↓ Archives ↓

Archive → January 25th, 2017

Detroit’s election woes: 782 more votes than voters

Detroit’s election woes: 782 more votes than voters

Another 382 Detroiters were listed as voting but their ballots never showed up in the count.

Whether the result of machine malfunction, human error or even fraud, the unexplained voting discrepancies in Detroit last month were not sizable enough to affect the outcome in Michigan of the presidential election, according to a new Free Press analysis of voting precinct records.

In 248 precincts, there were a total of 782 more votes tabulated by voting machines than the number of voters listed as picking up ballots in the precincts’ poll books. That makes up just three-tenths of 1% of the total 248,211 votes that were logged in Detroit for the presidential election. That number was far too small to swing the statewide election results, even in this year’s especially tight race that saw a Republican win Michigan for the first time since George Bush in 1988.

Donald Trump carried Michigan by 10,704 votes, or 47.5% to 47.3%, according to the final results submitted to the Michigan Secretary of State. But in Detroit, Democrat Hillary Clinton trounced Trump, winning 95% of the vote to his 3%.

The Free Press analysis found there were 248 precincts in Detroit where voting machines tabulated more Election Day votes than people who were counted as checking in to vote. The affected precincts represent 37% of the city’s 662 precincts.

Most of those overages were by small amounts — on average about 3 votes — with the largest being 12 votes in a single precinct. Those small numbers, which add up to 782 total spread out across more than 200 precincts, tend to point to human or machine malfunction as the culprit, rather than widespread fraud.

In 158 precincts, the number of ballots tabulated by the optical-scanning voting machines was inexplicably less than the number of people who signed in to vote. At least 362 ballots were not counted in those precincts, even though the voters had been listed in poll books.

 

Altogether, the total of over-counted and under-counted ballots was about 1,144. As a result, nearly 60% of Detroit’s precincts weren’t eligible for recount because the number of ballots in the ballot box didn’t match the number of people listed as voting in the poll book.

The Free Press analysis came from handwritten tabulations logged by the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. The numbers are approximated because notes in eight precincts were illegible or unclear. This is the first time that actual figures for over-counted and under-counted votes have been reported

Detroit’s inability to reconcile its ballots with its voter lists was exposed in the recount requested by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein that was later ordered stopped by the Michigan Supreme Court. The discrepancy became national news, including headlines suggesting voter fraud.

Reasons for the under-counted and over-counted votes are unclear, although in some cases people may have signed in to vote, then left before casting their ballots because of long lines. Machine malfunctions also may have played a role; on Election Day, more than 80 optical vote scanners broke down in Detroit.

Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey and Elections Director Daniel Baxter could not be reached for comment Sunday regarding these latest findings.

Winfrey told the Free Press last week that the city’s decade-old voting machines broke down and caused problems throughout Election Day and that the city has struggled for years to recruit younger people to work the polls. Most Detroit poll workers are retirees with an average age of 68 and they typically work 15-18 hours on Election Day for a $150 paycheck.

Winfrey said Detroit will be getting new voting machines in time for the 2017 mayoral and City Council elections.

Under Michigan law, precincts cannot be recounted when the number of voters in the poll book doesn’t match the number of ballots in the ballot box. Almost 60% of Detroit’s precincts were mismatched — either having too many or not enough ballots to match poll books — and ineligible for recount, according to the Wayne County Clerk’s Office.

Michigan presidential election recount

 

Detroit wasn’t the only place in Michigan with recount problems. There was at least one ineligible precinct in each of the 22 counties where the recount had gotten under way before being halted by the court, according to Michigan Secretary of State records.

The state Bureau of Elections plans to conduct audits of about 20 Detroit precincts that couldn’t be recounted. Those ballots are to be brought to Lansing for an audit that should last for at least three weeks, said Chris Thomas, director of elections for the state.

“We don’t have any suspicion of fraud. We generally approach this as human error,” Thomas said last week. “We’re going to take a look at them to make sure there’s not a need for further explanations.”

Bill Ballenger, longtime Michigan political analyst and founder of the Ballenger Report, said Sunday that even though the number of questionable votes in Detroit was apparently too small to affect this election, the discrepancies are still disconcerting because the race was so close and they demonstrate the need for an audit.

