Report: Islamic Groups Urged Violence, Called America ‘Satan’ — And Got $47 Million From Taxpayers
Abdul El-Sayed has appeared at a number of the mosques and institutions listed.Minnesota Rep: By 2016 Everyone Knew Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother
Evidence suggesting Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., married her brother goes back at least to 2016, when the Obama administration opened an investigation into the alleged marital and immigration fraud. Republican Minnesota State Rep. Kristin Robbins said everyone in her state knew about it the whole time. “This has been an open secret in Minnesota for […]Democrats Want Me In Jail For A Post Explaining Election Security
It is not misinformation, disinformation, or a crime to echo Democrats’ longheld view that election machines are vulnerable to manipulation.ICE Calls Out CBS News For Leaving Out Deported Alien’s Apparent Immigration Fraud
According to DHS, Diawara 'oddly claimed he would be persecuted for homosexuality if returned home to Mali, and requested a withholding of removal from his home country.'
Kamala’s voter-roll freakout hits blue states hard
Kamala Harris has made election integrity a big talking point ahead of the midterms. The former vice president’s latest claims of cheating raise an obvious question: Does she object to voter-roll maintenance itself, or can she identify a lawful safeguard she actually supports?
At an appearance in South Korea last week, the former vice president alleged “overt cheating” in American elections, citing voter-roll purges. In September, she accused officials of “cheating by purging voter rolls.” Over the summer, she also criticized the SAVE America Act for requiring documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
Harris can keep calling voter-roll purges ‘cheating.’ But California’s unanswered questions and New Jersey’s documented registration failure demand more than talking points.
Harris wants to turn basic election safeguards into the boogeyman of election administration. But isn’t the point to ensure that only American citizens vote in our elections?
Election officials must not improperly remove eligible voters. They also have an obligation to identify ineligible registrations. Harris talks about purges without making that distinction. Americans deserve to know which safeguards she opposes and why.
Start with California, Harris’ home state. On Monday, the Justice Department charged 28 lawful permanent residents with federal election-related offenses, including fraudulent registration and illegal voting. Eleven were arrested. The charges are allegations, not convictions, but the cases warrant serious attention.
Federal prosecutors say all 28 appeared on a list of more than 20,000 people the government believes are likely noncitizens registered in California. The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security sued the state on October 15, seeking to stop ballots attributed to people on that list from being counted until their citizenship is verified.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) called the lawsuit an attempt to “suppress California voters.” The state should be able to show how it verifies eligibility and corrects its rolls.
It cannot. A separate public records response exposes an accounting problem: California’s statewide voter-registration system “does not contain a voter status reason for cancellation due to non-citizenship.” The state could not provide a count of registrations canceled for that specific reason. Why not?
New Jersey supplies an even clearer example of why verification cannot be an afterthought. In July, Governor Mikie Sherrill (D) acknowledged that a “serious software error” had registered approximately 6,600 people who answered “no” when asked whether they were U.S. citizens during motor vehicle transactions. The “error” occurred between June 2023 and June 2024.
RELATED:California makes ‘massive concession’ in lawsuit over 20,000 'likely noncitizen' voters, DOJ says
A subsequent state accounting found that about 340 newly registered people had actually voted. New Jersey claims it has no evidence that those votes changed an election result. That does not excuse a system that registered people after they expressly declined to attest to citizenship.
At a House Judiciary hearing in September, I noted that at least three New Jersey elections in 2025 were decided by a single vote or ended in a tie. When a race is that close, election officials cannot shrug off registration errors.
New Jersey voters understand the stakes. A Rutgers-Eagleton poll released this month found that 82% of state residents support requiring photo ID to vote in person, while 71% favor documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register.
Even Sherrill has expressed support for voter ID. That requirement establishes identity; proof of citizenship establishes eligibility. They serve different purposes, and neither question should be brushed aside with a slogan about voter suppression.
Minnesota has its own lesson in the need for clear rules. Governor Tim Walz (D) signed a 2023 law that lets residents get standard driver’s licenses without proving lawful immigration status. During an October 2025 legislative hearing, state Rep. Patti Anderson (R) pressed state elections director Paul Linnell on whether those licenses could be used as voter identification. He failed to give a direct yes-or-no answer.
Minnesota does permit a driver’s license as proof of residence for Election Day registration. Citizenship eligibility is a separate requirement. Election officials should be able to explain the distinction simply, especially when lawmakers ask about vulnerabilities.
Accurate voter rolls, citizenship verification, and clear identity rules protect the votes of eligible Americans. Officials should explain how those safeguards work and correct failures when they find them.
Harris can keep calling voter-roll purges “cheating.” But California’s unanswered questions and New Jersey’s documented registration failure demand more than talking points. If she believes these safeguards are improper, she should explain which ones — and what she would do instead.
Democracy may be dying. Conservatives can’t sit this one out.
U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told an audience at the University of Chicago that she wants future investigations of Trump administration officials to send a deterrent message. Young people considering jobs in a Republican administration, she said, should wonder whether joining it might buy them “a ton of problems.”
