliest days as a Muslim. According to the South Florida Times, Sharief gives “credit for her success in part… to the Clara Mohammed School system.”

This past April, Sharief, in her capacity as Broward Commissioner, read and presented a proclamation to representatives of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) designating April as ‘Muslim Heritage Month.’ The ceremony was held at the Islamic Foundation of South Florida (IFSF). In April 2014, IFSF hosted a talk by Mazen Mokhtar, a former admin for the now-defunct al-Qaeda recruitment site, qoqaz.net, and supporter of suicide bombings. IFSF’s ex-Youth Director Abdur Rahman al-Ghani, on Facebook, called Jews “demonic” and the US the “World’s Number One Terrorist Organization.” He threatened, Islam “will overtake the world in numbers.”

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/georgia-ballot-adjudication-spoiled?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Records obtained by Just the News provide unprecedented glimpse into human adjudication of thousands of ballots, where marks for candidates like Trump were sometimes removed so ballots could count for Biden.

A day after the November election, as Donald Trump and other Republican candidates clung to evaporating leads in Georgia, vote counters in Atlanta were confronted by a paper ballot known only by its anonymizing number 5150-232-18.

A Dominion Voting machine had rejected the ballot on election night because the voter had filled in boxes for both Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden, an error known as an “overvote.” The machine determined neither candidate should get a tally, and the ballot was referred for human review.

The image of the ballot, obtained by Just the News, shows the voter messily scribbled a large blob in the box to select Trump as president while also putting a thinner check mark next to Biden’s name.  

At 6:10 p.m. ET on Nov. 4, 24 hours after the ballot was first scanned and rejected by Machine 5150, a panel of humans decided the vote should be awarded to Biden, with the notation “mark removed for Donald J. Trump.” You can see that ballot here:

Scores of additional ballots that same day had checks manually removed next to Trump’s name as well as many other candidates up and down the ticket — Libertarians, Democrats and write-ins alike — and the votes awarded instead to other candidates. 

Welcome to the arcane process known as adjudication, where human judgment is substituted for machine scanning in cases where voters incorrectly filled out a paper ballot. Election officials and official observers have dealt with it for years, with everyday citizens mostly oblivious to the process.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/08/06/the-2020-election-is-breaking-the-legal-profession/

“Elites are psychologically predisposed to swat down, with extreme prejudice, any perceived threats to the ruling class’ continued legitimacy; it has ever been thus. But make no mistake: This sort of thing, if it spreads and becomes normalized as the routine operation of our legal system, will have dire consequences.”

The Hill reports that a Colorado federal magistrate judge, N. Reid Neureiter, “sanctioned lawyers who challenged the 2020 presidential election results, calling their election claims ‘fantastical.’” “Plaintiffs’ counsel shall jointly and severally pay the moving Defendants’ reasonable attorneys [fees]”—which is very likely to be many thousands of dollars. This ruling comes while a federal district judge in Michigan, Linda Parker, considers imposing sanctions on attorneys Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, both of whom raised questions about the propriety of the 2020 presidential election. 

In January, James Boasberg, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., “referred a Minnesota lawyer [Erick Kardaal] for potential discipline” for his lawsuit regarding the last election. And these three proceedings occur in the shadow of the sanctioning of Rudy Giuliani by a New York state appellate court, which saw fit to suspend his law license for representing his client, then-President Donald J. Trump, in the wake of the 2020 election. Giuliani likely will face “permanent sanctions” at the conclusion of the process.

These are deeply troubling developments. Even the Bush v. Gore saga didn’t generate such official acrimony.

Attorneys in every state are duty-bound to offer zealous advocacy for their clients. This doesn’t mean that they can lie to the court or to the other lawyers involved in a case, or make a mockery of the process, but it does mean that they have an ethical obligation to press every possible good-faith claim in their client’s favor as hard as they possibly can. The American legal system is adversarial; therefore, a case’s legal soundness is only as good as the competition between the lawyers who appear before the court.

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/08/04/the-governor-california-voters-dont-deserve-but-surely-need/

The California gubernatorial recall election was a dull affair that looked to be a loser for those who want to remove Gov. Gavin Newsom from office. Then Larry Elder entered the race. Now we get to see how ever-so-tolerant, diversity-obsessed Californians deal with the angst of seeing a black man with a serious chance on the Sept. 14 ballot.

