Voting machine glitches, paper ballots, and early voting

  

art credit: CNN Money

Today, Drudge links to a report at Info Wars about voting machine “glitches” in Texas:

  

Chambers County Clerk Heather Hawthorne issued a press release Tuesday announcing electronic voting would be suspended until the glitches affecting voting machines could be corrected.

. . .

“Moving temporarily to paper ballots in such a situation is standard protocol,” Hawthorne reportedly told 12NewsNow.

On Wednesday, Hawthorne issued another press release claiming the machines had been fixed.

Interesting that this particular Board of Elections could, as a matter of “standard protocol,” switch almost immediately to paper ballots after a “glitch” was discovered. But in the comments below the report were several computer programmer types who said that any student who completed Computer Programming 101 could program a voting machine; my husband is a professional programmer specializing in large databases, and he concurs. It's not difficult. Any “glitch” was unlikely to be a careless programming error. More likely to be deliberate. And since the "glitch" was fixed almost immediately, it would appear to be a pretty simple "correction." 

Voting machine "glitches." Voting without valid i.d. Voting more than once. Early voting ballots counted before Election Day. The list of potential opportunities for voter fraud is a long one. 

What can be done to put a drag chain on potential voter fraud in your precinct? Over at the American Thinker blog, Crystal Hoadley recommends that voters who are planning to pull the lever for Trump vote “as close as possible to Election Day.” Read why here. 

# # #

The Great Internet Giveaway

image credit: salon.com

Internet management EXPIRED

Bad news. I might have thought it would be a banner headline, but if you scrolled down, Drudge linked to this Yahoo.com report:

The US government on Saturday ended its formal oversight role over the internet, handing over management of the online address system to a global non-profit entity.

The US Commerce Department announced that its contract had expired with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which manages the internet's so-called "root zone."

That leaves ICANN as a self-regulating organization that will be operated by the internet's "stakeholders" -- engineers, academics, businesses, non-government and government groups.

The move is part of a decades-old plan by the US to "privatize" the internet, and backers have said it would help maintain its integrity around the world.

US and ICANN officials have said the contract had given Washington a symbolic role as overseer or the internet's "root zone" where new online domains and addresses are created.

But critics, including some US lawmakers, argued that this was a "giveaway" by Washington that could allow authoritarian regimes to seize control.

A last-ditch effort by critics to block the plan -- a lawsuit filed by four US states -- failed when a Texas federal judge refused to issue an injunction to stop the transition.

Read the rest here. No good can come of this.

# # #

More on media bias

art credit: kwizoo.com

If your neighbor or relative relies on, say, the New York Times or ABC news or local TV news for his/her information, you can be 100% sure they are NOT getting the news. I’ve had a tiny bit of success in persuading family and friends to expand their sources of news, as that approach is less confrontational than criticizing particular news sources. 

I always start by suggesting the online aggregators. The Drudge Report is an obvious place to start. Next on my recommended list is RealClearPolitics, not because it is at the top of my own list, but because it posts news and analysis from the far left to the far right, and everything in between. It’s user friendly. The site itself doesn’t provide for reader comments, so it as close to neutral as possible. (I also suggest conservative talk radio - any conservative talk radio -- for those who don't want to go the internet route.)

A voter who begins to realize that the reports they are relying on are incomplete, heavily edited, selective, etc. will perhaps go to the next step and further expand their sources of news. A few people I know have had the ultimate Epiphany when they realized to their shock and horror that The Plain Dealer, The New York Times, CNN [or fill in the blank] are not fair and balanced. (For what it is worth, I don’t rely on Fox much, either.) But if you have any relatives or friends who will tolerate a conversation on the media and news, maybe they’ll consider a suggestion that they try expanding their sources of news, at least for a few days just to see what they find.

Steve Feinstein at American Thinker posted an article (“Pre-Empting the Liberal Media”) on media bias and its role in shaping public opinion. Here are some extracts:

Liberal mainstream media bias for Hillary Clinton is the single biggest factor so far in this election season contributing to her lead in the polls. The nightly news on NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, the NY Times, Washington Post, the morning and late-night TV shows, CNN, MSNBC, and all the websites associated with these sources are strongly and openly behind Hillary and her “first woman” status. Many so-called journalists have dropped any pretense of objectivity and are quite unashamedly and openly supportive of Clinton, while they derisively dismiss Trump as an unserious nonentity. 