Slotkin describes her proposal as accountability for corruption. But listen to the threat embedded in her political strategy: Make public service under the wrong president so frightening that talented young conservatives never enter government. She said the quiet part out loud, and conservatives would be fools to ignore it.
If the system is fraying, the worst response is to abandon every position of legitimate authority while the other side organizes.
The peaceful transfer of power depends on losers believing they can survive defeat and return to fight another election. That assumption is eroding.
From the Bush-Gore recount to birtherism, Russiagate, and the battles over COVID-era voting rules, every disputed election has taught Americans to question the legitimacy of the next result. A political system cannot endure indefinitely when losing means permanent exclusion, financial ruin, or the threat of prosecution.
Eventually, the incentive to win at any cost overwhelms the willingness to accept defeat. The ballot is supposed to decide who holds office, not which faction gets to use the state to erase its rivals.
Donald Trump accelerated that deterioration because he inspires a peculiar derangement in his enemies. Progressives convinced themselves that Trump was a fascist dictator preparing a thousand-year Reich. They portrayed ordinary political disagreements as existential emergencies and justified extraordinary tactics as necessary resistance.
The campaign to stop Trump continued after he left office. His opponents pursued lawsuits, criminal cases, and ballot challenges designed to prevent his return. Conservatives watched the machinery of politics become an instrument for destroying the opposition. The law may permit a particular lawsuit or prosecution. That does not mean Americans should be comfortable watching every political contest turn into a criminal investigation.
Trump also survived two assassination attempts in 2024. The atmosphere of political hatred should disturb anyone who expects elections to settle disputes without bloodshed. Instead, much of the left treats Trump's second administration as an even more terrifying prospect because he has learned something from the first: Personnel determine whether a president can govern. The specter of Cheeto Hitler now excuses an endless war against anyone who might help him.
Trump entered Washington in 2017 without understanding how thoroughly permanent bureaucracies could frustrate his agenda. Officials who considered themselves guardians of the government against its elected leader resisted him from within. This time he has pursued loyal appointments and executive action aggressively.
RELATED:The global meritocracy myth sells Americans’ inheritance cheap
Progressives understand that a Republican administration staffed by people committed to its program is harder to neutralize than one staffed by its enemies. So the fight has shifted from Trump himself to the Americans willing to serve him.
That is what makes Slotkin's remarks so revealing. Young graduates already face a difficult choice between a prosperous private career and the headaches of federal service. Now imagine telling them that four years at the Department of Justice or Homeland Security could lead to crippling legal bills once Democrats regain power. You need not imprison every conservative official. Ruin a few careers, and the next generation will learn to stay away. An opposition that cannot recruit competent personnel cannot govern, however many elections it wins.
Trump's greatest failure may be his refusal to impose meaningful costs on those who abused power against his movement. Anthony Fauci is not in prison. Officials who conservatives believe weaponized investigations have escaped accountability. Radical activists continue to operate, while prosecutions of political violence remain uneven at best. In repeated games, cooperation survives only when defection carries a price. Tit for tat is not a pleasant rule, but one side cannot endlessly punish the other while expecting restraint in return. Without consequences, bad conduct becomes a winning strategy.
The danger reaches beyond staffing.
Researcher Jennica Pounds, known online as DataRepublican, has published recordings and documents she says reveal preparations for a constitutional crisis involving a network called the United Democracy Alliance. According to her account, former military, intelligence, and diplomatic figures have discussed scenarios in which contested elections, executive branch action against protests, and defiance by Democrat governors could trigger a challenge to federal authority.
DataRepublican interprets those preparations as the groundwork for a seizure of power. Her account describes proposed political red lines, including a federal response to mass protests, that could become triggers for a confrontation between governors and Washington.
RELATED: This is what existential politics looks like
One can chalk up the recordings as contingency planning, but the distinction grows thin when political operatives begin gaming out how governors might seize power amid a constitutional crisis. Elections are supposed to settle who governs. Planning to declare Washington illegitimate when an election or federal response goes the wrong way raises the stakes beyond ordinary opposition politics. Conservatives cannot afford to treat that possibility as an abstraction. They should examine the recordings, demand public answers, and prepare to defend their institutions.
No sane person should welcome domestic unrest. A country in which each election threatens imprisonment, confiscation, and violence would become unrecognizable. Americans have spent generations assuming that partisan combat ends when the ballots are counted. That bargain cannot survive if each party views the other as an enemy to be destroyed. Conservatives should demand lawful accountability for genuine wrongdoing, defend constitutional procedures, and refuse the comforting fantasy that decorum alone will restore the old rules.
None of this is permission to withdraw from politics. It is a reason to become harder to exclude. Vote. Recruit candidates. Build institutions. Win local offices. Know your sheriff, your neighbors, and the people responsible for keeping order. Cultivate lawyers, administrators, and young professionals willing to serve despite intimidation.
If the system is fraying, the worst response is to abandon every position of legitimate authority while the other side organizes. Democracy may not survive in the form Americans remember. The power conservatives build now will determine whether they have any say in what follows.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com