“If there’s one thing good that came out of the recount petition by Jill Stein, it’s that it revealed there are some problems,” he said.

Ballenger noted how the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore hinged on just 537 votes in the state of Florida. That is fewer than the number of questionable Detroit votes.

“If this election had turned out to be as close as Florida in 2000, this would be a huge story right now,” he said.

Contact John Wisely: 313-222-6825 or jwisely@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @jwisely.

Election stats and Free Press findings:

  • There were 782 over-counted votes in 248 Detroit precincts.
  • There were 362 under-counted ballots in 158 Detroit precincts.
  • Nearly 60% of Detroit’s 662 precincts were ineligible for recounting
  • Donald Trump officially beat Hillary Clinton in Michigan by 10,704 votes.
  • Detroit voters overwhelming preferred Clinton to Trump, 95% to his 3%.

Source: Will County News

Trump Moves to ‘Build That Wall’ With Mexico, Curb Refugees

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation’s immigration controls Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall and cut federal grants for immigrant-protecting “sanctuary cities.” As early as Thursday, he is expected to pause the flow of all refugees to the U.S. and indefinitely bar those fleeing war-torn Syria.

“Beginning today the United States of America gets back control of its borders,” Trump declared during a visit to the Department of Homeland Security. “We are going to save lives on both sides of the border.”

The actions, less than a week into Trump’s presidency, fulfilled pledges that animated his candidacy and represented a dramatic redirection of U.S. immigration policy. They were cheered by Republicans allies in Congress, condemned by immigration advocates and the trigger for immediate new tension with the Mexican government.

Trump is expected to wield his executive power again later this week with the directive to dam the refugee flow into the U.S. for at least four months, in addition to the open-ended pause on Syrian arrivals.

The president’s upcoming order is also expected to suspend issuing visas for people from several predominantly Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for at least 30 days, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Associated Press.

Trump is unveiling his immigration plans at a time when detentions at the nation’s southern border are down significantly from levels seen in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The arrest tally last year was the fifth-lowest since 1972. Deportations of people living in the U.S. illegally also increased under President Barack Obama, though Republicans criticized him for setting prosecution guidelines that spared some groups from the threat of deportation, including those brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

As a candidate, Trump tapped into the immigration concerns of some Americans who worry both about a loss of economic opportunities and the threat of criminals and terrorists entering the country. His call for a border wall was among his most popular proposals with supporters, who often broke out in chants of “build that wall” during rallies.

Immigration advocates and others assailed the new president’s actions. Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the president’s desire to construct a border wall was “driven by racial and ethnic bias that disgraces America’s proud tradition of protecting vulnerable migrants.”

How Trump plans to pay for the wall project is murky. While he has repeatedly promised that Mexico will foot the bill, U.S. taxpayers are expected to cover the initial costs and the new administration has said nothing about how it might compel Mexico to reimburse the money.

In an interview with ABC News earlier Wednesday, Trump said, “There will be a payment; it will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form.”

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who has insisted his country will not pay for a wall, has been expected to meet with Trump at the White House next week, although a senior official said Trump’s announcement had led him to reconsider the visit.

Congressional aides say there is about $100 million of unspent appropriations in the Department of Homeland Security account for border security, fencing and infrastructure. That would allow planning efforts to get started, but far more money would have to be appropriated for construction to begin.

Trump has insisted many times the border structure will be a wall. The order he signed referred to “a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous and impassable physical barrier.”

To build the wall, the president is relying on a 2006 law that authorized several hundred miles of fencing along the 2,000-mile frontier. That bill led to the construction of about 700 miles of various kinds of fencing designed to block both vehicles and pedestrians.

The president’s orders also call for hiring 5,000 additional border patrol agents and 10,000 more immigration officers, though the increases are subject to the approval of congressional funding. He also moved to end what Republicans have labeled a catch-and-release system at the border. Currently, some immigrants caught crossing the border illegally are released and given notices to report back to immigration officials at a later date.

Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities — locales that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities — could cost individual jurisdictions millions of dollars. But the administration may face legal challenges, given that some federal courts have found that cities or counties cannot hold immigrants beyond their jail terms or deny them bond based only a request from immigration authorities.

