SavedByGrace1981

How? Blessings, -Ed

I'll have to admit, this has me baffled. Pres. Trump HAS to know that the establishment/ruling party is NEVER going to allow THE WALL to be built. Yet - he keeps bringing it up. At what point I wonder will he concede? After the '18 elections? Blessings, -Ed

No, Mr. Trump - she was not wrong. One can never be wrong if they are a member of the ruling party. Plus, she was an official in the bestest most wonderfullest administration ever. With the smartest man who ever lived as its head. See, Mr. Trump - even "members OF. YOUR. OWN. PARTY. (ha ha)" agree that Ms. Rice was not wrong: So there! Take it and lump it. The idea of even accusing someone of such high stature with impeccable establishment creds of wrongdoing is beyond the pale. Blessings, -Ed

More kabuki theater, which should dominate the news cycles for the next 48-72 hours. Regardless of whether Schumer or Pelosi are lying (boo hiss from the R side); or the WH is lying (boo hiss from the D side) - here's all anyone needs to know: The establishment WANTS open borders with unlimited illegal immigration, so: 1. DACA is not going anywhere. 2. THE WALL is never going to be built. Carry on . . . Blessings, -Ed

This is wonderful news. Our church is small, so we've chosen to send extra monetary donations to our denomination's 'crisis care kit program' rather than donate directly. I'm sure all help and assistance is appreciated, though. Even gov't help. And the nice thing about non-governmental help is the general lack of red tape and other hindrances to acting quickly. Blessings, -Ed

I don't know why part of the above article appeared in strikeout font. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Oh well - that's technology. Blessings, -Ed

The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom BY AVNER ZARMI SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 CHAT 51 COMMENTS One day in 2012, Charles Craig and David Mullins entered Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake. Phillips, a Christian and self-described “cake artist” who custom-designs cakes for various occasions, politely declined, citing his religious beliefs. Having previously, in the words of his lawyer, refused to bake cakes for Halloween, or with anti-American, anti-family, or what he considered profane messages, Phillips also would not design a cake to celebrate an event in violation of his understanding of Leviticus XX, 13. Craig and Mullins promptly filed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled that Phillips must be compelled to provide wedding cakes equally celebrating any kind of union, or get out of the business. The basis of the ruling is a Colorado law that prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, religion, “gender,” or sexual orientation. Twenty other states have similar laws. Phillips has appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Colorado law infringes his right to the free exercise of his religion. Two years ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar appeal filed by a New Mexico photographer who refused service for a same-sex ceremony; but it has agreed to hear this one. The case has been widely covered from a Christian point of view, which is understandable, since Christianity is the religious worldview that Phillips professes. But the implications of the ruling by the Orwellian Colorado Civil Rights Commission are far broader than that. So Agudath Israel of America, a 94-year-old Orthodox Jewish advocacy organization, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case (full disclosure: I have the honor of serving as the Midwest regional vice president of the Aguda). The brief, which can be read in its entirety here, formulates the question: Will our society honor the guarantees of the Free Exercise Clause when a religious practice is based upon a moral judgment that is anathema to the contemporary zeitgeist ? It then goes on to document the uniqueness of the American experience in Jewish history and the resultant compelling interest of the Aguda in the outcome of this case. As a summary of its argument, the brief cites the words of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., from 56 years ago: SPONSORED "[T]he issue in this case … is whether a State may put an individual to a choice between his business and his religion. …such a law prohibits the free exercise of religion.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 611 (1961) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting). The brief notes numerous examples in which Jewish practices have been infringed, restricted, and prohibited in foreign countries. For example, Jewish law not only limits the species of that which can be consumed, but also mandates the method of slaughter that must be pursued for the meat to be kosher. Yet in Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, all countries with a Jewish population, the practice is prohibited. Indeed, the UK recently made a serious attempt to ban the practice there. As another example: Jewish law requires circumcision of all male babies on the eighth day of their lives, except under certain unusual circumstances that might endanger the baby’s life. Yet, on October 1, 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution terming the practice a “violation of the physical integrity of children.” In May 2012, a regional appellate court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that religious circumcision amounted to bodily injury and was hence a criminal offense. Some months later, the Bundestag reversed this decision and promulgated a federal law permitting the practice for religious reasons. But the attempt had been made. A further example, and one that hits very close to home, is the case of the Vishnitz Girls School in the UK. In 2013, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services, and Skills (OFSTED) visited the Orthodox Jewish primary school and passed it with flying colors. OFSTED highlighted the excellence of the commitment of teachers and staff to the pupils’ welfare and development. That was before the British redefinition of “marriage.” This year, OFSTED revisited the campus. While again noting the excellence of the curriculum and the fact that the girls were “confident in thinking for themselves,” the school was failed because of one issue: Pupils are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles. As a result, pupils are not able to gain a full understanding of fundamental British values. The school is in imminent danger of losing its accreditation and being shut down. As the brief goes on to note, the sole major difference between all of these jurisdictions and that of the United States is that none of them have the Free Exercise Clause -- but we do. The brief then goes on to point out that, until quite recently, the sexual mores and standard of public morality in the United States were generally congruent with the principles of Biblical morality which have informed Jewish life for over 3,300 years, since the encounter at Sinai. As recently as 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy was constitutional. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act -- mandating that the federal definition of marriage was the union of one man and one woman -- by a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. President Clinton signed it into law. Nothing in the Constitution changed between 1996 and the Obergefell decision of 2015; there had been no new amendment proposed, let alone ratified. What had changed was a seismic shift in the nation’s zeitgeist. A consensus had formed among the intellectual elite that homosexual activities were just another form of sex, and that same-sex unions were just another kind of “marriage.” But Jewish law, based on the timeless principles handed down at Sinai, does not have this flexibility and cannot accept the change. Moreover, it is a principle of Jewish law that one may not aid or abet an action which is prohibited, and so an Orthodox Jewish baker would be subject to the same strictures as Mr. Phillips. Mullins has given interviews in which he says that the issue was never merely about a wedding cake, and of course he is right. There are any number of other bakers who would gladly take their business. The issue is also not one of tolerance. It is of dominance. The LGBT agenda seeks to impose its warped views on all of us. As Erick Erickson states it in the title of his book: You Will Be Made to Care. No less a personage than the speaker of the British Parliament recently said: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right. Or in a synagogue. Which is pre https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/13/lgbt-agenda-vs-religious-freedom/

