The press is sweeping yet another important ballot integrity case under the rug this week. Understanding the problems in this most recent Pennsylvania ruling requires a little thinking through it.
Here’s the short summary, as it is presented by the theoretically nonpartisan mass media: Republican counties want to be able to refuse to count mail-in ballots that either lack the handwritten dates required by law, or have wrong dates shown on them.
The Commonwealth Court ruled, and I quote, that “The refusal to count undated or incorrectly dated but timely mail ballots submitted by otherwise eligible voters because of meaningless and inconsequential paperwork errors violates the fundamental right to vote.”
Now, that sounds logical, doesn’t it? After all, meaningless and inconsequential paperwork errors AREN’T as important as your fundamental right to vote. It’s hard to argue with that.
The problem is… it’s the JUDGE who said they were “meaningless and inconsequential.” These adjectives are opinions, intended to lead the audience to a preferred conclusion. Maybe they aren’t meaningless or inconsequential at all. These words are prejudicing your view of the situation by describing it that way. If an attorney used such terms so matter-of-factly in framing a question for a witness in that same judge’s court, the judge would have to grant an objection that counsel was leading the witness. It’s prejudicial language, intended to subliminally mislead the audience.
Besides, you don’t actually KNOW if these are “otherwise eligible voters,” do you? They could be dead people, or fictional people, or people who’ve moved away and still remain on the voter rolls, but do not vote because they vote somewhere else now. The requirement for handwritten info makes it harder for a party hack at headquarters or in a candidate’s basement to mass-produce a stack of ballots using names that remain on the rolls but who they know won’t really be voting themselves this year.
But this is a difficult argument to make before a judge who’s pre-destined to support the interest of the Democratic Party.
So let’s look at it another way.
You have a bank account, right? Well, do you have a right to the thousand bucks in your bank account?
It’s your bank account, so it’s your money. So, if you have a thousand bucks in there, you have a right to withdraw it. Right?
Of course you do.
But the bank wants you to provide your account number and your PIN. Maybe you don’t remember your PIN, so the bank won’t let you have your money unless you can prove your identity another way, say, with a driver’s license or passport or something like that. They won’t just hand you a thousand bucks on your word that you’re the owner of the account. Right?
Now, do you object to that, or do you appreciate it?
Of course you don’t object. Of course, you are grateful.
Even though the four-digit PIN is certainly a meaningless and inconsequential number, in its own right. You made it up yourself, after all. It’s not an “important” number. It’s just a tool. A security tool.
But the bank demands it, and they won’t give you your thousand bucks without it, not because they want to cheat you, but because they need to make sure that you ARE indeed you. That “meaningless and inconsequential” four-digit code is your personal protection against someone stealing your thousand bucks away from you.
Gee. Not so meaningless and inconsequential, as it turns out, is it?
These handwritten dates on the mail-in ballots, just like all the other little restrictions that are normally put in a mail-in ballot process – such as a copy of your identification, and the requirement that they be both mailed and received in a timely manner (which means BEFORE election day, that is, before the party hacks know how much of a deficit they still have to make up), and the requirement that they be printed on specific, maybe watermarked, stock and not just run off on a home computer in someone’s basement on a ream of paper bought at the local Walmart – are all in place to protect you, as a voter, from having your vote stolen or diluted.
It’s no different from the rules the bank puts in place to protect you as an account holder. Your vote is valuable, and should neither be allowed to be cast by an imposter nor diluted by the presence of other fabricated ballots in the mix.
If it’s really you, and you really have a right to vote, it’s not difficult at all to handwrite your name and address and date on the envelope, and mail it on time, so your vote counts.
But if it’s not you, and somebody is stealing your vote – voting in your name, or voting in some dead or fictional person’s name in order to cancel yours out – then you should appreciate the fact that at least the Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania are trying to protect you from such vote fraud.
There is absolutely no reason to issue a decision like the Commonwealth Court just did, unless they are intentionally setting out to facilitate more vote fraud – as much as possible – by removing the traditional tools relied upon by board of election personnel.
You take out these two key requirements – the presence of handwritten information and the arrival by election day – and you’ve just eliminated the ability of the election authorities to prevent massive criminal fabrication of ballots.
And of course they know it. That’s why they do it.
But we must notice one more thing: they must know they NEED to do it. Because the Democrats simply cannot win Pennsylvania without vote fraud anymore.
It’s not shocking that the Democrats try to get away with this. Partisan Democrat hacks and their allies in the nonprofit space have been doing such things for decades, under such names as ACORN and the New Black Panthers, and so many more.
But it is shocking that theoretically impartial judges would violate their own oaths of office to support the criminals in this way.
And it is most shocking that America’s mainstream media, once a proudly, fiercely independent, nonpartisan watchdog for the American system – is happy to parrot the official line of the Democratic party, rather than to report the truth.
There is only one silver lining to this miserable, dark stormcloud floating above the country. If the Left needs to go to such extremes, to so blatantly cheat the American public, then the majority of the American electorate simply must be on the right side. The Left wouldn’t need to go to such extremes if they had a prayer of winning otherwise.
But the bottom line is still this: American patriots have to win by incredible numbers in order to overcome the margin of fraud, a margin which is, more often than not, secured in place by a corrupt government apparatus.
It is shameful that so many in the American judiciary is so militantly opposed to the interests of law-abiding American citizens today.
Copyright 2024 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation and trade compliance professional and consultant. A onetime Milwaukee County Republican Party chairman, he has been writing a regular column for Illinois Review since 2009. His book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel) and his political satires on the current administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes I, II, and III), are available in either eBook or paperback, only on Amazon.
His newest nonfiction book, “Current Events and the Issues of Our Age,” was just released on July 1, and is also available, in both paperback and Kindle eBook, exclusively on Amazon.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA