Don’t Think For A Minute That Election Fraud Is New!

3 Dec 2020
Photo Credit - The Georgia Sun
Photo Credit - The Georgia Sun
3 Dec 2020

A History of Democratic Party Fraud


Frederick James 

Does anyone recall the names Brenda Snipes and Susan Bucher from Florida in 2018?

What about the name Stacy Abrams who thinks she is the governor of Georgia?

Governor Rick Scott filed a lawsuit against Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes in December of 2018, claiming that Snipes was withholding ballot information and should reveal how many ballots were left to count. 

He also filed suit against Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher. A West Palm Beach circuit court judge ruled in favor of Scott and granted an injunction ordering Bucher to submit "over-voted" and "undervoted" absentee ballots to the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board for an open and public review of each vote before they were counted. 

This occurred in the 2018 Congressional elections. Florida was radiating with vote count problems, again, as both the gubernatorial and senate vote counts had changed out of nowhere.

The fully corrupted Democrat Party has a long history of buying, cajoling, stealing, and rigging votes. Dinesh D’Souza writes in Hillary’s American, “Chicago boss Richard Daley is said to have swung a very close election in JFK’s favor through use of an old boss tactic: dead people’s votes. Nixon honorably refused to contest the 1960 election even though he knew that the Illinois results were rigged.”

D’Souza further shows how immigrants have been used for over a century as a tool for Democrats. “Immigrants had to agree to vote early and vote often. This is not a joke; Democrats perfected “repeater” techniques in which the same guy voted more than once. Even dead people showed up at the polls, judging by the resemblance of voter identification with the gravestones in local cemeteries.

Election controversy has been part of the US electoral system for many landmark, historical episodes in our history. No doubt it will appear in the future of the republic as the Tenth Amendment mandates that the individual states carry out elections, whether it is a primary, general, runoff, presidential, or local election. President Trump is concerned about the the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

In 1824, Andrew Jackson was said to have the presidency taken from him by the House of Representatives in what came to be known as the “Corrupt Bargain.” John Quincy Adams was elected by the House when none of the four candidates in the election obtained a majority of Electoral votes at 131.

Andrew Jackson won the Electoral vote and the popular vote. The prominent and distinguished Henry Clay, Speaker of the House at the time, ran as a candidate in this election and came in third with the popular vote and last with the Electoral vote. 

Henry Clay convinced the House to vote for Adams. It was a surprise to all candidates and voters. Clay became Adam’s Secretary of State in an apparent deal. Many saw this as a fraudulent deal. 

Election of 1824
Election of 1824

“Illegitimate and tainted by aristocracy and corruption.”

Adams was destined to become a one-term president with Andrew Jackson and his political allies at his throat for the next four years. The people had been hoodwinked out of their choice. Jackson supporters attacked the Adams administration at every turn as “illegitimate and tainted by aristocracy and corruption.’” Does this sound and feel familiar?

Another “Corrupt Bargain” imposed on an election in our republic was the infamous and unprecedented Election of 1876, the final blow emanating from the Civil War. 

In the election of 1876, the Republicans chose Rutherford B. Hayes, the governor of Ohio and Civil War veteran, while the Democrats, not having too much political power since 1861, nominated Samuel J. Tilden, the governor of New York. It looked as though the election leaned toward a Tilden victory, as the Democrats secured the swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. 

On the day of the election, Samuel Tilden had obtained 184 of the 185 Electoral votes, seeming to move toward victory as the next president of the United States. He also had a majority of the popular vote at approximately 250,000.

The Republicans were outraged by the results of the election and in turn quickly charged the Democrats of using bribery, physical force and threats to stop African Americans from voting. Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina were four states where the election could be decided, but the vote counts were in dispute. 


Democrats Ask For Money For Bail Outs

Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina each submitted two sets of electoral returns to Congress with different results. To resolve the dispute, Congress, in January 1877, established an electoral commission made up of five U.S. representatives, five senators, and five Supreme Court justices. The justices included two Democrats, two Republicans, and Justice David Davis, who was considered to be independent. 

But before the commission could pronounce a decision, Democrats in the Illinois legislature, under political pressure from Samuel Tilden’s nephew, elected Davis to the U.S. Senate, in hopes that this would persuade Davis to support the Democrat. Rather, Davis disqualified himself, and was succeeded by Justice Joseph Bradley

Bradley was a Republican. A Democrat representative from New York, Abraham Hewitt, later claimed that Bradley was visited at home by a Republican Senator on the commission, who argued that "whatever the strict legal equities, it would be a national disaster if the government fell into Democratic hands." 

