CHICAGO (CBS) Susie Sallee was buried in 1998. Yet records show she voted in Chicago 12 years later.

Victor Crosswell died in 1994, but records show he’s voted six times since then.

And then there’s Floyd Stevens. Records show he’s voted 11 times since his death in 1993.

“It’s crazy,” Sharon Stevens Anderson, Stevens’ daughter, tells CBS 2’s Pam Zekman. “I don’t see how people can be able to do something like that and get away with it.”

Those are just a few of the cases CBS 2 Investigators found by merging Chicago Board of Election voter histories with the death master file from the Social Security Administration.

In all, the analysis showed 119 dead people have voted a total of 229 times in Chicago in the last decade.

Jim Allen, a city election board spokesman, says a majority of those dead voters were most likely clerical errors, involving family members with the same names and addresses.

“This is not the bad old days,” Allen says. “There are just a few instances here where a father came in for a son, or a neighbor was given the wrong ballot application and signed it.”

But in some cases, there was no clear explanation.

Take Tadeusz Ciesla. Records show he voted in 2010.

But his nephew Marek Ciesla says that’s impossible because he died in 1998.

“That’s a fraud,” he says.

Informed of the findings, Don Rose, a political consultant, says: “Some of these could be accidental or just some individual who says, ‘I really like such and such a candidate so I’m going to take advantage of this — vote until they stop me.’”

Allen says about 60,000 dead voters have been purged from the rolls over the last decade — but 2 Investigators found numerous examples of that not happening.

Earl Smith says he reported the 1997 death of his father, also named Earl Smith. But records indicate his father has voted twice after he died.

Allen says the board identifies and removes most dead voters.

“Any time you can clean up the rolls it helps reduce and eliminate the prospect of any kind of mistake or fraud,” Allen says.

Robert Sallee says he tried to do that by reporting his mother’s death multiple times.

“They’re just not taking her off the rolls,” he says.


North Carolina Hillary Supporter Brags on Facebook About Voting Multiple Times

Hillary supporter Robert Dougherty from Jacksonville, North Carolina bragged on Facebook today about how he committed voter fraud.

Robert boasted on how he voted for some of his Facebook friends using their identities, and tells them not to worry about voting, because he’s already done it for them.

And he’s bragging about it on Facebook.

Robert boasts about how they give you a sticker every time you vote.
He says he will continue to vote all next week!

“Isn’t North Carolina nice they give you a sticker every time you voteNo ID required.”

“There isn’t a need for you to wait in line anymore. Took care of it for you. Gave you a straight Democratic ticket.”

“Amazing how many addresses you get from Google. Going again until Saturday and all next week.”

Robert either thinks voter fraud is a big joke or he’s one stupid Hillary-supporting criminal.

What do you think, will Voter Fraud play a key role in the election?

the gateway pundit


WikiLeaks: Dem strategist emails Podesta – guess who he names as Obama admin’s biggest Republican ally



When Lindsey Graham isn’t sucking up to John McCain, you can bet your bottom dollar he’s busy helping a Democrat advance the left’s agenda.  Whether he’s attacking “wacko birds” like Cruz and Paul for supporting the Constitution, or campaigning against Donald Trump, he seems stuck in an endless loop of anti-GOP behavior. Frankly, at this point, he should probably just switch parties.  

I mean, who can forget this precious moment?

Well, just in case you needed further evidence that Graham really does love colluding with Democrats, WikiLeaks has you covered.  In an email to John Podesta, Democratic strategist Paul Harstad confirms what we’ve all come to assume is the case.

Lindsey Graham is the Obama administration’s closest Republican ally.

As Harstad wrote:

“I presume it has occurred to you all, but I would urge the POTUS to discreetly talk with Lindsay Graham [sic] in the next few days to congratulate him on his impressive primary win.

He perhaps shouldn’t directly put a call into Graham — which would probably get out — but perhaps pass the word to invite Graham to call him.

Graham is the best future Republican ally of the administration for the next two years, and in a close Senate may provide a critical vote on a number of occasions.”

Congratulations, Senator Graham. We’re sure the people you represent are glad to know that you’re the “go to guy” for Democrat strategists everywhere.


When Will Liberals Answer for Obamacare’s Failures?


Blaming Republicans not going to cut it.


These days, there’s been a lot of discussion about conservative media’s culpability in creating unrealistic expectations and warped priorities among Republican voters. It’s a reasonable critique. My question: When are we going to have this conversation about the other side—you know, the one that enabled the passage of a massive partisan health care reform law that’s failed to deliver on almost all its promises?

No doubt, you’ll remember all those romantic charts and stories from the liberal smart set predicting Obamacare‘s affordability and success. Remember the jeering aimed at conservatives who argued that state-run markets inhibiting genuine competition and increasing regulations would only spur costs to rise? “Lies,” liberals said.

In 2014, the Washington Post‘s E.J. Dionne asked a valuable question: “Is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong?” The answer: Of course not. Not for conservative talkers—and definitely not for liberal pundits who keep modifying the meaning of success.

