Dead Voters Still being Registered & Voting in Chicago years after their death

From CBS 2 in Chicago.

Susie Sallee was buried in 1998. Yet records show she voted in Chicago 12 years later.
Victor Crosswell died in 1994, but records show he’s voted six times since then. 

And then there’s Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993. 

“It’s crazy,” Sharon Stevens Anderson, Stevens’ daughter, tells CBS 2’s Pam Zekman. “I don’t see how people can be able to do something like that and get away with it.” 

Those are just a few of the cases CBS 2 Investigators found by merging Chicago Board of Election voter histories with the death master file from the Social Security Administration. 

In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade. . . . 

Take Tadeusz Ciesla. Records show he voted in 2010. 

But his nephew Marek Ciesla says that’s impossible because he died in 1998. . . .

Of course, this is nothing like the 100,000 fraudulent votes cast in 1982.

the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast. 

Another example: 1,046 illegal aliens were discovered to be registered to vote in eight Virginia counties, but this number only included those who turned themselves  for being improperly registered.

Another example: In 56 counties, Indiana state police "believe there could be hundreds of fraudulent voter registration records with different combinations of made up names and addresses with people’s real information."

Another example: In 2012, 731 Pennsylvania voters may have voted twice.

More examples of vote fraud are here, here, and here. 

Yet more Dem vote fraud, Pennsylvania State Police Stage Voter Fraud Sting

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Pennsylvania state police have raided a Delaware County political field office seeking evidence of possible voter-registration fraud, according to court records. 

In a warrant filed late last week in County Court, investigators said they were seeking documents, financial information, and lists of employees at the Norwood office of FieldWorks LLC, a national organization that often does street work for Democrats, records show. . . . 

agents also were looking for "templates . . . utilized to construct fraudulent voter registration forms" and "completed voter registration forms containing same or similar identifying information of individuals on multiple forms." 

A Delaware County judge on Friday afternoon signed the search warrant, but it was not known when it was executed. The warrant application was approved by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Jeff Johnson, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, declined to comment. . . . .  

FieldWorks describes itself as "a nationally recognized grassroots organizing firm founded to help progressive organizations, advocacy groups, and members of the Democratic family take their public engagement and electoral strategies to the next level." It was founded in 2001, according to its promotional information online.

The company did not respond to requests for comment on which campaigns or political groups have hired them to work in Pennsylvania. 

In 2012, FieldWorks' voter registration efforts in Ohio sparked some controversy. . . . .

More examples of vote fraud are here, here, and here.

Piece in the Reno Gazette-Journal: "Mistakes, consequences if Question 1 passes"

With the latest polls showing Bloomberg's initiative on gun control a much closer race, 49% for Bloomberg initiative and 45% against (from CBS Channel 8 in Las Vegas), this piece will help voters make a better informed decision.  From today's Reno Gazette-Journal:

Let’s say a stalker is threatening a female friend of yours. She asks you if she can borrow your handgun. She is trained and has no criminal record. Should you loan her your gun? 

If you live in Nevada, loaning her your gun may soon land you in prison. Exception is made only for cases of “imminent” danger — where her stalker is literally right in front of her at that very moment. 

And forget about Boy Scout shooting trips, where adults lend troops shotguns and rifles so the scouts can earn their firearm merit badges. Stick with this annual ritual and those adult leaders may soon find themselves in prison.
Those are just a couple of the hidden consequences if Nevada voters pass Question 1 on Tuesday, Nov. 8th. 

Everyone wants to keep criminals from getting guns. But the current background check system is a mess. It primarily disarms our most vulnerable citizens, particularly law-abiding minorities. Virtually every time the government stops someone from buying a gun, it is done mistakenly. We're not talking here about preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands — these are people who are legally eligible to buy a gun. 

Gun control advocates constantly claim nationwide background checks have stopped 2.4 million prohibited people from buying a gun. But what they should really say is there were 2.4 million "initial denials." And over 96 percent of "initial denials" are errors that are dropped during just the first two stages of review. More cases are dropped later. 

It is one thing to stop a felon from buying a gun. It is quite another to stop a law-abiding citizen from buying a gun simply because his name is similar to that of a felon. 

That massive error rate occurs because government background checks focus only on two pieces of information: names and birth dates, ignoring social security numbers and addresses. The government looks for phonetically similar names (e.g., “Smith” and “Smythe” are assumed to be the same) and even ignores different middle names. 

These mistakes affect certain racial groups more than others. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics; the same is true of blacks. Because 30 percent of black males are forbidden from buying guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding African-American men more often have their names confused with those of prohibited people. . . .

Newest piece in National Review: "National Democrats Slander Minnesota’s Jason Lewis"

I have a new piece in National Review that starts this way:

Desperate Democrat Angie Craig is accusing Jason Lewis of justifying rape and slavery.  

