The Guare Case Shows How Democrat Judges and Democrat Attorney Generals Have Made New Hampshire the Poster-Child for Voter Fraud

In my last post, I noted the manic reaction of the Democrats and their surrogates to a recently released report that shows the magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election.  Here’s what one of those surrogates, the ACLU-NH, had to say:Note the reference to the Guare case.  And from the most powerful Democrat surrogate in New Hampshire, WMUR, again reference to the Guare case:

But the Guare case actually shows how Democrat judges and Democrat Attorney Generals have made New Hampshire the poster-child for voter fraud. Continue reading

Yes, There is Voter Fraud in New Hampshire, and Yes it Likely Decided the 2016 Election

I have posted quite a bit about voter fraud in New Hampshire since the 2016 election.  But with (1) President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity scheduled to meet in New Hampshire in just a few days and (2) the Speaker of the New Hampshire House recently releasing a report showing the potential magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election and (3) the manic response by the press and the Democrats to that report … another post is in order.

In order to assist the reader, I am going to divide this post into three parts.  The first part will discuss how voter fraud should be defined (because the Democrats and the press have attempted to define it away), the second part will discuss the magnitude of voter fraud in the 2016 election, and the third part will discuss the problems with a recent “reform” to voting law in New Hampshire, SB 3. Continue reading

Three Takeaways From the ACLU’S Bogus Lawsuit Against Secretary of State Gardner

I previously blogged about the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Secretary of State Gardner here, here and here.  A hearing had been scheduled for this past Monday (August 7th), but at the last minute was canceled because:

Three takeaways:

(1.)  The ACLU-NH Capitulated Continue reading

Sununu and His Attorney General Hang Secretary of State Gardner (and the President) Out to Dry

This is the third in a series of posts about a lawsuit the ACLU-NH has brought against Secretary of State Bill Gardner that is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Continue reading

The ACLU-NH Lawsuit Versus Secretary of State Bill Gardner: Is Sununu Just Playing “Matador Defense”?

The phrase “matador defense” refers to basketball players who do not put much effort into playing defense.  Defense is played with your feet in basketball.  Matador defense occurs when the defensive player makes a great show of waving his arms, but doesn’t move his feet and the offensive player dribbles right past.

These tweets have me concerned that Governor Sununu and his Attorney General are planning on putting on only a “matador defense” against the ACLU-NH’s lawsuit against Bill Gardner, which as I discussed in detail here is intended to prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity:
So apparently, without even seeing the decision, Sununu has already ruled out an appeal.  This is significant because the odds highly favor the case being heard by a Democrat-appointed judge who will not rule based on the law -which as I discussed here requires that the lawsuit be dismissed because the plaintiffs lack standing– but based on his or her political inclinations -that is, in favor of the ACLU-NH. Continue reading

The ACLU’s Lawsuit Against Secretary of State Bill Gardner is Total Bullcrap

The New Hampshire Democrat Party has brought a lawsuit against New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, Bill Gardner, which effectively would prevent New Hampshire from participating in President Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  (Yes it was nominally brought by the New Hampshire chapter of the ACLU, but the ACLU-NH is as a practical matter a surrogate for the Democrats.)

As I will discuss in more detail below, the law in New Hampshire is that in order to bring a lawsuit the persons or entities brining it (the plaintiffs or petitioners) must have “standing.”  That is, they must be able to show that they will suffer a definite, personal injury from the unlawful conduct alleged in the lawsuit as opposed to suffering in some indefinite way in common with people generally.

The petitioners in this lawsuit are State Senator Bette Lasky, State Representative Neal Kurk and the ACLU-NH.  None of them have standing.  Indeed, none of them even allege they have standing.  The lawsuit, therefore, is total bullcrap and should be dismissed. Continue reading

The Problem With Senate Bill 3

The problem with Senate Bill 3 is that it doesn’t go far enough, as explained below.  That said, it is a baby-step in the right direction that can be easily improved upon, and it probably is the best that can be expected under the current RINO (Republican-in-Name-Only) legislature.

If Senate Bill 3 is defeated, which would take GOP votes, it would mean the GOP chose to make no improvements to New Hampshire’s porous voting laws, give the Democrats -who have been flat out lying about Senate Bill 3- an undeserved victory, and embolden the Democrats to escalate their voter-fraud schemes in 2018. Continue reading

The ACLU’s BullCrap Attacks on SB 3

I previously posted about SB 3 here.  In a nutshell, while the Democrats and their allies, such as the ACLU (which is essentially a Super-PAC for the Democrats) charge SB 3 is “voter suppression,” it is actually a fairly toothless tiger.

The ACLU in a recent op-ed claims that SB 3 “would effectively criminalize legitimate voters who cannot provide documentation proving where they live and cause government ‘agents’ to visit these legitimate voters.”  Let’s examine those charges.

SB 3 will allow the practice of drive-by voting to continue.  In 2016, there were over 7,300 instances of potential drive-by voting.  More particularly, on election day 1,423 persons were allowed to vote with no photo ID at all while 5,903 were allowed to vote using out-of-State licenses. Continue reading

It’s A Fact That Thousands of Democrat Voters Were Bused Into New Hampshire From Massachusetts

In February, the mainstream media (both nationally and in New Hampshire), the Democrat Party and the New Hampshire establishment-GOP (not that there is much difference substantively between them and the Democrats) all lost their minds when President Trump allegedly stated, during a meeting where no press was present, that he and former United States Senator Kelly Ayotte lost the 2016 election in New Hampshire because thousands of Democrat voters had been bused into New Hampshire from Massachusetts.

Trump was assailed for having “no evidence” that thousands of Democrat voters had been bused into New Hampshire from Massachusetts, although these same taking-heads and politicians were at the very same time demanding an investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia despite the lack of any evidence of collusion.  “Fact-checkers” proclaimed Trump’s claim “false”.

This is the brilliance of Trump.  While it is not literally true that thousands of Democrat voters were bused into New Hampshire from Massachusetts, it is true that both the Presidential race and the United States Senate race were decided by out-of-State or drive-by voters and Trump’s tweet is finally drawing national attention to that fact. Continue reading

NH State Senate GOP Takes a Pass on Voter Fraud

Let’s start by defining voter fraud.

Voter fraud occurs when someone who shouldn’t legitimately vote in New Hampshire votes in New Hampshire.  Only permanent residents of New Hampshire should be considered legitimate voters.  If a person is residing here only for a  temporary purpose, he or she shouldn’t be allowed to vote here.

For example, someone who moved to New Hampshire just to work on a political campaign shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the corresponding election.  As, for example, Joe Biden’s niece did in 2012: Continue reading