An example of a poorly written headline. At first read, it looked like The Senate rejected war authorization (in other words, the Senate actually doing its constitutional duty) That isn't the case at all. Instead, it's the Senate SHIRKING its duty. Tell me again - why as these people here? Blessings, -Ed

SENATE REJECTS BIPARTISAN PUSH FOR NEW US WAR AUTHORIZATION BY RICHARD LARDNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan push for a new war authorization against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, electing to let the White House rely on a 16-year-old law passed after the Sept. 11 attacks as the legal basis to send U.S. troops into combat. Senators voted 61-36 scuttle an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have allowed war authorizations, created in the wake of al-Qaida's 9/11 strikes, to lapse after six months. Paul, a leader of the GOP's noninterventionist wing, said Congress would use the time to debate an updated war authority for operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere before the old ones expired. Paul criticized his colleagues ahead of the vote, urging them to embrace their war-making responsibility instead of surrendering their power to the White House. He and senators who backed his amendment said former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump have used the war authorizations from 2001 and 2002 for military operations in countries that Congress never voted to support. "We are supposed to be a voice that debates and says, 'Should we go to war?' It's part of doing our job," Paul said. "It's about grabbing power back and saying this is a Senate prerogative." Opponents of Paul's amendment agreed on the need for a new authorization but warned that that his plan would backfire. Voting to rescind existing war authorities without a replacement risks leaving U.S. troops and commanders without the necessary legal authority they need to carry out military operations. Opponents said they worried Congress would not approve a new law in the six-month window. "You can't replace something with nothing. And we have nothing," said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. White House legislative director Marc Short said Tuesday that the Trump administration has adequate legal authority to combat terrorist groups and did not support a new war authorization. Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Relations Committee, said he agreed that the White House has proper authority, but said his committee intends to take up legislation for a new war authority soon. He opposed Paul's amendment. "I agree that we need to take action," said Corker, R-Tenn. To fight IS, the Trump administration, as did the Obama administration, relies on an authorization for the use of military force that was approved by Congress in 2001, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the White House's use of an authorization from a decade and half ago is a legal stretch at best, according to critics who long have argued that Congress needs to pass a new one to account for how the dynamics of the battlefield have changed. For example, American troops are today battling an enemy - IS militants - that didn't exist 16 years ago, and are fighting in Syria, a country where the U.S. forces didn't expect to be. In April, Trump ordered the firing of dozens of Tomahawk missiles at an air base in central Syria, marking the first time the U.S. has directly struck President Bashar Assad's forces during the country's six-year civil war. U.S. troops are supporting a Saudi-led coalition that has been carrying out airstrikes in Yemen since March 2015. A separate authorization for the war in Iraq approved in 2002 also remains in force. The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973, requires the president to tell Congress he is sending U.S. troops into combat and prohibits those forces from remaining for more than 90 days unless Congress has approved an authorization for military force. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told lawmakers last month that the 2001 authorization provides sufficient authority to wage war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But Tillerson and Mattis also said they were open to an updated authorization provided the measure did not impose tactically unwise restrictions or infringe on the president's constitutional powers as commander in chief. But Short said the administration was not looking for changes and stood by the 2001 authorization. --- Contact Richard Lardner on Twitter at http://twitter.com/rplardner © 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WAR_AUTHORIZATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-09-13-12-56-26

