Is it Possible the Election is Rigged?

“Is it Possible the Election is Rigged?”
Ty J. Young Editorial

The Trump campaign has been having significant discussion regarding the possibility of the U.S. presidential election process being rigged. While historians have pointed to examples in past elections that were possibly influenced by fraudulently cast votes, it is nearly unprecedented to have such a discussion occurring before an election.

A “rigged election” can mean one or all varying definitions: actual voter fraud; members of the establishment working in private to “choose” who should run; and perhaps the worst case – the media working with one side to defeat the other.

What has caused concern over a “rigged” election? Most of the mainstream media blames Donald Trump for being irresponsible in bringing up the subject and – what’s worse – suggests he may not abide by the election results. However, the mainstream media is one of the major reasons that fear of a fraudulent election has crept into the public discourse. The negative coverage of Trump stories versus Hillary Clinton stories is running at almost a 10 to 1 clip. This is an average never seen before in American electoral history. The unbalanced coverage cannot be blamed on the Trump negatives being higher than Clinton. Historically, they both have high negative ratings and the WikiLeaks revelations prove Clinton has an equal, if not greater, number of negative issues than Trump. This has made the “bias” claims about the media ring truer than ever before.

So, is it possible the election is “rigged?”

I. There is No Way it is Rigged!

1. Voter fraud would have to be concentrated in battleground states. No system run by humans is perfect, so there is a statistical probability fraud could happen. However, it would need to happen in a significant measure in battleground states to move the needle on the presidential election. While it could be possible, it is not probable. Ironically, the Minnesota Senate election in 2008 is cited as the election that was most likely defrauded, although it is unproven. It also was the 60th vote for Obamacare at the time … so fraud could have had a major impact on American policy and the direction of the country. Currently, the only substantiated evidence of fraud in a swing state is in Colorado; it remains unknown how widespread it is occurring.

2. Polls have historically been accurate. Trump is losing badly in the national polls. In some of the battleground states, he has polls within the margin of error or they are coming back his way. Two weeks out from the election, this is not significant enough to suggest a positive trend. It could be possible, but unlikely, that fraud was needed given these numbers. The broad measurement of the poll numbers overall show Clinton with a significant cushion.

3. Significant fraud has rarely happened. As mentioned below, historically speaking, we have only one example of a presidential election being impacted by voter fraud, the 1960 race, and there were no prosecutions from that election season to confirm it.

II. It is Rigged for Sure!

1. They are already finding illegally cast votes. A local Denver news crew approached people in their homes to ask them if they voted. They were shocked to discover they had not voted, yet their ballots had been cast in their name! Colorado is a battleground state and Trump’s claim is already proven in Denver. Early voting machines were found switching votes from Trump to Clinton in both Maryland and Illinois. Not to mention, hundreds of dead people have already been reported to have voted in California. Therefore, it is an objective fact votes are already being fraudulently cast in this election.

2. 8.2 million votes were fraudulent in 2008, and it is only getting worse. Two professors at Old Dominion University conducted a study which concluded 6% of the votes cast in the 2008 presidential election were fraudulent–cast by non-citizens or illegals. This was reported in the Washington Post on October 24, 2014. Since John McCain lost by 10 million votes, the 6% of fraudulent votes would have only been 8.2 million votes cast, therefore Obama would have still won the election. Since voter fraud has been dismissed by Democrats and not prosecuted or monitored at the federal level, it has most likely become worse, and that 6% number has risen. This would easily have turned the 2012 election in Mitt Romney’s favor, and could certainly impact future elections such as this year. The rush by the government to legalize aliens and register them to vote furthers the narrative, and the fear, that the system is “rigged.” The “rigged” argument works when you consider the media’s contribution to these polls. Some have argued polls themselves are biased – and it is true that poll results can be manipulated. The most recent polling in Arizona showed Clinton in the lead … yet they did not disclose that those polled were 2-1 Democrat in a battleground state that has more Republicans registered than Democrats. So the odds are that particular poll is skewed.

3. WikiLeaks and history show elections have been rigged in the past. Voter fraud most likely occurred in Texas and Illinois to help elect Senator, John Kennedy, to the presidency in 1960. Academic studies after the election confirmed fraud likely occurred and probably tipped the election to Kennedy. Most recently videos from Project Veritas caught the Clinton campaign operatives bragging about “dirty tricks” conducted against Trump, and massive voter fraud operations for decades. In one video, a Democratic campaign official is caught bragging about busing people from precinct to precinct to vote in place of dead people. If you only watch certain news sources, you would only get Clinton talking about Trump’s accusations as being dangerous, when in fact, there is video evidence supporting the claim!

4. Media bias is a glaring example the system is rigged. When audio tapes were released of Donald Trump’s “locker room talk,” it made media headlines. However, it came on the day of more WikiLeaks email dumps confirming widespread corruption and misdeeds by Hillary Clinton. The coverage on the evening news of the big three networks was, on average, 6 minutes for Trump, and 20 seconds for Hillary. That is media bias by any objective standard. Any voter can tell there is bias in the coverage both for and against a particular candidate. This obvious tilt towards one candidate suggests the system is “rigged.”

While some would argue we have not seen this level of corruption in government and the anecdotal data supports a higher probability than in the past of the potential for a “rigged” election, it remains to be seen whether this will occur. Our institutions have faced significant stress in the past and we have survived it. The best way to combat the risks in the system is to be vigilant, get out and vote, and make sure everyone you know does so as well. Fraud cannot survive the committed efforts of the American people – at least those citizens who are committed to honest, free, and fair elections.

The same sense of a system “rigged” has also been prevalent in how we consider our investment strategies. Many people believe the Wall Street game is rigged for the rich and the powerful … that the system no longer has a “level playing field.” What many people do not realize is there is a way to protect against a stock market that is impacted by non-neutral, non-free-market interventions. You can use a principal protection strategy to ensure you only grow your money and never go backward. Call us now to learn how you can protect your investments, receive a reasonable rate of return, and not lose money due to stock market fluctuation. 877-912-1919

(http://denver.cbslocal.com/)
(http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/)
(http://townhall.com/)
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/)
(http://www.lifezette.com/)

Trump vs. Hillary: The Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance

“Trump vs. Hillary: The Supreme Court Hangs in the Balance”
Ty J. Young Editorial

The media has distracted the public from the much larger issues that this presidential election campaign represents. While a constant drumbeat of glaring personal failings makes the headlines, the criminality and the corruption so evident in the number of WikiLeaks email dumps barely registers on the night time news.

One of the critical issues not being discussed much, if at all, is who will nominate vacancies to the Federal Courts. More specifically, the vacancies to the Supreme Court. These appointments will shape the American way of life for at least a generation, and long after the winner of this year’s election leaves the White House. There are some issues that could radically alter current law, and our way of life, based upon who is elected to nominate the next set of justices.

Below is a comparison of where the candidates stand on Court-related issues, and therefore how their Court nominees will most likely rule if given the chance.

I. Where Hillary’s judges would stand on the top three Supreme Court issues:

1. The 2nd Amendment may not survive a Clinton Court. Will it support increased gun control measures? Yes. Expand background checks? Yes. Expand the right of having a concealed-carry permit? No. Former U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton wants to have the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study gun violence as a disease, and she favors an assault-weapons ban. One of her most concerning public statements was how she favors the gun manufacturer to be held liable in shootings. Her surrogates have been caught on tape claiming “she can take the guns from people by executive order.” Clinton said this is “something to be looked at.” A Clinton appointed nominee will agree with or have even more radical views. Say goodbye to D.C. vs. Heller which reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, and applied it to all jurisdictions including federal enclaves … if Clinton is allowed to appoint judges to the Court.

2. Illegal immigration to become open borders. The WikiLeaks email dumps provide a window into the minds of the Clinton campaign, and her surrounding aides, for the last several years. In the transcripts of her speeches before a major Brazilian bank, she said she is in favor of hemispheric open borders. President Obama’s DREAM (Development Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act Executive Order was already struck down by the courts. Since he has simply ignored their ruling, it would be expanded. According to Hillary’s website, she will not deport illegal aliens, wants to legalize Obama’s DREAM Act beneficiaries, and wants to admit hundreds of thousands more Muslims from the Middle East. You can assume the United States v. Texas ruling, otherwise known as DACA (Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals) will be overturned. The ruling, by Judge Hanen, was not even heard by the Supreme Court due to a 4-4 split affirming the appellate level ruling and ended Obama’s DACA program implementation. A Clinton Supreme Court would rubber stamp this unconstitutional expansion of citizenship to foreigners.

3. The First Amendment and free speech would be under attack. Those who follow politics and the Supreme Court know the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case allowed corporations to exercise free speech during political campaigns. The case was regarding a movie made about Hillary Clinton banned during the election season. The media and Democrats paint a haunting picture of corporations funding elections for reprehensible purposes yet they neglect to point out that under the ruling they are receiving more money than Republicans by nearly 2-1. In the end, the case is about free political speech. Clinton appointees will most likely overturn the decision it. Even more dangerous than that is the potential of a reversal in of the Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell. The Christian-owned company did not want to provide health insurance which made abortion available under Obamacare. They won, but Clinton has surprisingly not voiced her opposition to the ruling. What is even more terrifying, the Mayor of Houston, subpoenaed sermons of pastor’s who preached against same-sex marriage because of a city dispute over the enforcement of a human rights ordinance. Regardless of your stand regarding LGBT issues, NO ONE should be subpoenaing the sermons of preachers. That violates two of the most important tenets of the First Amendment – the right of free speech and the right to exercise your religion freely. Needless to say, big First Amendment cases coming before a Clinton Court will most likely, fundamentally alter the nature of the First Amendment and our constitutionally protected freedoms. It is quite ironic that the party which screams for free speech the most, is the one most often against it.

II. Where Trump’s judges would stand on the top three Supreme Court issues:

1. No expansion of gun control … the 2nd Amendment survives. Donald Trump’s position is the Constitutional one – “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed-carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do, too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states.” The 2nd Amendment is not just for your driveway or your home. It is to protect you from a government oppressing the people. When government’s take guns from people, only the government and the bad guys have them. Most dictatorships have started with gun seizure. Trump judges would most likely be Constitutionalists, with a belief in original intent, and would be unlikely to restrict access to gun ownership, outside of the normal background check process that already exists.

2. Trump judges would not rubber stamp the rights of illegal aliens. As Trump himself has said many times … if you do not enforce a border, you do not have a country. The illegal executive orders issued by President Obama were thankfully reversed at the appellate court level, but the Supreme Court only needs one more judge to grant certiorari—meaning they will review the decision—and then rule in favor of a vast presidential expansion of illegal immigration and the right of citizenship. Even today, the threat includes a president not enforcing the laws we have, and releasing criminal illegals back into the population. But to have the Supreme Court legalize, with Constitutional support, the right of any president to ignore the law and legalize millions does not come without consequences. These consequences could include negative effects on budgets, tax revenue, and safety. Trump judges would likely rule against such an expansion of the right of citizenship to those who came here illegally.

3. First Amendment should remain intact. Trump’s desire to expand libel and slander law is a not an unreasonable reaction to the unprecedented assault he has been under by the mainstream media. However, it is certainly not the position of a First Amendment absolutist. He has voiced support in the past for a restricted view of the Citizens United case. But, the list of judges Trump has suggested he would nominate for the Supreme Court are all original intent jurists, and have a record of protecting First Amendment rights in their rulings. It is unlikely Christians and other groups of faith will be compelled to take action against, or be prevented from, exercising their religion or speaking as they see fit. When it comes to Constitutional issues … Trump has the advantage.

The country has a tough choice to make in this election, and many are not happy with the options. On one side, there is a crude billionaire from the entertainment culture who has committed to many conservative principles. The other side is an alleged criminal whose political party has corrupted some of our most important institutions. While the options do not seem great, the choice when it comes to the direction of the Court is a clear one. It is also perhaps one of the most important issues you can use to help you decide on how to cast your vote on November 8.

