Tag: elections

Creepy California State Sen. Scott Wiener Helps Kill Bill That Would Have Barred Sex Offenders from Public Office, Says ‘Some People Just Have Flaws’

California State Senator Scott Wiener helped kill a bill that would have barred registered sex offenders from running for or holding public office in California.

On Tuesday, Wiener’s Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee defeated Assembly Bill 2753 after the measure had sailed through the State Assembly unanimously.

Authored by Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria of Merced, the bill would have prohibited anyone required to register as a sex offender under California’s three-tier system from seeking or serving in state or local offices such as city council, school board, or the legislature.

The legislation was introduced after registered sex offender Rene Campos, who pleaded no contest in 2018 to a misdemeanor involving possession of child sex abuse material, announced a bid for Fresno City Council.

Soria had promised her constituents she would act to prevent sex offenders from running.

“It’s deeply disturbing that this issue is unfolding in my own backyard. The idea that a registered sex offender could run for public office in the City of Fresno is unacceptable,” Soria said in a press release announcing the bill. “This bill will ensure once and for all that registered sex offenders are prohibited from seeking public office in California, so voters can have confidence that those seeking to represent them meet the most basic standards of public trust.”

Wiener, who chairs the committee, opposed the bill and said he would support it only if amended to apply solely to lifetime Tier 3 registrants.

Keep reading

O’Keefe Media Group Catches California Election Fraud Again: Election Petition Worker Offers Cash for Fake Signature

The O’Keefe Media Group on Tuesday released undercover video of California election petition workers offering cash for a fake signature.

“Alright, so the name you’re gonna write is gonna be Timothy Adams,” the election worker said.

“I’m gonna give you a name, write it down, I’ll give you two bucks,” they said.

Earlier this year, James O’Keefe and his team of journalists went undercover on Skid Row in Los Angeles, posing as homeless people.

‘Petitioners’ told the undercover journalists that they are paid between $7-$10 per signature. Some of them earn up to $1,000 per day.

“California NGOs Encourage Fake Addresses To Homeless People To Sign Petitions & Register Voters, A State & Federal Felony. Footage Shows 28 Instances Of Cash Changing Hands For Ballot Signatures & Voter Registration Forms,” they said.

“Many of the petitioners had no understanding of the petitions’ purpose they were advertising. Circulators also instructed individuals to use fake addresses. “Oh, you can just fake an address.”” OMG reported.

“Weingart Center, which received hundreds of millions in public funding, is on tape directing people to where the fraudulent petitioners are located, and directing homeless individuals to petitioners & coaching plausible deniability,” OMG said.

O’Keefe Media Group reporters encountered “28 instances of petitioners offering cash, cigarettes, and marijuana for signatures on petitions.”

“See they say ignorance is no excuse for the law. But a lot of times, I have to say ‘I didn’t know, I had no idea,’” a Weingart Center employee told the undercover journalist.

Keep reading

Top Dem Senator Under Federal Investigation Over Campaign Spending

Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) is under federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for suspected campaign finance violations, according to.

The probe originated from a whistleblower complaint filed from Southern California, the outlet reported.

The investigation centers on the use of funds from Gallego’s political action committee for family travel and related expenses. Specific examples cited in connection with the allegations include trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland, and Disney World.

These matters were previously examined as part of a separate congressional ethics process.

A review of federal campaign finance records from Politico detailed additional spending by Gallego’s campaign committee and his leadership PAC, Juntos PAC. The records show more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019, including payments to an au pair company and a $400 payment to Gallego’s mother-in-law for babysitting during a campaign fundraiser.

The leadership PAC covered costs for family travel to locations including a Miami Beach hotel stay exceeding $9,000 for a birthday celebration that also involved political events, a Chicago trip with nearly $1,500 in lodging that included a fundraiser, and meals and hotels at Disneyland and Disney World totaling nearly $1,500 (excluding flights).

Family members, including Gallego’s wife Sydney, their children, and an au pair, joined multiple trips. A joint fundraising committee with former Rep. Eric Swalwell also covered expenses related to the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona, including event tickets and a pre-game brunch.

