Sunday, December 22, 2024

conspiracy resource

Conspiracy News & Views from all angles, up-to-the-minute and uncensored

Archives

Elections

Pennsylvania county will remove drop boxes for November election to prevent fraud

Election officials in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, canceled the use of drop boxes for the election out of a concern for security and financial cost.

Luzerne County manager Romilda Crocamo announced the decision Wednesday and argued that security as well as financial concerns necessitated their removal.

‘This lack of oversight raises significant concerns about the potential for unauthorized access and misuse.’

“While I recognize that drop boxes can provide alternative means for voters to cast their ballots, I must prioritize the safety and security of our community in the current political climate,” said Crocamo.

The Times Leader reported that the county had been providing four drop boxes for voters.

Crocamo visited one site and documented the problems with the drop box.

“Although the venue is attractive, the drop box is situated in a vestibule with an outer door that remains open 24 hours a day. Furthermore, there is no personnel stationed nearby to monitor the second entry door that requires a passcode,” Crocamo said of the drop box on a site owned by the Luzerne County Housing Authority.

“This lack of oversight raises significant concerns about the potential for unauthorized access and misuse,” she added.

Crocamo admitted she was “particularly concerned about the potential for illegal activities, such as individuals depositing multiple ballots.”

While the drop boxes are shut down, voters can still drop off their mail-in ballots at locations where election monitors can watch for multiple ballots. Pennsylvania law says voters must return their own ballots, with some exceptions for the disabled.

Crocamo said the chairwoman of the election board reviewed her plan and supported it.

“In conclusion, I believe this decision is in the best interest of our community,” she concluded. “I appreciate your understanding and support as we navigate these complex issues during these complex times. Together, we can ensure a safe and secure voting experience for all.”

In the 2020 presidential election, the Trump-Pence Republican ticket won Luzerne County by about 12K votes over the Biden-Harris Democratic ticket, or 56.6% to 42.3%.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
Elections

‘The cheat factor’: Don’t ignore Bret Weinstein’s election warning to Joe Rogan

There’s no doubt Donald Trump is a popular candidate among patriotic Americans — but is he popular enough to win the election?

In a clip on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan asked Bret Weinstein this question, and Weinstein’s answer came in the form of a warning.

“Let’s imagine it is dirty, and you really can manipulate elections,” Rogan says to Weinstein. “How much can you manipulate it by? Can you manipulate it by 30%?”

“To your point about how much can they cheat? I call that factor, which none of us can put a number on,” Weinstein answers, “I call it the cheat factor.”

“One of the things that I’m trying to convince people of is that it’s not hopeless because they can cheat, but it means that you have to succeed at a level that exceeds their capacity to erase it,” he continues.

“Like, maybe they can cheat by 10%,” Rogan responds.

“Right. And what we know, and I think actually we owe Trump a huge debt of gratitude for proving something that I couldn’t have told you if it was true because he won the presidency, which is, is there still enough democracy left in the system for something to upend the plan,” Weinstein explains.

Vivek Ramaswamy agrees with Weinstein and tells Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” that “we need a landslide” in order to win the election in the face of potential cheating.

“We are skating on thin ice. I think that 50.1 is not a sufficient margin, but even for the purpose of governing, I think we’re going to need to do a lot better than that in order to really have decisive change in this country,” he adds.

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Read More
Elections

Speaker Johnson’s funding bill with voter integrity add-on defeated in House; 14 Republicans vote with Democrats

Fourteen Republicans voted Wednesday with Democrats of the U.S. House of Representatives to defeat a bill meant to fund the government and avoid a shutdown at the end of the month.

The funding measure failed by a vote of 220 to 202.

‘The play that we ran tonight was the right play. … I’m very disappointed that it didn’t pass.’

Three Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans in favor of the bill.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana had tied an election integrity bill to the funding legislation in an attempt to pressure Democrats to pass it all at once.