Rarely has an electorate been subject to such a brazen and transparent example of raw political ambition and outright duplicity than those unfortunate souls living in Minnesota’s second congressional district.  

While the race for the hotly contested open seat, which covers the southern half of the Twin Cities metro region and areas to its southeast, remains a “toss up” between Republican Jason Lewis and Democrat Angie Craig, according to the Cook Political Report — it has been the campaign of Craig and her Democrat surrogates at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), along with backers such as the Soros family, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Franken, which has engaged in a campaign of smears, innuendo, and outright lies so deliberately dishonest that Frank Underwood of House of Cards fame would surely hesitate. 

The lies began with a blogger, then writing for the Star Tribune, who has vainly tried to ride the Democrat’s coat tails back to relevancy. It continued with a complacent and incurious press satisfied with regurgitating press releases rather than doing its job and correcting the record. 

To their credit (as you shall see), a few reporters did finally point out the obvious — but, as the saying goes, a lie can travel around the world before the truth gets out the door. That is especially the case when the lie is backed by upwards of $5 million (more than all but three candidates for the U.S. House and about five times more than Lewis is spending) from a collection of individuals so scurrilous that they are eager to finance a campaign that will literally do and say anything to buy an election.  

By knowingly taking her opponent’s words out of context in a blizzard of utterly misleading television ads, Craig has disqualified herself from ever being trusted with a position of power. Her suggestion that Lewis’s book on federalism, Power Divided Is Power Checked, of which I wrote the forward, had anything to do with promoting slavery is in fact an outright lie. . . .

The rest of the article is available here. 

Talk about Jason Lewis' KTLK News Talk AM 1130 Justice & Drew

My close friend, Jason Lewis, is in a very tight race for Congress, and I talked to the Justice & Drew Show on KTLK News Talk AM 1130 about Jason and his opponent Angie Craig (11/03/2016 from 8:07 to 8:21 AM).  For anyone living in Minnesota's 2nd district please make sure that you vote on Tuesday!

Audio is available here.

Vote fraud in California: 83 ballots sent to the same address, an elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment

From Malia Zimmerman at Fox News has this story.  No explanation from the Registrar's office why this many ballots going to the same address didn't cause

Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox. 

The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment. 

“I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.” 

His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.” 

They took the ballots to the Los Angeles Police Department, but were directed to the post office. They felt little comfort there would be an investigation, and called another neighbor, John Cracchiolo – who contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar's office.  

A spokeswoman for the Registrar said the office will investigate. Both Cracchiolo and Jerry Mosna told FoxNews.com they think they stumbled upon a case of fraud.
“Yes, there is voter fraud. We saw it with our own eyes,” Cracchiolo said. . . .

Obama reportedly used pseudonym to email Hillary Clinton on her private email server

President Obama apparently used a pseudonym to hide his emails with Hillary Clinton on her private server.  Given that almost everything that the president sends out is considered classified, using the pseudonym may have been done to hide that he was involved in committing a crime.

President Obama used a pseudonym when sending or receiving emails through the private server system Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, according to nearly 200 pages of documents released Friday by the FBI. 

Included in the documents are notes from an April 2016 interview with long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin, conducted in connection with the FBI’s two-year investigation into Clinton’s use of the private server for official correspondence. 

One note was about the FBI showing Abedin an email address “believed to be a pseudonym used by the President,” as reported by Politico and other news-gathering agencies. 

Abedin said she didn’t recognize the name and “expressed her amazement” that Obama apparently used a pseudonym. 

She also exclaimed, “How is this not classified?” according to the documents. . . .

federal lawyers will not release the emails, citing executive privilege. . . .

Another interesting story that came up recently was Chelsea Clinton use of the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds" in her emails.  Possibly the most famous exchange between Chelsea and Hillary involved discussing the Benghazi attack.

The Washington Post explains why famous people might legitimately want to use pseudonyms to protect their privacy.  

How does the alias-at-a-hotel system work? Fake names are as useful to protect against staff as against the outside world, Danger pointed out, writing: "Staff is trained and required to sign confidentially agreements about guests overall, but when it's really big name sometimes they can get excited and forget." But why does it matter? Paparazzi, for one. "Paps often try to pay line-level hotel employees for inside info (room numbers, etc)," Danger said. "Leaking that info was a fireable offense at our property." 

It's not only to shield celebrities from the paparazzi, but from stalkers, those horrible people from the media, and other guests. Or political opponents, according to Carlos. "We have had members of royal families who don’t want anyone to know where they are for political reasons." Clearly it is not the case that Chelsea Clinton is from a royal family and wouldn't want to be seen in Ottumwa, Iowa for political reasons.