Gallego has stated that the expenditures comply with Federal Election Commission rules. In response to the Politico reporting, he wrote that such travel with family members for campaign and fundraising purposes is permitted and occurs regularly among members of Congress from both parties, noting the rising costs of child care.

A spokesperson for Gallego described the Miami trip as part of a multi-stop political and fundraising swing and the Chicago trip as including a fundraiser and attendance at political events.

Juntos PAC, established in February 2024, has raised nearly $1.5 million, with more than half of the funds coming from corporate PACs. Leadership PACs are subject to different rules than principal campaign committees and allow greater flexibility for expenditures tied to fundraising activities.

Gallego’s office has noted that the senator proactively established a legal defense fund in the preceding month.

The investigation follows the closure of an inquiry by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. In a letter dated June 26, 2026, the committee informed Gallego that it “did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules or related standards of conduct.” The ethics inquiry stemmed from a complaint filed in April by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), which alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.

Keep reading

Here We Go… Duplicate Ballots Sent Out in Green Bay, WI for Primary Election – For the Second Time This Year!

In the same week that the US Supreme Court legitimized late-arriving ballots in US elections, news broke in Wisconsin that duplicate ballots had been sent to voters in Green Bay.

What a farce. Everyone knows mail-in ballots result in increased risk of fraud – but the geniuses in the US Supreme Court don’t seem a bit concerned.

FOX 11 reported that this was not the first time this happened this year.

For the second time in 2026, the city of Green Bay has accidently sent duplicate ballots to some voters across the city.

The city of Green Bay announced early Sunday evening that residents across the city have started to receive their mail-in ballots for the August primary election.

However, some of the residents who received one of the 5,084 total ballots also received an additional ballot.

The city says its staff became aware of the issue on Saturday that some voters in wards 11a, 12a, 37a, 44-47 and part of ward 43 received a duplicate ballot.

It was not disclosed how many residents were sent duplicate ballots.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Rules 5-4 to Permit Counting of Mail-In Ballots that Arrive After Election Day

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled that state laws allowing for the counting of mail-in ballots after election day are not in violation of federal law, a blow to the Republican National Committee and President Donald Trump’s administration.

On Monday, SCOTUS issued a 5-4 ruling that permits states to count mail-in ballots — sent on or before election day — that are received by state election officials after election day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Two principles are important here. First, post-election-day receipt, considered on its own, does not conflict with the election-day statutes,” the Court writes:

Second, state law is preempted by the federal election-day statutes only “‘so far as the conflict extends.’” So even if plaintiffs are right about Mississippi law, they would still lose the challenge they have pressed in this litigation: that post-election-day ballot receipt is itself unlawful. [Emphasis added]

The Framers recognized the difficulty of crafting election laws “applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country.” So instead of constitutionalizing election law, they decided that “a discretionary power over elections” needed to be lodged “somewhere.” Suffice it to say, that power was not lodged in this Court. The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose. [Emphasis added]

Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined most of the dissenting opinion as well.

“The Court … concludes that the election-day statutes merely require that each individual cast a vote on or before election day,” Alito writes for the minority:

But if that is all that the election-day statutes require, there is no sense in which the electorate as a whole can be seen as making its choice on election day. Rather, the electorate’s choice would be made piecemeal over an extended period prior to election day, and that prospect is blatantly contrary to what the election-day statutes demand. [Emphasis added]

Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days. The election-day statutes require that federal elections occur on that date. Under the challenged Mississippi law, however, the collection of ballots continues for five more days, and therefore the “election” is not held until the end of that period. Because federal law requires that the election occur on election day, it preempts Mississippi’s statute. [Emphasis added]

Keep reading

California’s Voting System is Designed to Prevent Detection and Prosecution of Election Fraud