No one would shake up single-party California more than Elder, a talk show host – the “Sage of South Central” – who is also a small business owner, author, and columnist. Though the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace recalled Gray Davis in 2003 was a landmark political moment, it’s small-time compared to the state electing a black libertarian-leaning Republican, one who happens to lead the field of possible replacements by a large margin.

Anyone who has listened to Elder’s radio shows knows he’s smart, that he supports his beliefs with facts. He’s also a happy warrior, not a scold like the current governor, who is an operator; a slickster, ​​who according to veteran California journalist Dan Walters “continues to say and do things to bolster that image”; an angle-player; and one lucky man who has relied on his good looks and extensive Democratic Party IOUs to reach the governor’s mansion.

(Which will be his final political destination. It’s obvious he’s been eyeing the White House, but the presidency is no longer possible for him, even should he survive the recall. He’s too wounded.)

Elder’s top campaign themes are lifting the statewide ban on cash bail, unwinding harshest-in-the-nation pandemic restrictions, expanding school choice programs, and easing the state’s burdensome environmental regulatory framework. If successful, his policies would reduce crime, which has become world famous, thanks to viral videos; free Californians from the grip of elected and unelected officials who have used the pandemic to manipulate and control; repair the state’s once highly regarded schools; and set off the homebuilding boom California desperately needs.

The election of Elder, or any Republican or Libertarian among the nearly 50 candidates, would have an impact all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. Newsom himself has said that if the recall is a success, “it would have profound consequences nationwide and go to not just politics, but to policy and policymaking.” ​​If his party is harmed, as he fears, that would be a bonus for a country that is under the boot of a powerful complex of Democrat elitists hungry to rule rather than govern under constitutional limits.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/566044-democrats-election-bills-ignore-the-founders-principles

As the fight over election reform heats up in Congress, the White House is ramping up the rhetoric, declaring that President Biden and Vice President Harris are “incensed by the anti-voter laws that are trampling on our constitutional principles.” It is a mantra repeated on an array of liberal news sites, but the coverage tends to be selective in what constitutional principles are being abridged. “Our constitutional principles” include state power over elections.

While the president decries an “unprecedented attack on democracy,” the federalization of elections being pursued by Democrats actually would contravene what the Framers considered a core protection of democracy. By ignoring those countervailing principles, the Democrats are creating a dangerous blind spot in these proposed laws. The resulting litigation could leave core election rules in doubt heading into the next round of elections.

When the Constitution was written, the Framers expressly warned of the need to keep the federal government at bay in elections. South Carolina constitutional convention delegate Charles Pinckney noted that “great care was used to provide for the election of the president of the United States independently of Congress; to take the business as far as possible out of their hands.” It was done, he explained, because Congress “had no right to meddle with it at all.” Many Framers feared the power of the central government and wanted to prevent the abuses of Great Britain in the use of executive powers.

This view was reflected in the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, which confines the power of Congress to determining “the day on which [electors] give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Where Congress is left with the timing of such elections, states are left the manner in which those elections are held.

Not only did this state control over elections advance the purpose of decentralization of authority, it reflected the strong federalism principles in the Constitution. States were viewed as “laboratories of democracy,” with each pursuing different approaches to governmental functions, including elections. They also were closest to the voters, who could more readily change laws and policies on the state level.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/07/12/ignoring-georgia-illegal-voting-proves-democrats-dont-care-about-election-integrity-at-all/

On Friday, when The Federalist broke news that recently obtained evidence indicates more than 10,300 Georgia voters—a number that continues to grow—voted illegally in the 2020 general election, the corrupt press ignored the story.

Instead, corporate and government media focused that day on Democrats’ calls to ditch the filibuster to push through H.R. 1, the so-called For the People Act, and the White House’s announcement that “Biden would travel to Philadelphia on Tuesday to discuss ‘actions to protect the sacred, constitutional right to vote.’”

In covering these stories, the press continues to parrot Democrats’ spin that H.R. 1 is necessary to protect the right to vote which, the left claims, is under attack by GOP-controlled states “after Republicans seized on former President Donald Trump’s false claim of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election as a pretext for passing new legislation curtailing ballot access.”