This sounds familiar to today’s political rhetoric. Bradley's vote produced an eight-to-seven ruling. The vote was along straight party lines to confer all the disputed elector votes to Rutherford B. Hayes. This result rendered such bitterness and anger that many feared it would cause a second civil war.

A filibuster was proposed to stop the counting of the electoral votes to avert a Hayes presidency. Finally in 1877, the Democrats acknowledged the election results in return for: an important Southerner being appointed to the cabinet, to furnish federal money for internal improvements in Southern states, and to withdraw national troops from the entire South.

When these national troops were withdrawn, the Republican governments in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina collapsed, bringing Reconstruction to a formal end.

7 Dec 2020
1876 Presidential Election
1876 Presidential Election

Bleeding Kansas

Under the so-called Compromise of 1877, the national government would no longer intervene in southern affairs. This would allow the application of region-wide, legal racial segregation, and the disfranchisement of black voters for almost a century. All of this would be done through Democrats in the House and Senate who all opposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and who formed the Ku Klux Klan. The Northern and Southern Democrats enabled the institution of slavery. Remember, the Republican Party wasn’t formed until 1856.

In 1850’s America, Kansas became a breeding ground for voter fraud physical violence, voter suppression, and actual deaths. The legality of the territorial government in Kansas was challenged after Senator Stephen Douglas pushed through the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, where voters would decide the question of slavery in the new territories. Kansas was to be a territorial model for voters and an answer to slavery spreading into these territories. Powerfully, Michael E. Woods says, “Kansas revealed democracy’s Achilles heel: if both sides are not willing to accept defeat, the system breaks down. And in Kansas, just as in Washington, D.C., slavery seemed too important to be left up to the whim of a majority.”

Kansas Territory had election problems and difficulties beginning in 1854-55. Delegates to Congress and a territorial legislature required elections. It was rumored that thousands of Northern Yankees were traveling to Kansas and the detrimental thoughts of the territory surrounded by conspiring abolitionists could not go on. Missourian ruffians began to penetrate the borders of nearby Kansas. They and their surrogates wanted to direct the Kansas elections anyway they could. 

Voter fraud was committed outright when these Missourians voted in the elections. “One later testified that, while en route to Kansas, he met three hundred like-minded men whose travel expenses had been paid by Democrat slaveholders determined to protect their western flank. They planned to vote at least fifteen hundred times.” Nicole Etcheson wrote that “many proslavery partisans voted early and often; in the March 1855 election for delegates to the territorial legislature, more than 6,000 ballots were cast in a territory which had only 2,905 legal voters. An overwhelming majority – 5,427 – were for proslavery candidates.”

Through 1856, guerrilla warfare and a preview to the bloodletting in our Civil War broke out in “Bleeding Kansas.” In retaliation for the burning of Lawrence, Kansas, Abolitionist John Brown, and some of his followers, including his sons, committed a brutal murdering of pro-slavery men in view of their families at Pottawatomie Creek. The violence showed its serpent’s head in Congress when a South Carolina Democratic House member Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner, a Republican member from Massachusetts, for speaking on the House floor to prevent the spread of slavery in Kansas.

So much violence has surrounded and subsequently marred historical periods in our history. Many of these violent events had their roots in political viewpoints. As was stated above, if both sides cannot accept defeat in the political sphere, then the republic, the democratic system breaks down, until violence rears its ugly head toward doom and destruction.

“The Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning—the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft,” Dinesh D’Souza so powerfully writes, “The Democrats are not the party of justice or equality, but rather, of systematic injustice and inequality. Far from championing the cause of women, blacks, and other minorities, Democrats have historically brutalized, segregated, exploited, and murdered the most vulnerable members of our society.”

Some history doesn’t change. The Democrats, it seems, will eventually destroy the Republic of the United States after all. They tried in past!

Well written piece! I look forward to more. That is, unless we fall into the maelstrom of war! Whether it be Civil, Revolutionary, Foreign invaders on our soil, Domestic Enemy cells from within, or a combination of all, I fear the momentum towards War is irreversible!
Frederick A. James