The recent Los Angeles mayoral primary placed California’s election mechanics under an unforgiving light. On election night Spencer Pratt held a clear path to the runoff against Karen Bass. Late mail ballots then arrived in batches that favored Nithya Raman so heavily that she overtook Pratt and finished with a 3,113-vote lead. NBC Los Angeles recorded one Friday update in which Raman received twice as many votes as Pratt, followed by continued narrowing on Saturday and the final overtaking on Sunday. Bass’s share stayed roughly stable at 34.68 percent while Raman climbed to 27.12 percent and Pratt fell to 26.69 percent. Observers noted that the arithmetic required for Raman to erase Pratt’s lead demanded an unusually large share of the remaining ballots, a distribution bordering on a mathematical impossibility under normal variation. The early leader’s margin collapsed only after the delayed counting of mail ballots from skidrow voters that California law permits counties to process for up to thirty days after election day.

This sequence did not occur in a vacuum. It unfolded inside a system built since 2020 on a series of deliberate policy choices. Assembly Bill 37 made permanent the practice of mailing a live ballot and return envelope to every registered voter before every election. In the 2024 general election California reported 22,595,659 registered voters and 13,034,378 mail ballots that were ultimately counted. That left roughly 9.56 million ballot packets that were printed, mailed, and never returned as counted votes. Those packets move through ordinary mail, apartment mailrooms, and forwarding addresses that may be years out of date. California law allows any person to return a completed ballot so long as the person is not paid on a per-ballot basis. The sole front-end control is a signature comparison performed on the identification envelope.

That comparison rests on standards that deliberately favor acceptance. Senate Bill 503 instructs officials to begin with the presumption that the signature is the voter’s own, to accept similar characteristics rather than an exact match, and to reject only when two officials determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the signature differs in multiple, significant, and obvious respects. No witness attestation is required. No photograph or other documentary identification is demanded at the point of return. If a question arises, the cure process allows the voter or a third party to submit a replacement signature by mail, email, fax, or other remote means, and some cure signatures may update the voter’s record for future elections. Once the envelope is accepted, the ballot is separated from it to protect secrecy. From that moment forward, any error or impropriety in the acceptance decision cannot be corrected without destroying the secret-ballot guarantee.

Keep reading

When Extremists Run The Government

Politicians, government bureaucrats, central bankers, spy agencies, and mainstream news outlets lie to us every day.  

For some people, the previous sentence is patently obvious.  For others, that sentence represents “fringe” thinking.  For certain law enforcement agencies in North America and Europe, that sentence reveals potentially dangerous “extremism.”

“Extremism” is such a morally squishy word.  It means nothing.  It suggests that the average beliefs of the average person in the average part of an average town are, on average, correct.  Should a person’s beliefs move too far away from the “average,” then that person will eventually fall into the “extremist” abyss.  Of course, the average person long believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth.  The average person long believed that bloodletting cured disease. The average person long believed in magic.  Relativity, microbiology, atomic physics, and quantum mechanics belonged to the “extremists.”

Defining “extremism” depends upon which populations are included when calculating an “average.”  To the average American, Islamic terrorism is religious extremism.  To the average jihadi in the Middle East, terrorism is part of the Islamic faith.  One man’s “extremist” is another man’s “religious cleric.”  Unsurprisingly, as more jihadists migrate to America, the more supportive of Islamic terrorism the Democrat Party becomes.  We now have several Hamas-supporting members of Congresswho define Americans opposed to Islamic conquest as “extremists.”  For a decade, Americans were told to be on the lookout for Islamic terrorism: “If you see something, say something.”  Now, if you see something and say something, you will most likely be denounced as an “Islamophobic bigot.”  If the definition of “extremism” can shift 180 degrees since the Islamic terror attacks on September 11, 2001, then “extremism” is a nebulous political label.

In the United States, citizens overwhelmingly support federal legislation that would require photo ID, proof of citizenship, and other safeguards to ensure that elections across the country are free, fair, lawful, constitutional, and secure.  

Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans in Congress prefer to maintain the current “on your honor” system that can be gamed to permit large-scale vote fraud and rigged elections.  By any polling measure, Congress’s point of view is far from that of the average American.  Members of Congress, in other words, are the extremists!  If you listen to the extremists in Congress, however, our elections have never been more secure.

