The coming US ‘mailstrom’

The coming US ‘mailstrom’, by Kerry Wakefield.

Like the first fat drops of rain ahead of a hurricane, the early stories of voter fraud in the US 2020 presidential election are landing in the news cycle now that voting has started – there’s a cash-for-ballots scandal emerging in Minnesota, the three trays of ballot-filled US mail picked up in a Wisconsin ditch, the 1,000 Virginia voters who were each sent two absentee ballots in the mail. …

Black voters invalidate their mail in votes far more than white voters, so the Democrats did an about-face:

The Democrats meanwhile, having argued that there was no evidence for widespread voter fraud, are now urging in-person voting, having discovered in North Carolina that black voters’ ballots are being rejected at four times the rate of white voters.

A reminder of some of the mischief in 2016:

In October 2016, at the height of the last election campaign I witnessed one of the clearest and worst displays of dirty tricks I’ve ever seen, uncovered by a crusading journalist called James O’Keefe. His exposé, detailed later, showed misbehaviour so brazen and depraved that it could have come only from zealots who believe their ends justify any means, who know that what they are doing is wrong and criminal but are arrogant enough to think that they can, and indeed, should, break normal rules.

These are people who, in the words of ex-Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson, will do ‘whatever it takes’. Wrongdoing exists on both sides of the political fence, obviously, but many Leftists feel justified in undermining a political order because they don’t believe in it in the first place. Conservatives largely support and defend the status quo, while Leftists want greater change to achieve their brave new world. Certainly the political violence we see these days is overwhelmingly leftist in nature. Remember, the patron saint of radicals, Saul Alinsky, dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to ‘Lucifer, the first radical’.

The background to the O’Keefe exposé was a damaging spate of headline-grabbing violence at the increasingly successful 2016 Trump rallies, allowing the media to paint Trump as engendering civic chaos: if this is what happens at the rallies, what would it be like if he ran the country?

Then, on 18 October 2016, O’Keefe published undercover sting videos with Democrat operatives bragging about staging and creating the disruptive incidents at Trump rallies. They talked about running a training school, where the like-minded or money-hungry (and even the mentally ill) were paid to learn the dark arts of provocation, in the hopes of drawing Trump fans into physical confrontation in front of the cameras. The Democrat operatives called it ‘conflict engagement’. Said staffer Scott Foval: ‘There’s a script… sometimes the “crazies” bite… sometimes they don’t bite.’ Foval, elsewhere: ‘It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf-cker.’

So damning was the footage that Foval lost his job the next day and his boss, political consultant, convicted tax and bank fraudster Robert Creamer also stepped aside — and suddenly the Trump rallies became violence-free.

The Democrat campaign downplayed the two as small fry and the groups involved, while Democrat-linked, were at legally deniable arm’s length. Foval was just a staffer but bossman Creamer is a stalwart, married to a Democrat congresswoman. He visited the White House 342 times during the Obama terms, frequently to see the president. When Obama gave his final televised presidential address, striding a stage before an adoring throng, I saw Creamer sitting in the front row, applauding. Not such small fry.

Well, well, well. I’m wearing my shocked face.