Ostensibly, it is Trump’s presence in this year’s race that has caused liberal bias to be so prominent, but no rational observer could possibly think that the media would show any less favoritism towards First-Woman Hillary if her Republican opponent were Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich.

Hillary has many well-known vulnerabilities and character flaws: her role in Benghazi debacle and the subsequent rewriting of history in order to avoid accountability and blame, her non-accomplishments in every major foreign affairs arena where she played a role as Secretary of State, her private e-mail server and her continual distortions and parsing in an attempt to deflect scrutiny and shift responsibility (“Colin Powell told me to do it!”), and of course, the widening-by-the-day Clinton Foundation corruption controversy.

These factors are completely independent of who her opponent happens to be. . . .

. . . The "circular firing squad" that Republicans have created this year because of Trump -- who won the primaries fair and square, regardless of anyone's personal feelings about him -- is truly idiotic and inexplicable.

The Republicans need to remember who their real opponent is in 2016 -- it’s not the “untraditional Republican” Donald Trump, it’s the liberal media propping up an astonishingly deficient Hillary Clinton.  . . .

The entire article is here.

# # #

Drudge: Republicans Plan New Obamatrade Push

 Sen. Jeff Sessions Comments On Continuing Push To Grant Obama New Executive Powers (h/t Breitbart): 

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement today [June 12] regarding the vote to give President Obama expanded fast-track executive authorities:

“It appears there will be another attempt by Tuesday to force through new executive powers for President Obama. A vote for TAA next week is a vote to send fast-track to the President’s desk and to grant him these broad new executive authorities. If that happens, it will empower the President to form a Pacific Union encompassing 40 percent of the world’s economy and 12 nations—each with one equal vote. Once the union is formed, foreign bureaucrats will be required to meet regularly to write the Commission’s rules, regulations, and directives—impacting Americans’ jobs, wages, and sovereignty. The union is chartered with a “Living Agreement,” and there is no doubt it will seek to expand its membership and reach over time.

Fast-track will not only apply to the Pacific Union, but can expedite an unlimited number of yet-unseen international compacts for six years. There are already plans to advance through fast-track the Trade in Services Agreement, the goal of which includes labor mobility among more than 50 nations, further eroding the ability of the American people to control their own affairs.

Americans do not want this, did not ask for it, and are pleading from their hearts for their lawmakers to stop it.

The same people projecting the benefits of leaping into a colossal new economic union could not even accurately predict the impact of a standalone agreement with South Korea. The latter deal, which promised to boost our exports to them $10 billion, instead only budged them less than $1 billion, while South Korea’s imports to us increased more than $12 billion, nearly doubling our trading deficit. This new agreement will only further increase our trading deficit: opening our markets to foreign imports while allowing our trading partners to continue their non-tariff barriers that close their markets to ours.

If we want a new trade deal with Japan, or with Vietnam, then they should be negotiated bilaterally and sent to Congress under regular order. Under no circumstances should the House authorize, through fast-track, the formation of a new international commission that will regulate not only trade, but immigration, labor, environmental, and all manner of commercial policy.

What American went to the polls in 2014 to vote for fast-track and a new global union? Can anyone honestly say that Congress is trying to ram this deal through because they think their constituents want it?

While elites dream of a world without borders, voters dream of a world where the politicians they elect put this country’s own citizens first.

The movement among Americans toward a decent, honest populism—toward a refocusing on the needs of American citizens and American interests—grows stronger by the day. Every vote to come before Congress, beginning with the next fast-track push, will face this test: does your plan strengthen or weaken the social and economic position of the loyal, everyday working American?”

Permalink: http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/6/sessions-comments-on-continuing-push-to-grant-obama-new-executive-powers

Michelle Malkin has more sobering comments here. 

Ted Cruz has come out in support of the bill. 

Why would Congress pass (let alone rush to pass ~ without reading) a bill that further compromises the sovereignty of the United States? 

# # #