“It is members across the conference who share the same concern that we do about this,” said Johnson about the SAVE Act earlier in September. “And we believe it’s one of the — perhaps the most urgent issue, the most imminent threat facing the country, is the integrity of this election cycle.”

After the bill failed Wednesday, Johnson spoke to reporters.

“The play that we ran tonight was the right play. It’s the right play for the American people. It’s the one they demand and deserve,” he said.

“We have two very important objectives right now,” he continued. “Congress has an obligation to fund the government. Congress has an obligation to ensure that our elections are secure, fair and free. This vote tonight could have accomplished both. I’m very disappointed that it didn’t pass.”

Earlier in the day, former President Donald Trump demanded that Republicans refuse to fund the government without passing the voter integrity bill.

“If Republicans don’t get the SAVE Act, and every ounce of it, they should not agree to a Continuing Resolution in any way, shape, or form,” he wrote on Truth Social. “A Vote must happen BEFORE the Election, not AFTER the Election when it is too late. BE SMART, REPUBLICANS…”

The election bill would require proof of citizenship before voting, but Democrats claim election fraud is already illegal and the new law would only prevent legal voters from turning in their ballot.

“In reality, the SAVE Act would make it harder for millions of legal citizens to register to vote,” read a statement from Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois. “Americans would not be able to use military IDs or Tribal IDs alone when registering to vote. People who have changed their names, including millions of married women, would not be allowed to use their birth certificates when proving their citizenship.”

The government will shut down in 13 days on Oct. 1 unless legislators can agree on a funding bill.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
Elections

Arizona officials suddenly discover 97,000 registered voters may not have provided proof of citizenship after all

This week, Arizona officials announced that nearly 100,000 registered voters may not be able to vote in state and local elections this November after they may not have provided proof of U.S. citizenship as required by state law.

The apparent “flaw” in the voter registration process in Arizona was discovered last week, Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer said in lengthy X post on Tuesday, even though it had been around for decades.

‘In all likelihood, they almost all [are] U.S. Citizens. But they have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship.’

The issue involves a complicated nexus of state and federal law and rules governing an Arizona driver’s license.

Arizona has a unique system by which prospective voters in federal elections may register using a federal form that does not require documented proof of citizenship. Documentation is required, however, for those casting ballots in state and local elections.

Since 1996, those wishing to obtain a standard Arizona driver’s license have had to show proof of U.S. citizenship. Green-card holders are given an alternate license.

Thus, everyone who has registered to vote in Arizona using a state driver’s license since 1996 has been presumed to be a U.S. citizen and therefore eligible to vote in all federal, state, and local elections since they would have had to furnish the necessary documentation when they applied for a driver’s license.

Beginning in 2004 though, the Motor Vehicle Division changed rules so that those applying for a renewal or replacement license had an updated issue date stamped on it.

This system allowed one group of registered voters to, in Richer’s words, fall “through the cracks” regarding proof of citizenship. This group of about 97,000 individuals from across the state received a driver’s license before 1996 but received a replacement license sometime after 2004 and then used that updated license to register to vote.

“All of these people have attested under penalty of law that they are U.S. citizens,” Richer explained. “And, in all likelihood, they almost all [are] U.S. Citizens. But they have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship.”

According to Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, the affected voters are likely between the ages of 45 and 60 and lean Republican.

With the November election fast approaching and military ballots going out later this week, Richer, a Republican, is filing a “friendly” lawsuit against Fontes, a Democrat, in hopes that the state supreme court will provide clarity on the issue — and soon.

“It is my position that these registrants have not satisfied Arizona’s documented proof of citizenship law, and therefore can only vote a ‘FED ONLY’ ballot [in 2024],” Richer said.

Fontes believes that the issue cannot possibly be resolved fairly in such a truncated timeframe and would therefore prevent many otherwise lawful U.S. citizens from participating in state and local elections. “We do not want to see this happen,” he said. “We are advocating for status quo.”