I don't wish to sound unsympathetic to loss on this scale, but I do have a question: If one chooses to inhabit a mobile home in Florida (especially in the Florida keys) - an area especially prone to hurricanes - is it not reasonable to expect your home is going to be destroyed at some point? Yet the government (i.e. taxpayers) will foot much of the bill for rebuilding. It doesn't make sense. But then, not much of what the gov't does makes sense. Blessings, -Ed

Sadly, it seems that IS their life. Blessings, -Ed

Well, this isn't surprising. Since there's nothing left in Oregon to be offended about, the woman had to drive to Wisconsin to find something. Anything. Blessings, -Ed

Dairy Queen Owner Posts Warning on Door to 'Snowflakes' Upset With His Un-PC Behavior. Now Corporate's Involved BY VICTORIA TAFT A Wisconsin Dairy Queen franchise owner is back on his heels after the sign on the front door of his restaurant was “found offensive” by a woman who lives clear across the country. CBS 58 reports that Kevin Scheunemann has posted this sign on his restaurant's door for the past four years, and the complaint over it is — at the very least — ironic: The sign reads: This Restaurant is Politically Incorrect. We have been known to say Merry Christmas, Happy Easter, God Bless America. We salute and honor the flag, give thanks to our Troops, Police Offices and Firefighters. Give thanks for the USA and give free sundaes to Veterans on Veterans Day. If this offends you, you are welcome to contact the owner [...] and arrange a designated “snowflake safe space” a minimum 24 hours in advance. In God We Trust. The woman who complained, Ashley Coleman of Oregon, contacted the corporate offices of Dairy Queen via the company's Facebook page. The original post appears to have been scrubbed on the corporate Facebook page but was captured by CBS 58: Screenshot/CBS 58 The woman wrote a complaint next to a photo of the sign: I find this extremely offensive. Posted on the front door of the Kewaskum, WI DQ. Please speak with the franchise owner. It appears to have been geo tagged. CBS 58 reports that thousands of people have responded to and shared the complaint. The local franchise Facebook page has been inundated with low ‘reviews’: Dairy Queen (Kewaskum, WI)/Facebook But lots more people are giving Scheunemann an atta boy, among them a state representative: Kevin Scheunemann/Facebook Rep. Jesse Kremer wrote: Thank you CBS 58 and a friendly Oregon visitor for making our hometown Dairy Queen in Kewaskum the latest Wisconsin tourist attraction! Happy to see that the owner has not backed down from his 1st amendment right to Free Expression! (FYI this sign has been on the door for four years!) He tagged it with two hashtags: #WITourism and #WICampusFreeSpeech. State Sen. Duey Stroebel wrote on his Facebook page: Senator Duey Stroebel/Facebook The state senator wrote: Kevin at Kewaskum Dairy Queen dares to stand up for faith and veterans at his business, yet offended snowflakes are creating a blizzard. Mary Lou McDevitt “reviewed” Dairy Queen: She said, in part, that: ... next time I'm in Wisconsin I'll be sure to stop by to give my heartfelt thanks to the gentleman Mr. Scheunemann for putting up a sign that allows his safe and others who have the right to say Merry Christmas, God Bless American and any other positive greeting. But the Dairy Queen corporate office issued a statement taking issue with the franchise owner, CBS 58 reported: American Dairy Queen Corporation does not encourage our independently owned and operated franchisees to post non-business related messages in their locations or on their external reader boards. This sign expresses the views of this independent owner only and does not speak for ADQ Corporation or any of our other independent franchise owners. We expect our franchisees and employees to treat every person who walks through our doors with the utmost dignity and respect. Nothing less is acceptable. Independent Journal Review reached out to the owner of the franchise and others involved in the story to find out additional details, but none was available to comment before publication. It's unclear whether the franchise owner has been asked to give the person making the original complaint a “designated snowflake safe space” as advertised. The Kewaskum franchise may need a few more employees to handle the demand from all the people on Facebook promising to flock to the store in support. http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/972403-dairy-queen-owner-posts-warning-door-snowflakes-upset-un-pc-behavior-now-corporates-involved/