Democrats persist in their claims that these state laws “disenfranchise large numbers of voters, particularly voters of color,” with President Joe Biden calling them an “ongoing assault of voter suppression that represents a Jim Crow era in the 21st Century.”

While Democrats and their partners in the press push the Jim Crow canard, they ignore the real disenfranchisement that took place in the mess of the 2020 election, a minor fraction of which I detailed last week in reporting on new evidence that indicates more than 10,300 Georgia residents voted illegally.

Illegal voting might not be glamourous and it definitely doesn’t garner the headlines, but every illegal vote counted cancels out a lawfully cast ballot, thereby disenfranchising the latter voter. And a voter holds a right both “to cast his or her vote, and the corresponding right of each of those legally registered voters to be protected from having that vote diluted by illegally or fraudulently cast votes.”

But in Georgia it now appears near-certain that tens of thousands of residents voted illegally in the 2020 general election. Yet there is a collective yawn by the same politicians and press corps desperate to sell the tale of impending disenfranchisement in red states.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/pennsylvania-senate-chairman-initiates-forensic-probe-of-2020-2021-elections_3890927.html

A Pennsylvania senator announced on July 7 that he has triggered a forensic investigation of the 2020 and 2021 elections.

State Sen. Doug Mastriano, a Republican, issued letters to several counties requesting information and materials that he said would enable an investigation.

“It’s distinct from an audit or forensic audit. It’s a big deep dive, like we saw in Arizona, but even deeper,” Mastriano told The Epoch Times.

“It takes a hard look at software, machine, scanners, in addition to looking at all the ballots themselves to see if they were hand-filled-in or copied by a machine. So a scientific approach to get to the bottom of what happened, what went right, what went wrong in an election. It takes out all bias.”

Philadelphia County received a letter, as did two that lean Republican: York and Tioga counties.

They were asked to send over hard copies of ballots and other election materials. Mastriano expects a court battle to play out and is ready to go to his committee and request subpoena power if the counties don’t comply or indicate their willingness to comply by July 31.

A deputy for Philadelphia Commissioner Omar Sabir, a Democrat, told The Epoch Times that Sabir believes the elections were run freely and secure. He said that the commissioners are consulting with the city’s law department on the request from the state Senate. Nick Custodio, a deputy for Philadelphia Commissioner Lisa Deeley, a Democrat, said that her office is reviewing the requests.

“We do want to be clear, however, that Senator Mastriano’s letter reiterates claims about the November 2020 election that have been resoundingly rejected by courts. The repetition of baseless claims by elected officials poses a real challenge to our democratic processes. We are committed to continuing the hard work of ensuring that Philadelphians are able to exercise their right to vote,” he said in an email.

A York County official acknowledged receipt of Mastriano’s requests but declined to comment. Tioga County did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

In an op-ed sent to news outlets, Mastriano charged that there’s a strong case for an investigation, noting that 2.7 million mail-in ballots were counted in the 2020 election, compared to just 263,000 in the prior presidential election. He also noted that many of the ballots were counted without signature verification.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ranked-choice-voting-is-bad-for-everyone-11625674248?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

When it comes to counting votes, America’s political parties want to keep or gain their own advantage. The public interest, however, demands a nonpartisan method. No neutral method has yet been devised that merely elicits the people’s will without twisting it one way or another. Ranked-choice voting is an attempt that has its own twist and will make elections worse for both parties.

The idea isn’t new but it has gained favor, mostly from the left. It can be dismissed as too complicated and, coming as it does from professors, too demanding for most voters outside New York City. But I would like to present three deeper faults in it that concern how voters think, for ranked-choice voting is intended to make them think in a certain way.

First, by ranking choices a voter is required to divide his vote between a favorite candidate and some merely acceptable ones. The first choice is what the voter privately wills—the representative who suits him best. This choice is not directed at the common good, which requires that voters consider what others want. In a free country voters should desire a common good superior to the wishes of private individuals to prevail.

Ranked-choice voting makes the common good inferior to each person’s private first choice. The common good of the country typically gets ranked second choice or below for each citizen.