At the time, Dionne argued that the Affordable Care Act was doing exactly what its supporters had predicted, “getting health insurance to millions who didn’t have it before.” In reality, that was only one piece of Obamacare’s promise, and even that accomplishment has been retroactively simplified to create an impression of unqualified success. Far from it.

Of course mandating and subsidizing health insurance will decrease the number of uninsured. Yet punditry on the left seems to be under the impression that coercing people to participate is revolutionary policymaking. Countless times in 2009, the president promised that exchanges would offer those newly insured Americans more quality “choices” and “affordability” and push down rates overall. (He promised the rest of us that health care premiums would fall by $2,500 for a family of four. Instead, they’ve risen by over $4,800.)

New administration data released this week find that Obamacare premiums will spike an average of 25 percent across the country for benchmark plans in 2017. Americans will be forced to forfeit plans they like or lose insurance altogether and accept a tax or fine—or whatever liberals are calling their state-enforced mandate these days.

But don’t worry; consumers on exchanges will also have far fewer choices. The number of health insurance carriers in the exchanges will drop from 298 this year to 228 in 2017. In five states—Alaska, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming—there will be only one insurance company providing plans in 2017. It’s one too many for many on the left.

Obamacare is working so well that Democrats are now pressuring Republicans to fix it and Hillary Clinton is arguing that to save it, we need a “public option”—a euphemism for a government-run insurance program. You can’t save contrived marketplaces, because they never work. They don’t work even when you allow cronyistic insurance companies to write policy. They don’t work simply because technocrats massage numbers and cram them into a line chart.

Even as he was boasting about his signature achievement this past week, President Obama conceded that six years after passage, Obamacare is still experiencing “growing pains.” You know, it’s just like a “starter home,” he said. “You hope that over time, you make some improvements.”

Rest assured, those “improvements” never mean opening up markets or loosening restrictions. In other words, health care reform was exactly what many Republicans feared it would be: a way to incrementally socialize the system.

“We think they will ultimately be surprised by the affordability of the premiums, because the tax credits track with the increases in premiums,” Kevin Griffis, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, reassured exchange users after the rate hikes were announced.

There are about 10 million customers who purchase their health care through and state-run offshoots. With no effective national reform in sight, that number will most likely grow. Although these consumers will have fewer choices, they will still receive financial assistance to offset the rate hikes. A spike in rates on the benchmark plans means more subsidies. Someone has to pay for what turns out to be little more than a new welfare program.

Unlike the media seers who saw Obamacare paying for itself—magically bending the cost curve in the right direction and creating vibrant pretend marketplaces that offer uninsured Americans an array of affordable choices—I can’t see the future. The trajectory of the law, though, offers us two choices, broadly speaking.

Republicans could let the law die. They could then reform the health care system by allowing it to function more like every other successful market in the country—with minimal interference from politicians. Or we could all accept another giant unfunded liability, higher taxes and further socialization of our health care system. The only question will be how quickly it will happen. One thing’s for sure, though. Despite all evidence, liberal cheerleaders of Obamacare will continue to act as if the law has been an awe-inspiring success.

Tens of Thousands of People Just Got Fooled By FAKE Ballot Without Trump’s Name On It


There have been plenty of stories of voter fraud across the country, but a photoshopped picture has taken the internet by storm. In it, Donald Trump’s name is left off of the ballot whil Hillary Clinton’s is listed twice.

The doctored photo hit Twitter and has since been re-tweeted tens of thousands of times. Take a look at the picture for yourself:

About an hour after John Laussier started the hoax, he took responsibility for it and admitted that it wasn’t real: “In case its not super obvious that last tweet from me is a hoax. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet folks.”


“I’m hoping people figure out soon this was fake, and, in the future, look at what they’re passing on,” Laussier told KATU. “We’ve got to act responsibly. Get out your ballots, take a good hard look, and vote with some research!”

Laussier told KATU that it was “irresponsible of me to post the tweet,” and he apologized. LawNewz reported:

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office told KGQ that they are evaluating whether the hoax violated election law.  Spokesperson Molly Woon emphasized to the television station that the Oregon Secretary of State is “confident” in the election process.

While Laussier makes a good point about people being discerning about what they share on the internet, there are a couple of important points here.

First, there is good reason for people to be vigilant about voter fraud. There are numerous reports of the problem across the country and it’s good that people are paying attention.

Second, the mainstream media is largely in the tank for Clinton and operates as a propaganda machine. Most people don’t have the time — or if they do, don’t have the resources — to thoroughly vet something they come across. You know who has both? The media… but they refuse to do so because of their bias.

If this ballot was real, people may have been able to force change by bringing light to what would have been a serious problem.

That certainly doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be discerning or that they should repost or re-tweet everything they come across. There’s something to be said for people being vigilant, paying attention, and forcing those in the media and those in positions to do something about it to take a look.

Now, that doesn’t mean that people should automatically believe that something’s true and adjust their beliefs/voting decision because of it; it just means that it’s good that people are paying attention and forcing those in a position to check it out to do so.

While Laussier’s tweet was an interesting experiment, the timing was poor given the rampant voter fraud going on throughout the country. This was a hoax, but there are plenty of instances where it isn’t, and people shouldn’t be discouraged from being vigilant about it.