Some of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas — including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — are considered sanctuary cities.

The president also moved to restart the “Secure Communities” program, which was launched under President George W. Bush and initially touted as a way for immigration authorities to quickly and easily identify people in the country illegally who had been arrested by local authorities.

The program helped the Obama administration deport a record high of more than 409,000 immigrants in 2012. But Obama eventually abandoned the program after immigration advocates and civil libertarians decried it as too often targeting immigrants charged with low-level crimes, including traffic violations.

Among those in the audience for Trump’s remarks at DHS were the families of people killed by people in the U.S. illegally. After reading the names of those killed, Trump said, “Your children will not have lost their lives for no reason.”

Trump’s actions on halting all refugees could be announced as soon as Thursday. Administration officials and others briefed on the plans cautioned that some details of the measures could still be changed, but indicated that Trump planned to follow through on his campaign promises to limit access to the U.S. for people coming from countries with terrorism ties.

___

AP writers Alicia A. Caldwell, Vivian Salama and Andrew Taylor in Washington and E. Eduardo Castillo in Mexico City contributed to this report.

 

Source: Will County News

Clinton, The Media, Republican Establishment, Globalists, Elites, VS. Trump


America at a crossroads

459 Shares

American flag in New YorkMake America great again was President-elect Donald Trump’s promise and he will start to make good on it when he is sworn in on Friday. Almost 62 million Americans answered Trump’s call for one fundamental reason — they believed that President Barack Obama had undermined America’s traditional values.

There has been an overwhelming blacklash against Trump and his vision for America since the election. There have been vile and personal attacks against Trump and they will not lessen after his inauguration. In fact, they will intensify over time to a point where the United States of America may become ungovernable.

You may recall that during the final presidential debate, after Trump refused to commit to accepting the election results, Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton went off on one of her diatribes:

“That’s horrifying. Let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating — he (Trump) is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.”

As it turned out these were the words of a dyed–in–the–wool hypocrite. For two months Clinton and her allies have argued that Trump’s victory in November was the result of skullduggery and therefore he is an illegitimate president.

One theory is that Clinton lost because FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress about the FBI investigation into her emails 11 days before Election Day, which put the controversy back into the news.

“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Clinton said adding, “Our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”

Let’s take an analytical look at Clinton’s argument. Trump’s relationship with Comey comes from a single meeting where the FBI Director presented a two-paged synopsis of unconfirmed allegations about Russia regarding Trump. Are we to believe from that one meeting Comey was either bribed by Trump or was so mesmerized by him that he would forsake his oath of office “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

If Comey did such a thing he would face felony charges and jail time. He would also go down in the history books next to Benedict Arnold. This is the same man that President George W. Bush thought highly enough of to appoint as deputy attorney general and a man who President Barack Obama appointed as director of the FBI.

Other scapegoats

Clinton’s disregard for preserving state secrets could have led to overseas intelligence agents being abducted, tortured and even murdered. If not criminal, Clinton’s actions were reckless. They included keeping multiple personal email devices against State Department protocol. Then there is her constant stream of lies. At first she admitted to having two cell phones rather than the prescribed one. That number eventually grew to 13 mobile devices.

Other theories include but are not limited to:

  1. Putin personally liked Trump better than Clinton.
  2. Putin believed Trump would be soft on Russia compared to Clinton.
  3. Putin has financial records and video of Trump’s deviant sexual behavior while staying in a Moscow hotel. The argument being that Trump’s business dealings and sexual deviancy would force him to acquiesce to Russian dictates.

Some Democrats in Congress like Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) maintain that Donald Trump is not a “legitimate president,” citing Russian interference in last year’s election.

Despite all that money spent and all the praise from the press, the fact is Clinton was a terrible candidate, devoid of any of the charisma her husband and former President Bill Clinton had and lacking in a message other than her presidency was going to continue the status quo of the Obama administration. That was a big misjudgment in what Americans wanted. Election exit polls showed that as many as two-thirds of all voters wanted change.