Does anyone even watch the news on CBS, NBC or ABC anymore? Blessings, -Ed

As I write this, Hurricane Irma is poised to travel up the west coast of FLA - but it has already devastated islands in the Caribbean and Cuba. Imagine - I wasn't aware that Trump voters populated those areas! Blessings, -Ed

Those who watch FNC probably know who Eric Bolling is - and also of the recent controversy surrounding his departure. This is just unimaginable, though. One report I saw said his son committed suicide. This should go without saying - particularly on a Christian website - but the man's politics should be put aside if anyone feels led to comment. Blessings, -Ed

Breaking: Eric Bolling's Son Passes Away BY VIRGINIA KRUTA Fox News just announced the decision to terminate popular host Eric Bolling amid allegations of inappropriate text messages — but as of Saturday morning, that was the least of Bolling's troubles. Sources are now reporting that Bolling's 19-year-old son, affectionately known as “Eric Chase,” passed away on Friday night. A source close to Eric Bolling confirmed the news to Mediaite. A statement from Fox News is expected soon. Very sad news, Eric Bolling's son, who was only 19, died last night. By all accounts, Eric was incredibly devoted to his son. Heartbreaking. It is clear that Bolling deeply loved his son and took great pride in watching him grow up. Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bolling family in this very difficult time. This is a breaking story and updates will be published as they are made available. http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/970028-breaking-eric-bollings-son-passes-away/

That's the way you see it, and that's fine. As to this specific case, though, the use of the IRS in this way was blatant and 'in your face.' Nixon only threatened to do this, Obama (through Ms. Lerner) actually DID it. I'm not surprised by it, though - just saddened. The gov't really IS the mob. Blessings, -Ed

I guess the swamp drain must be clogged, huh? “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” ― George Orwell, Animal Farm Blessings, -Ed

DOJ Will Not Pursue Charges Against Lois Lerner September 8, 2017 By Seth Connell Lois Lerner was the high-level IRS official who worked to purposefully target conservative groups applying for tax exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. Under her leadership, the IRS put these groups under extreme scrutiny, and delayed their applications because of their beliefs. Such targeting had conservatives rightly outraged, and even some on the Left recognized weaponizing the IRS is morally reprehensible. Congress began investigating the IRS for their targeting of conservative groups, and referred the case to the Justice Department in 2014. However, the Obama DOJ announced they found no wrongdoing at the IRS (was anyone surprised by that?). Earlier this year, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas asked the DOJ to re-review the case, and he trusted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ department would properly investigate the issue and bring the perpetrators to justice. However, the DOJ has stunningly decided not to re-open the investigation, Fox News is reporting. In a letter to members of Congress, the Justice Department said that “reopening the criminal investigation would not be appropriate based on the available evidence.” Republican leaders on the House Ways and Means Committee had hoped the Justice Department would reopen its case against ex-IRS official Lois Lerner now that Republican Donald Trump is in the White House and Attorney General Jeff Sessions runs the department. They were disappointed in the department’s response. “This is a terrible decision,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the Ways and Means Committee chairman. “It sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees.” The 2013 inspector general report that revealed the targeting of conservative groups, and the subsequentactions taken to cover it all up, were apparently not enough evidence to re-open the probe. “I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Sessions, but I’m troubled by his department’s lack of action to fully respond to our request and deliver accountability,” Brady said. The Ways and Means Committee, in their press release, also stated that it was because of the mishandling of the case by the Obama DOJ that they wanted it re-investigated. Despite clear evidence of criminal misconduct and a Committee referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, the Obama Administration refused to review the information and deliver justice to the taxpayers harmed by Ms. Lerner’s actions. In the letter to Attorney General Sessions, Chairmen Brady and Roskam wrote: “Taxpayers deserve to know that the DOJ’s previous evaluation was not tainted by politics … We respectfully request the Department of Justice to take a fresh look at the evidence presented in the attached referral in order to restore taxpayers’ trust in the IRS.” After the scandal was exposed, a great number of senior officials resigned or retired. It is simply appalling that the Department of Justice is not going to investigate this systemic violation of the law and the Constitution. Where is Sessions’ acclaimed dedication to the Constitution, the freedom of speech and of religious exercise? Is no one to be held accountable for the blatant and intentional violation of these sacred fundamental rights? And does it not send a message to other government employees that they can also violate statutory law and the Constitution with impunity? This is the kind of thing which Donald Trump railed about on the campaign trail. Are you going to sit by and say that this is not inherently reprehensible? Many of you voted for Donald Trump, and subsequently the people he placed into official positions. The time to let them know what you think of this is NOW. http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/doj-will-not-pursue-charges-lois-lerner