In fact, when you look at some of the most important policy issues today, it becomes quite clear that Congress is ground zero for extremism.  

Most Americans want Congress to stop spending more money than it receives in taxes; Congress has put us forty trillion dollars in debt.  Most Americans want secure borders and an end to illegal immigration; Congress has enabled an evil human trafficking system to exist for over fifty years that rewards criminals and has flooded the country with somewhere between fifty and a hundred million (nobody knows for sure!) illegal aliens.  Most Americans are concerned about lowering fuel and food prices; Congress has wasted trillions of dollars on “Green New Deal” scams that raise the household costs for fuel and food.  Most Americans believe that college admissions and job hiring should be based on a person’s merit, skill, character, knowledge, and hard work; Congress continues to divide Americans by the color of their skin and their sexual eccentricities.  Most Americans believe that men and women are biologically distinct; Congress pretends that biological sex is an imaginary social construct.  Most Americans believe that a dollar saved today should maintain the same value ten, fifty, or even a hundred years from now; Congress thinks printing and spending dollars, depreciating the U.S. currency, and artificially spiking the dollar-denominated valuation of stocks, homes, and other assets is the best way to fake a constantly “improving” economy.  Most Americans believe that we should refrain from military engagements overseas whenever possible; Congress can’t ever get enough of forever-wars.  Most Americans want their representatives to work for American citizens; Congress believes it should work on behalf of non-Americans all over the world.  Most Americans view their country as a nation; Congress views the United States as both a global empire and a home for every person on the planet.

Keep reading

Why Did U.S. Election Officials Seek South Korea’s Election Expertise Before the 2020 Presidential Election?

According to the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on May 29, 2020, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Election Commission (NEC), and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety held a video conference with officials from the U.S. Department of State, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED).

The participants included:

– Marc Knapper, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs;
– Lori Augino, President of NASED;
– Forty-nine state and county election officials affiliated with NASS and NASED;
– Ko Yoon-joo, Director-General for North American Affairs at South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
– Kwon Sei-joong, Consul General of the Republic of Korea in the United States; and
– Officials from South Korea’s National Election Commission and Ministry of the Interior and Safety.

** Here is a copy of the press release.

According to the official briefing, the American side specifically requested the meeting because it wished to learn from South Korea’s experience conducting a nationwide election during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keep reading

Is Louisiana Being Set Up for California-Style Mail-In Ballot Fraud?

Louisiana voters who think their state’s elections are fully secure need to look closer at what has been happening under the radar in Baton Rouge.

Since Secretary of State Nancy Landry took office following her 2023 election, a systematic dismantling of mail-in ballot safeguards has been quietly codified into law. If this trend continues, Louisiana could soon mirror states like California, where loose mail-in voting regulations open the door to massive vulnerabilities and days of post-election counting.

To understand the threat, one must understand how a mail-in ballot works. The ballot itself does not contain the voter’s name; once it is removed from the envelope, it is anonymous. Therefore, any fraud must be caught at the envelope verification stage. If a fraudulent envelope passes inspection, the illegal vote inside is counted, and the damage cannot be undone.

Yet, a look at the legislative track record since 2024 reveals a disturbing pattern of watering down these exact verifications.

2024: The Bait-and-Switch Routine

In 2024, the dismantling began with a classic bait-and-switch routine involving two major bills:

  • HB 581 (Act 712) by Polly Thomas: This bill ostensibly added a requirement for a witness’s mailing address to be included on the ballot envelope. Common sense, right? Except a loophole was quietly amended into R.S. 18:1315(B), stating: “Failure to include a witness’s mailing address on an absentee ballot certificate shall not be grounds to challenge an absentee by mail ballot.” The bill created a security requirement and immediately declared that violating it carries zero consequences. Why?
  • SB 226 (Act 321) by Heather Cloud: This was designed to automatically challenge ballots missing required information. However, another crucial carve-out was added to 18:1315(C): “However, an absentee by mail ballot shall not be deemed challenged solely because the voter indicates on the absentee by mail certificate that he does not know his mother’s maiden name.” By eliminating the requirement for this vital piece of identifying information, a primary layer of fraud prevention was neutralized. Why?