The news comes on the heels of lawsuits filed against all 15 Arizona counties by America First Legal, a group with strong ties to former President Donald Trump. As Blaze News previously reported, the lawsuit, filed September 4, accused the counties and their respective recorders of failing to purge foreign nationals from their voter rolls in defiance of state law.

“We are taking emergency action to secure our elections,” former Trump adviser and current AFL president Stephen Miller told Blaze News in a previous statement. “… America First Legal will do everything in its power to fight mass illegal alien voting and foreign interference in our democracy.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
Elections

210,000 unsolicited voter registration applications sent out in Democrat Texas county in defiance of AG Paxton

Hundreds of thousands of residents in the San Antonio area may have received voter registration applications this month without asking for them after county leaders approved a mass mailing in defiance of Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

On September 2, Paxton sent a letter to Bexar County — a heavily Democratic region of Texas where San Antonio is located — demanding that officials there strongly reconsider sending out the applications. In the letter, Paxton expressed concerns that such an unsolicited application “potentially confuses residents” about their eligibility to vote and may even convince some unscrupulous ineligible residents to circumvent state and federal law and “provide false information” that would allow them to register to vote.

‘The target of the mailing — qualified individuals who recently moved to or within Bexar County — have received those forms, and perhaps have already returned them.’

“Either way, it is illegal, and if you move forward with this proposal, I will use all available legal means to stop you,” Paxton warned.

The warning apparently fell on deaf ears.

On September 3, the commissioners court in Bexar County voted 3-1-1 in favor of sending out approximately 210,000 voter registration applications. The voter registrar gave the lone “no” vote.

WOAI indicated that only “eligible” residents of Bexar County would receive the applications, though the outlet did not clarify how such unregistered “eligible” voters had been identified.

County officials did not mail out the applications themselves but instead shelled out nearly $400,000 to have Civic Government Solutions do so on their behalf.

Civic Government Solutions is a self-described “nonpartisan company,” though domain information associated with its website, civicgs.com, appears to be directly linked to Civitech, according to Texas Scorecard. On its website, Civitech brags that it is a political outreach company “trusted by Democratic and progressive leaders.”

Paxton filed suit against Bexar County the following day, and his attorneys argued in court that county officials lacked the authority to approve the mass mailings and that they failed to consider competitive bids from other organizations besides Civic Government Solutions.

At a hearing on Monday, Bexar County Assistant Criminal District Attorney Robert Piatt noted that “the target of the mailing — qualified individuals who recently moved to or within Bexar County — have received those forms, and perhaps have already returned them.”

Judge Antonia Arteaga was apparently persuaded by the defense’s case, ruling that Paxton’s lawsuit was moot since the applications had already been sent.

“Our position from the very beginning was that the commissioners had every right to do what they did, and we are very pleased with the judge’s ruling today,” said Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, according to CNN.

Gonzales also indicated that Paxton’s attorneys had not shown up for a previous hearing about the issue, prompting Bexar County to proceed with the mailings.

A spokesperson for Paxton confirmed to Blaze News that the attorney general has already filed an appeal of Judge Arteaga’s ruling.

“In a display of bad faith, Bexar County engaged in dirty tricks to avoid appropriate judicial review of a clearly unlawful program that invites voter fraud,” Paxton said in a statement. “These actions demonstrate that Bexar County knew what they were doing was wrong, yet expedited the mailout of unsolicited registration forms before the issue could be argued in court. I will fight every step of the way to hold them accountable.”

Paxton has filed a similar lawsuit against Travis County, home of the capital city of Austin. Harris County, where Houston is located, considered sending out voter registration applications en masse but ultimately decided against it.

In response to Blaze News’ request for comment, marketing Vice President Tracy Davis denied that Civic Government Solutions had partnered with any partisan group. She also described the controversy surrounding the mass mailing “concerning.”

“At Civic Government Solutions, we are committed to ensuring that every eligible voter has the opportunity to register — an essential investment in the future of our state and nation. As a nonpartisan company, our focus is solely on identifying and assisting unregistered individuals. We do not use demographic, political, or any other criteria; we simply segment eligible records based on county and registration status,” Davis said.