Note to Mr. Cameron and Ms. Lawrence: Sometimes it's better to just say "God Is Sovereign" and leave it at that. Just sayin' . . . Blessings, -Ed

Kirk Cameron Says God Sends Hurricanes to Remind Us of His 'Immense Power' Actor turned evangelist Kirk Cameron, known for his role in the ABC sitcom “Growing Pains,” said God sends hurricanes to remind people of his “immense power.” In a Facebook Live video posted Thursday, Cameron wondered aloud if it’s just a coincidence that Hurricane Harvey left the costliest damage in U.S. history and Hurricane Irma now ranks among the strongest Atlantic-basin storms in recorded history. He said it “could be something much more than” just happenstance. “This is not Mother Nature in a bad mood. This is a spectacular display of God’s immense power,” Cameron said, adding: “When he puts his power on display, it’s never without reason. There’s a purpose. And we may not always understand what that purpose is, but we know it’s not random and we know that weather is sent to cause us to respond to God in humility, awe, and repentance.” Cameron went on to say God is the “Lord of the wind and the waves,” a reference to Matthew 8:23-27, when Jesus calmed a harsh storm for his scared disciples. Storms like Harvey and Irma, the actor said, should serve as a reminder that God “supplies our life, breath, and everything else, so that you and I reach out to him.” He encouraged parents to share that perspective with their children, too: “Remind them that God is the blessed controller of all things. ... He is the one who gives us peace, security and strength in the midst of the storm and that he uses this to point us to him and to his care for us.” On the other side of the political divide, “Mother!” star Jennifer Lawrence said the recent hurricanes are Mother Nature’s “wrath” against Americans for voting President Donald Trump into the White House. Lawrence started by saying climate change is the result of human activity, yet “we continue to ignore it, and the only voice that we really have is through voting.” “And we voted, and it was really startling,” she continued. “You know, you’re watching these hurricanes now, and it’s really hard, especially while promoting this movie, not to, not to feel Mother Nature’s rage, or wrath.” http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/969698-kirk-cameron-says-god-sends-hurricanes-remind-us-immense-power/

I'm a states rights kind of guy, so I would leave suspected fraud in local elections to be dealt with by local or state authorities. The exception to that (and this may already be being done) would be elections for federal offices. (i.e. House and Senate and of course POTUS) If they aren't already, they should come under federal law and be prosecuted vigorously. While the Franken election I cited earlier probably didn't change much, it set a bad precedent. Someone should have done time in a federal prison. As a former servicemember, of course I am not for doing away with absentee ballots. States are lax in how they handle them, though. That needs to be addressed, perhaps by some federal incentive to the states . And I'm also in favor of doing away with early voting. In NY State, the polls open at 6am on election day and close at 9pm. No one is so busy they cannot take the time to vote at some point during that day (if it is important to them). Voter registration has become a big deal (in the ongoing effort to divide by race and class). It is a bogus argument, really. Photo IDs are required to buy beer and cigarettes - why is it then racist to require same for voting? I have never understood the logic in that. (except the logic of dividing by race and class) The simple act of requiring a voter ID (with picture and local address) would go a long way toward satisfying those who are concerned about possible fraud. Yet every attempt to require voter IDs is usually struck down. Why is that? Who benefits? As far as existing laws go, it just a matter of enforcing them. There seems at times to be a lack of desire to do so. If laws are broken, conviction needs to be swift and severe. Blessings, -Ed