I was angry at Clinton when she said at a campaign fundraiser in New York City last September that:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic [SIC], you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

If you have been reading me over the past year and a half you know I never did give Trump a ringing endorsement. There is a lot about him that runs against my libertarian values. But it seems to me Clinton’s conviction that there is a lot of white trash out there which undoubtedly includes me. Clinton thinks those that choose decency over diversity and don’t accept the notion of white privilege are unenlightened.

What do Trump supporters want? I believe it is decency over diversity; debate without debacle and politeness rather than political correctness. Most people don’t want to be lectured, especially by someone who gets rich for talking in front of a camera. I proudly count myself as one of Clinton’s deplorables rather than a progressive clone in the Democratic Party.

I consider myself to be smarter and better read than average. I have a good education from a university that didn’t have a liberal bias or institute political correctness when I attended in the 1970s. As a result, I am an independent thinker as I believe most of the Personal Liberty® readers are, based on reading your comments over the past eight years.

I don’t believe that we need a lecture from the media either.

Consider Jim Rutenberg, a political correspondent for The New York Times. He writes regularly against Trump. Last summer he wrote an article that should have gotten him fired. In it he urged the news media to abandon all pretense of objectivity in covering Donald Trump and rather write for the express purpose of defeating him:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that…

Rutenberg believes the media and not Americans are the best judge of Trump. He credits journalists as having some kind of special knowledge that mere mortals don’t have — that a Trump presidency is very dangerous.

What has followed has hardly been a surprise. In November, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. came right out and admitted the newspaper’s bias against Trump.

How does anyone know what is in another man’s heart? Trump has done nothing in his life to deserve the derision against him. Real evidence doesn’t seem important to The New York Times. They have insight into the future that must be listened to even if it is libelous to Trump, runs counter to decency and represents a much bigger threat to American democracy than Trump.

The Times also dishonors the Founding Fathers with the assumption that the checks and balances built into the Constitution are so flimsy that on a whim a U.S. President can install him or herself as a dictator.

The Times has the hubris to claim that only their publisher, editors and reporters can see evil in Trump — as well as his cabinet picks which include generals in the military and captains of industry — that remains hidden from the Americans who voted for him.

I find it interesting that the news media are so convinced that Trump is evil because of some of the moronic comments he has made over the past year. Trump has often said something stupid or inappropriate. That doesn’t mean he is evil or tyrannical.

The progressive media are pouring gasoline onto hot embers. If all hell breaks loose it won’t be Donald Trump that brings it about, but his enemies that care not about what is good for America but rather their own socialist agenda.

Yours in good times and bad,

— John Myers

Source: Will County News

What was the women’s march on Washington really about?

By Steve Balich 1/25/2017

I Have received some comments about a post I put on the Will County News attacking the words Dan Proft used saying in satire Grumpy old women, referring to the women’s march on Washington. Maybe he should not have used those words in our political correct world, but he did and I found the article from Up Stream Ideas interesting. I want to be clear I do support equal rights and protections for everyone. “All men are created equal” Men refers to all Humans!

The emails I received were extremely vulgar for the most part. Yes, I believe in equal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution for everyone. We should all have equal rights and protections. The march seemed to me a political statement by those who hate Trump, those who want taxpayers to pay for their lifestyle, and those that embrace every tenant of the Democrat Party. I some women comment that they felt out of place at the march because the agenda was pro: abortion, Black lives matter, LGBTQ, un-documented immigrant, refugee, Planned Parenthood, Climate Change, etc. and mostly anti-Trump.

Some Values & Principals of the March    Excerpts  from Women’s March on Washington Guiding vision and definition of principals https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/587ffb31d2b857e5d49dcd4f/1484782386354/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pdf