In response to Blaze News’ question about a possible connection between Civic Government Solutions and Civitech, Davis said: “CGS is a subsidiary of Civitech, but has its own bylaws, operating procedures, etc.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
COVID-19

Mark Zuckerberg is lying to you

In a letter dated August 26, Meta CEO and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg expressed regret to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for succumbing to White House pressure to delete posts and comments that displeased the Democratic administration. Zuckerberg admitted he had unwisely yielded to political pressure by removing tweets that criticized Biden’s response to the COVID epidemic. He may have also withheld other statements from public view to avoid offending the government.

But he was wrong, Zuckerberg said, to practice such censorship. Henceforth, he and his team would not interfere with Facebook content because of their ideological preferences or because they were knuckling under to political officials.

Despite Zuckerberg’s reassurances to Jim Jordan, it appears that the old double standard persists among Zuckerberg’s employees.

Zuckerberg seemed to suggest that, in his professional role, he would move away from being a left-wing Democratic Party activist. Instead, his letter implied that he was aligning more with Elon Musk by allowing a wider range of political views on his platform.

This may not reflect Zuckerberg’s true intentions, however. Chronicles, a magazine with which I’m associated, has evidence that Zuckerberg might be reverting to his old ways.

On September 2, our magazine’s executive editor attempted to post on Facebook a commentary titled “A Fighting Chance for Normalcy” by our longtime columnist Tom Piatak. While this is a common practice, something unexpected and troubling occurred: The content was deleted, and we were reprimanded for attempting to post “misleading content.”

Although no one is claiming that Piatak’s exhortation to vote for the Trump-Vance ticket exemplifies objective science, it is by no means more biased than what passes for news interpretation on CNN, MSNBC, and network television. Piatak offers his political opinions and cites reasons for why he thinks those opinions are sound. He contends that as late as the recent past, candidates for national office who held the views of Trump and Vance would not have been seen as “weirdos” or “extremists.” Most Americans probably would have agreed with their views.

Piatak points to the alarm generated by these candidates as evidence of where our power elites have been pushing the United States. At least half the country — including me — would agree with Piatak’s picture of our political radicalization, and there is at least some justification for holding his understanding of the present age.

It’s hard to believe that other political statements approved by Zuckerberg’s censors are more “objective.” Most of the posts I’ve seen on Facebook are partisan opinions or emotional outbursts presented as coherent thoughts. For example, some comments about a recent anti-Israeli, pro-Hamas demonstration on an American campus were deemed acceptable by Facebook.

As the New York Post points out, these posts are often filled with anti-Semitic remarks and innuendos. It seems that because the creators of these posts are politically left-leaning, Facebook’s censors did not remove them. Despite Zuckerberg’s reassurances to Jim Jordan on August 26, it appears that the old double standard persists among Zuckerberg’s employees.

Fortunately, we at Chronicles are not dependent on Zuckerberg’s operation. We rely much more heavily on distributing our writings on X (formerly Twitter), which, unlike Facebook and to the dismay of the corporate media, permits open discussion. We have transferred more and more of our writings to that honest website, especially after Intellectual Takeout, a web publication with which we were long associated, was removed from Facebook for revealing government lies about COVID.

Intellectual Takeout lost lots of its Facebook readers because of Zuckerberg’s servile relationship with the Democratic Party and because of his now-admitted decision to censor those who didn’t follow the White House party line. After our recent experience with Facebook’s censorship, we’re delighted not to have to rely too heavily on this compromised website for publicizing our work.

Chronicles’ situation has not sparked noticeable concern among larger right-leaning enterprises, despite our attempts to inform them. We are a small publication compared to National Review, the Wall Street Journal, or our friends here at Blaze Media. Zuckerberg may have chosen to target smaller publications while leaving the larger ones untouched. However, I suspect a more significant shift may be underway. It seems that Zuckerberg or his employees are moving from censoring small conservative magazines to targeting larger, more widely read publications. If they can arbitrarily remove politically disagreeable content from smaller outlets, they might extend this practice to bigger ones.