2025: Outsourcing Voter Roll Accuracy

ADVERTISEMENT

In 2025, Rep. Beau Beaullieu carried the Secretary of State’s Omnibus Election Bill, HB 592 (Act 386). Buried inside the 45-page document were significant changes to Louisiana law regarding eligibility to register to vote.

Prior to HB 592, the law relied heavily on the United States Postal Service (USPS) for address data verification during the annual canvass. The new law introduced language allowing the Secretary of State to enter into agreements with private vendors for voter registration eligibility and address data.

Because the new law uses flexible “and/or” language, the state is no longer strictly bound to federal or state agency verifications. Instead, a third-party private vendor could potentially become the sole gatekeeper of voter roll accuracy—raising serious questions about accountability, data privacy, and the potential for outsourced corruption.

2026: The Midnight Raid on the “Printed Name” Requirement

HB 842 by Rep. Beaullieu in 2026 perhaps best highlights the lengths to which some lawmakers will go to pass these changes. The bill provided that a witness’s failure to provide a printed name or address should not be considered a deficiency requiring a cure.

If a witness’s printed name is optional, the only remaining safeguards are the voter and witness signatures—both of which can easily be forged or scribbled, as signature matching is not routinely or rigorously enforced. There is simply nothing that stops a bad actor from posing, by way of forged signatures, as both the voter and the witness on a mail-in ballot. This should alarm every voter in Louisiana.

Responding to grassroots concerns, Rep. Beryl Amedee successfully passed an amendment to the bill to ensure the “printed name” requirement remained strictly mandatory for legibility.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, after the bill moved through the Senate and headed to a conference committee—consisting of Reps. Beaullieu, Thomas, and Wilder, alongside Sens. Kleinpeter, Miller, and Womack—the rules were suspended. The conference committee stripped Rep. Amedee’s security amendment out of the bill and rushed the final version through both chambers in the closing hours without notifying the House floor of the changes.

A Wake-Up Call for Louisiana Voters

All of this begs the question: Why does there appear to be a systematic, coordinated effort by Republican leadership to make it easier to cast unverified absentee ballots? Why the backroom maneuvers and rule-suspensions to remove simple, common-sense legibility and identity checks?

Not only must citizens be on the look-out for any new legislation in 2027 that further erodes existing guardrails regarding absentee voting, every legislator who reflexively did the bidding of our Secretary of State and either authored, co-authored, or voted for the legislation cited herein should be unfavorably remembered on these issues by their voters at re-election time.

Keep reading

DSA Leader in NYC Explains How They Are Just Using the Democrat Party’s Infrastructure to Get Their People Elected

Gustavo Gordillo is the co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America in New York City. During a recent interview with Spectrum News, he explained how the DSA is basically exploiting the Democrat Party’s infrastructure to get their people elected.

It just confirms that these people are not even Democrats. They are an anti-Israel, Marxist contingent that is merely using the Democrat party instead of building a party of their own.

Regular Democrats are so starved for wins, that they are allowing it to happen.

Transcript via Townhall:

“Our candidates run as Democrats. We’re on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries,” said Gustavo Gordillo. “And when they’re in the legislature, they’re part of the Democratic Party caucus.”

“But we don’t agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus, so we try to build independence by focusing on volunteer-led movement,” Gordillo continued, “we think that everyone should be able to be trained and to become someone who can participate in the political process and we don’t really think that the Democratic Party campaigns and the establishment are run that way. And we think, you know, you really see that difference in the races we are having tonight.”

“And I think in terms of the agenda, there’s a problem in the Democratic Party where they’re funded by billionaire donors and at the same time they’re trying to represent the working class. In our opinion, you have to choose between the billionaire class and the working class. It’s just impossible to satisfy all of them,” Gordillo said.

Keep reading