  1. Women have the right to live full healthy lives, free from all forms of violence against our bodies. ( what about honor killings of Sharia Law, rights of women in other countries)
  2. No woman or mother should have to fear that her loved ones will be harmed by those sworn to protect. ( this implies police do a bad job. Police  now should be very careful doing their job since they are considered acting improperly in confrontational situations)
  3. They do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cut, or restrictions on access to healthcare, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention or sexuality education. ( Taxpayer should pay for their life Choices)
  4. They believe that LGBTQIA rights are human rights. This includes access to non-judgemental, comprehensive healthcare with no exceptions or limitations; access to name and gender changes on identity documents; access to benefits for education, employment, housing, and an end to police and State violence. ( this speaks for itself)
  5. Basic workplace protections: paid family leave, affordable healthcare, childcare, sick days, fair pay, vacation time, Un documented and migrant workers must be included in our labor protections, stand with the sex workers rights movement. (no comment)
  6. The U.S. should implement the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.
  7. Believe in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin, migration is a human right and no human being is illegal. ( That means no borders, no vetting, let everyone be a citizen)
  8. Our climate must be protected

 

Children were present in the crowd observing vulgar language, signs, actions, and p—-hats.

“Madona” said she would like to blow up the White House at an event. I don’t take what she said literally or should I.

“Hanoi Jane” after she denounced American soldiers as “war criminals” in the Vietnam war led the LA. march

Angela Davis long time activist  Black Panther “Over the next months and years, we will be called upon to intensify our demands for social justice, to become more militant in our defense of vulnerable populations.”

Wikipedia says “The Women’s March was a worldwide protest on January 21, 2017, in support of women’s rights and other causes including immigration reform, health care reform, protection of the natural environment, LGBTQ rights, racial justice, freedom of religion, and workers’ rights. The rallies were aimed at Donald Trump, the recently inaugurated President of the United States.”

So the anti-Trump, anti -conservative agenda from this march should be hailed as great because the media and leftist progressive global establishment says so. Compare 3 unkind words said in satire to the actual event. Saying something others don’t agree with should be protected.

Included in being equally able to voice an opinion is allowing other opinions.

 

 

Source: Will County News

Torched limo reveals how little protestors understand

Torched limo reveals how little protestors understand

126 Shares

In the United States of America, white men are doing everything in their power to keep women and minorities from getting ahead in life… just ask any social justice warrior. That’s why, during an anti-Trump protest in Washington DC Friday, they set fire to a limousine no doubt owned by a greedy, rich, white man.

There was just one problem.

The limo actually belonged to a Muslim immigrant named Muhammad Ashraf, who has owned a limousine service in the area for 25 years.

Ashraf, who is not a Donald Trump supporter, spoke out against the protestors in an interview with Red Alert Politics:

In an exclusive interview with Red Alert Politics, Ashraf said he wasn’t a supporter of Donald Trump during his campaign, but Friday’s protests were completely counter-productive.

“I have a different point of view,” Ashraf told Red Alert. “I did not agree with many of the things he said, but that still does not give me the right to go and affect someone’s livelihood.”

Ashraf noted that the Women’s March on Washington and in other cities around the country was a model for how to peacefully protest.

“I really don’t think we need to take this [violent] route.”

Ashraf’s employee, Luis Villarroel, 58, was dropping a client off at their destination when things turned ugly. Protesters smashed doors and windows in the vicinity, but then turned their attention to Villarroel and the limo. People began pounding on the car and started throwing stones and bricks in his direction. The driver ended up going to the hospital for cuts on his hands and arms from glass being shattered by thrown projectiles.

So street protestors who claim their goal is to make America more hospitable for minority populations actually torched an asset of a minority owned business.

Should we be surprised?

Not at all…

That’s because many of the leftist protestors and social justice warriors roaming the nation’s streets and college campuses have no idea what they’re so angry about. They just know that someone told them to be angry.

The protestors are angered by imagery of opulence because they believe everyone should be totally equal without regard to work ethic or intelligence.

The grand irony that Ashraf is a smart, hardworking minority businessperson who’s probably doing better than most of the protestors out Friday—and because he’s busy running a business and making a living, he would likely not take the time to join similar protests despite a distaste for Trump.

The protestors, meanwhile, are simply the useful idiots of the very type of elites they believed they were fighting by setting fire to a limousine. In fact, there ample evidence that much of the propaganda and organization behind the massive anti-Trump street protests in recent weeks can be linked directly to money flowing from billionaire George Soros.

The “Make America Great” attitude is the very reason so many immigrants come to the U.S. to start businesses. But the U.S. as a shining beacon of economic opportunity is bad news for anyone pushing a globalist agenda.

Source: Will County News