To counter this potential strategy, we need to highlight Facebook’s censorship before it spreads further.

Read More
Elections

PA Supreme Court says undated and misdated ballots will be rejected in victory for election integrity

Republicans are hailing a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as a victory for voter integrity while opponents say it may disenfranchise some voters.

The court said that undated and misdated ballots in the upcoming election would go uncounted if they were misdated or undated.

‘This makes mail voting in the Keystone State less susceptible to fraud.’

Republicans said the ruling will make voter fraud more difficult in the key battleground state, but those on the left say the rule will likely mean that votes from Democrats will be unfairly discarded.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley praised the order on social media.

“HUGE election integrity win in Pennsylvania. Following legal action from the RNC and [the Pennsylvania Republican Party], the PA Supreme Court REJECTED a Democrat attempt to count undated ballots,” wrote Whatley.

“This makes mail voting in the Keystone State less susceptible to fraud. We will keep fighting and winning!” he added.

The senior attorney for the Pennsylvania ACLU decried the ruling.

“Today’s procedural ruling is a setback for Pennsylvania voters, but we will keep fighting for them,” said Steve Loney. “These eligible voters who got their ballots in on time should have their votes counted and voices heard. The fundamental right to vote is among the most precious rights we enjoy as Pennsylvanians, and it should take more than a trivial paperwork error to take it away.”

A nonpartisan group said that as many as 4,400 mail ballots were rejected over dating issues in the state’s primary election.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
Elections

This is how illegal aliens will swing the 2024 election — and it won’t be for Trump

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left’s pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats’ favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Read More
Elections

Oversight Project punches back after NYT tries to downplay registration of illegal alien voters in Georgia

The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has in recent months highlighted the threat of election interference by both
the Biden-Harris administration and illegal aliens. This has evidently made some establishmentarians uncomfortable.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a
report characterizing concerns about interference by groups of noncitizens as a “false, but snowballing, theory” — claiming “there is no evidence to support Heritage’s findings in Georgia … or, for that matter, anywhere else in the country.”

The Oversight Project is punching back, reiterating that the threat is real, that “the system has been designed to be abused,” and that the Times is now “protecting the ability of noncitizens to participate in American elections.”

Mike Howell, executive director of the Oversight Project, told Blaze News, “The fact that they’re upset and jumping to the defense of noncitizens being able to vote in elections, I think, tells Americans all they need to know and what they probably already know.”

Howell, who explained to Blaze News how the Times’ hit piece was as hollow as it was transparent,
tweeted to the Times article’s author, Ken Bensinger, “If you’re going to be our dedicated oppo journalist you need to do better. This was too easy.”

‘Systems are being taken advantage of, and the outcome of the 2024 election will be difficult to determine.’

A spokesman for the Times told Blaze News in a statement, “This is a piece of thorough and deeply-reported independent journalism based on original reporting and pursuit of facts amid explicitly politicized agendas. The Times stands behind our reporting.”

When pressed for comment, Mike Hassinger, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s (R) elections public information officer, defended a number of claims made in the Times report and accused the Oversight Project of “an out-and-out fabrication.”

Background

The Oversight Project
published troubling footage in conjunction with Anthony Rubin’s Muckraker earlier this summer that showed a handful of noncitizens at the apartment complex Elliot Norcross in Norcross, Georgia, admitting they were registered to vote. Some indicated on camera that they were registered at work. At least one indicated she had already voted.

The results were comparable to those in another Oversight Project investigation conducted in Charlotte, North Carolina.

According to Rubin, 14% of the respondents in Norcross said they had been registered. The Oversight Project was unable to locate these noncitizens on Georgia voter rolls, indicating that “shoddy address history records” and fake documents might be to blame.