Your points are valid, but then there's this: Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud As much as I disagree with Al Franken, in practical terms probably not much was affected - if indeed his win was fraudulent. He 'won' that seat against an establishment republican, Norm Coleman. So while ideologically the makeup of the Senate might have shifted slightly to the left, in practical terms Coleman would have voted with the establishment likely in every case. He certainly wasn't a conservative. According to the Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database, these are some additional examples of voter fraud in which convictions were obtained. 1982 An estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in a 1982 Chicago election. After a Justice Department investigation, 63 individuals were convicted of voter fraud, including vote buying, impersonation fraud, fictitious voter registrations, phony absentee ballots, and voting by non-citizens. 1994 After an extensive investigation of absentee ballot fraud in a 1994 Greene County, Alabama, election, nine defendants pleaded guilty to voter fraud, and two others were found guilty by a jury. The defendants included Greene County commissioners, officials, and employees; a racing commissioner; a member of the board of education; a Eutaw city councilman; and other community leaders. Among other things, the conspirators used an assembly line to mass produce forged absentee ballots meant to swing elections in favor of preferred candidates. 2003 Allan “Twig” Simmons, an operative for the East Chicago, Indiana, mayor’s campaign, persuaded voters to let him fill out their absentee ballots in exchange for jobs. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fraud in the 2003 East Chicago mayoral primary was so widespread that the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately overturned the election results and ordered a special mayoral election that resulted in a different winner. 2004 Chad Staton, a worker associated with the NAACP National Voter Fund in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, pleaded guilty to 10 felony counts for filing false voter registrations during the 2004 presidential election in exchange for crack cocaine. Staton filled out more than 100 forms in names such as Mary Poppins, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Dick Tracy, and George Lopez. 2004 Six Democrats from Lincoln County, West Virginia, pleaded guilty to charges of participating in a conspiracy to buy votes dating back to 1990. The indictment charged that the cabal conspired to buy votes in every election held between 1990 and 2004, handing out slates listing preferred candidates and using liquor and cash—typically $20 per vote—to seal the deal. They also laid gravel on roads for supporters and fixed traffic tickets. 2004 East St. Louis, Illinois, precinct committeemen Charles Powell, Sheila Thomas, Jesse Lewis, and Kelvin Ellis, as well as precinct worker Yvette Johnson, were convicted of conspiracy to commit election fraud after participating in vote buying activities in the 2004 election, including submitting budgets that would allow city funds to be used to pay voters to vote for Democrat candidates. 2008 ACORN workers in Seattle, Washington, committed what the secretary of state called, “the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington.” The group submitted 1,762 fraudulent voter registration forms. The group’s leader, Clifton Mitchell, was convicted of false registrations and served nearly three months in jail. Four other ACORN workers on his team also received jail time, and ACORN was fined $25,000 to cover the cost of the investigation. 2010 Paul Schurick, former campaign manager to Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, was convicted of election fraud after approving a robocall to black voters telling them not to vote because the Democrats had already won the 2010 gubernatorial election. A circuit court judge spared Schurick jail time, opting to sentence him to 30 days’ home detention, four years of probation, and 500 hours of community service. 2012 Robert Monroe, identified by prosecutors as the worst multiple voter in Wisconsin history, pleaded no contest to charges that he voted more than once in 2011 and 2012. Monroe’s record was extensive: he voted twice in the April 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, twice in the 2011 recall election of state Sen. Alberta Darling, and five times in Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. He also cast an illegal ballot in the August 2012 primary, and voted twice in the 2012 general election. 2012 While running for re-election, Martin, Kentucky, Mayor Ruth Robinson and a cabal of co-conspirators targeted residents living in public housing and in properties Robinson owned, threatening to evict them if they did not sign absentee ballots that Robinson and her family had already filled out. Robinson also targeted disabled residents, and offered to buy the votes of others. She was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 months’ imprisonment. 2014 Rosa Maria Ortega, a non-citizen, was found guilty on two counts of voter fraud for voting in the November 2012 general election and the 2014 Republican primary runoff. Ortega claimed she thought she was a citizen, and blamed her lack of education for the mix-up, but prosecutors pointed out that Ortega had previously indicated on a driver’s license application that she was a non-citizen. A judge sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment, after which she faces the possibility of deportation. http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud So yes, fraud DOES exist. Blessings, -Ed

Voter fraud exists - I don't think anyone can argue that. Now - how widespread is it and does it effect elections? That is the part that is controversial. As in many issues like this, I prefer to look at things differently. While a tiny percentage of votes in any given election can be expected to be fraudulent, there are methods - especially given modern technology - to ensure that fraud is kept to an absolute minimum. So the question I ask is - why isn't that done? If people were confident that everything that could be done to prevent fraud was in fact being done, then the issue would go away. Who benefits from the issue being kept alive? Questions I do not have the answers to. Blessings, -Ed