Noting that there are an estimated 339,000 noncitizens living in Georgia — an apparent reference to Migration Policy Institute’s 2019 “unauthorized population”
estimate on the basis of U.S. Census Bureau data — the Oversight Project suggested that “if the 14% proportion holds true state wide, this would equate to over 47,000 registered non-citizens” in the Peach State alone.

Even with that projected number halved, a noncitizen cohort participating in the election could prove hugely consequential in November. After all, President Donald Trump lost Georgia by under
12,000 votes the last time around.

“Systems are being taken advantage of, and the outcome of the 2024 election will be difficult to determine given the near impossibility of auditing in a short period of time,”
said the Oversight Project.

The watchdog’s damning exposé created waves, especially after Elon Musk
shared the video on Aug. 1 with the caption, “Extremely disturbing!” — a post that netted over 52.8 million impressions since.

Within hours, Raffensperger
tweeted, “The state of Georgia aggressively investigates specific claims of voter fraud and we welcome any individual or group to submit specific, evidence based claims, and we will investigate.”

The NYT hit piece

The New York Times
published an article Saturday titled “Heritage Foundation Spreads Deceptive Videos About Noncitizen Voters.”

According to Ken Bensinger and Richard Fausset, “The right-wing think tank has been pushing misinformation about voting into social media feeds.”

‘We have noncitizens in Georgia on camera admitting to being registered to vote.’

Despite acknowledging that noncitizens did in fact speak to persons linked to the Oversight Project in the video and that they had said plainly on camera they were registered to vote, the Times labeled the video as “misleading.”

The Times further claimed that the Oversight Project’s claims “do not hold up,” suggesting that “three of the seven people Heritage filmed later said they had misspoken,” even though they had conversed with the questioners in the video in Spanish.

One of the three women who allegedly recanted their earlier statements told the Times she lied in the video for fear of being deported. The woman, an illegal alien who referred to herself as Marta, claimed she “just wanted them to go away.”

In its attempt to discredit the video, which included a rehash of the false and well-worn
Democratic talking point about Project 2025, the Times also said state investigators “found no evidence that any of the seven people on the tape had ever registered to vote,” despite admitting deeper in the piece that Raffensperger’s investigation into Heritage’s claims was still ongoing.

The Times’ Bensinger and Fausset confidently asserted days after the DOJ
announced it had charged an illegal alien in Alabama “in connection with her fraudulent assumption of a United States citizen’s identity and her use of that identity to vote in multiple elections,” that “there is no evidence to support Heritage’s findings in Georgia, a critical swing state with a large immigrant population, or, for that matter, anywhere else in the country.”

They proceeded to cite the findings of the Brennan Center for Justice — a leftist advocacy organization that has received funding from George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Tides Foundation — that supposedly only “one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of votes in the 2016 election were cast by noncitizens.”

Rebuttals

The Oversight Project responded to the Times article with a thread on X,
suggesting it amounted to an “election lie.”

After noting that the article’s title conflated noncitizens who were registered to vote with noncitizen voters, Oversight Project zeroed in on the retraction by one of the illegal immigrants interviewed in the video.

“Ken [Bensinger] stakes his credibility on a noncitizen named Marta who told us on camera that she was (1) a noncitizen and (2) registered to vote,”
wrote the watchdog group. “He claims she lied to us because she was afraid of being deported.”

Howell told Blaze News that made “zero sense because if you’re afraid of being deported, why would you admit to a deportable offense on camera It’s so counterintuitive, it doesn’t pass the laugh test.”

Howell also raised the possibility that those who retracted their statements may have done so after being coached on what to say by Lead Stories, the left-leaning fact-checking group that tracked them down, or others.

“That reeked of a cleanup effort,” said Howell. “We put our stuff out on video. Or [do you] take the word of these other political actors who did not videotape their encounter?”

‘People are going to get through the cracks and the cracks are there because they want them to.’

The watchdog group further indicated on X that of the seven individuals who admitted to being both noncitizens and registered to vote, four had yet to walk back their statements.

“What about the other four, Ken?” asked the Oversight Project.

The Oversight Project also seized upon the Times’ claim that state investigators under Raffensperger had found no records to indicate the people in the video had registered or voted.

“They said they don’t know and only checked the records from that address,” said the watchdog group, whose executive director does not appear entirely convinced the Georgia secretary of state’s office is altogether eager in “actually investigating this.”

“Instead of them saying outright, ‘Zero of the seven people are registered in the state of Georgia,’ they played a weird rhetorical game where they say, ‘We checked the registrations at that address,'” said Howell. “OK,
so did we. That’s what we told them.”

“Just because they’re at that address now does not mean that they are registered there. In fact, over the course of our investigations nationwide, several people have indicated that they’re registered at work,” continued Howell. “Just checking people out at their current address is insufficient to prove that they are not registered at all.”

While the watchdog group highlighted other issues with the Times report, it emphasized that the reporters’ word choice and framing gave them away as biased ideologues. For instance, whereas the Brennan Center for Justice was referred to as a “policy group,” the Times referred to the Oversight Project as a “right wing think tank.”

Ultimately, Howell said that the “short of it is the New York Times is clearly working with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office in an effort to discredit the video, which hasn’t been discredited in the least. We have noncitizens in Georgia on camera admitting to being registered to vote.”

When pressed for comment, Hassinger told Blaze News, “The fundraising stunt created by Project Oversight and funded by Heritage was more than disinformation, it was an out-and-out fabrication. Our office learned that it was fabricated by verifying voter registrations at the apartment complex, and by sending investigators to speak to the people featured in the video.”

“Our investigation revealed that no one in the video was registered to vote, nor had they voted,” continued Hassinger. “When this office asked The Oversight Project for any other evidence that these apartment residents were A) in the country illegally or B) registered to vote, they couldn’t provide anything.”

“The Oversight Project may have valid concerns about illegal aliens voting in Georgia, but they have yet to express them in any serious way and have chosen instead to tell lies in order to create fear and distrust in Georgia’s election processes,” added Hassinger.

When asked whether President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14019, which effectively mobilizes the federal government to turn out votes for Democrats, is connected to the potential registration of illegal aliens, Howell told Blaze News, “The system basically makes it easy for them. … The system has been designed to be abused.”

The Biden Department of Justice, various other federal agencies, and White House staff held a “Listening Session” on July 12, 2021, regarding the order’s implementation. Referencing the session, Howell noted that champions of open borders engaged in the discussions suggested illegal aliens should be trusted to operate within the bounds of the law.

“This is kind of the high-level politics of it all. They want to create such a loose system and have no checks on it. People are going to get through the cracks, and the cracks are there because they want them to,” said Howell.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Read More
Elections

FACT-CHECK: Are illegal immigrants really voting in our elections?

We’re a mere two months away from the 2024 election, which Glenn Beck says is “the most consequential election in our lifetime and the most consequential election for freedom the world has ever known.”

Naturally, Americans are already questioning the integrity of our voting system, granted the alleged fraud that in many ways defined the 2020 election. But what’s fueling citizens’ fear perhaps even more this time around is the illegal immigrant crisis our country has been embroiled in since Biden took office.


– YouTube

www.youtube.com

Our borders have been left wide open for nearly four years, and now we face the prospect of people who have broken the law to be here being given the opportunity to vote in an election that should only belong to the American people.

But Americans aren’t alone in this fear. European countries are facing the same problem of open borders. Floods of illegal immigrants — many of them with ideologies that put them in diametric opposition to Western culture and values — have overrun entire European cities.

But when citizens speak out, they’re censored — even jailed in some cases.

Western governments don’t want us talking about elections or illegal immigration. Why?

“This is a global operation,” says Glenn. “The strategy being deployed here is very simple: overwhelm and collapse.”

Join Glenn as he connects the dots and delves into the data to answer two vital questions: Are illegal immigrants voting in our elections? And if so, are the numbers meaningful enough to actually choose the next candidate?

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Read More