Regardless of your political stance and who you decide to cast your vote for, many people want to ensure their money is completely protected in the event we have another crisis like 2008 when the stock market crashed. The upcoming election has been highly unpredictable throughout the campaign cycle and the stock market is no different. There is risk involved when your money is in the stock market. If you want to have your money in a place where it is protected from market losses and still growing at the same time, give us a call at 877-912-1919. Our advisors are experts in helping people achieve financial peace of mind when they need it most. The election and the future of our country are at potential risk, but your money does not have to be.

(http://www.infowars.com/clinton-delegate-reveals-hillarys-gun-grab-plot)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/political-issues)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
(http://cmsny.org/federal-court-halts-dapa-and-expanded-daca-programs)

Our Public Servants Think They Know Better Than We Do

“Our Public Servants Think They Know Better Than We Do”
Ty J. Young Editorial

A recent New York Post article described the results of a poll conducted by Johns Hopkins University. The results were not surprising, but quite alarming. Our politicians and bureaucrats know nothing about us, yet overwhelmingly they think they know what is best for us. The results were published in a recent book entitled: “What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People,” by Jennifer Bachner and Benjamin Ginsberg.

These men and women make decisions that affect our everyday lives, and they are rarely affected by the rules they circulate. As we have seen over the last 8 years, they are seldom held accountable for their own wrong-doing. Remember the most famous line from one of the many Obamacare creators, Jonathan Gruber, who said “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

When the “elites” think they know more than the public they serve, this can often lead to negative outcomes for everyone. What is an elite, specifically, a “D.C. elite?” The polled group were those who work for the government in D.C. at some capacity of policy making, political staff, government employees, and the actual elected officials. We have reached a point in our governance where those in power do not know much about us, and do not feel obligated to take their direction from the majority of the people. This is a result of electing big government politicians who trust our daily lives to bureaucrats far removed from our experiences, and know very little that is accurate about our lives.

I. D.C. Elites Think We Lack Knowledge and Intellect

1. 72% think we know nothing about government aid to the poor. Given how many tax dollars have gone toward federal poverty programs – $25 trillion and counting since 1964 – it seems that most Americans would understand a few things. We do understand – D.C. spends a lot, and it does not seem to work. It brings up the old Reagan saying, “Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

2. 71% think we know little to nothing about science and technology. Given the state of public education, which the D.C. bureaucrats have been in charge of for decades, it is obvious as to who should shoulder the blame.

3. Over half of the D.C. elites polled think that only 1% of the population knows anything about crime policy. This is one of the most astounding numbers in the poll as 88% of the public believes crime is a major concern in current presidential election year polling. Yet the majority of our government thinks 99% of us do not know what we are talking about.
II. D.C. Elites Think They Know Better than Americans

1) They are spending our tax dollars contrary to our beliefs. Most recently, the Director for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, testified before Congress about his new $125 million dollar office complex. When a Congressman asked him why the price tag was so high, he snidely responded “Why does that matter to you?” The waste, fraud, and abuse of our tax dollars is an everyday occurrence, and shows no end in sight. The “blob,” as the book refers to the D.C. elites, wants to spend our money to borrow on our credit, to rule over us, and to not let us ask any questions about what they are doing.

2) They are making rules damaging our savings and financial security. Agencies have drafted over 300,000 new regulations since 2012 alone; a total nearly double that of the entire 8 years of the Bush Presidency from 2001-2009. Those rules affect everything from property rights to how and where we save our money. There is not one corner of the marketplace seemingly free from bureaucratic intrusion. As so eloquently put in the New York Post’s article, “The principle, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’ is being flouted: Not only do we not consent to every policy enacted in Washington, we often don’t even know about it until it’s law.”

3) They are making rules damaging our lives. We have heard all of the examples of Solyndra and the General Services Administration (GSA) and the “War on Coal.” But on a very personal level, consider this most recent example as reported in the Post, “In Virginia, an 11-year-old girl who rescued a wounded woodpecker and carried it into a Lowe’s hardware store in a cage was confronted in the store by an agent from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Later she received a notice saying she was being fined $535 and threatened with jail time for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Thankfully, the resulting bad publicity made the government back down.” Jail time … for an 11-year old … saving a bird. Does that not speak for itself?

The D.C. elites thinking they know better than us, is an acute and corrupting problem in our society. It is not just limited to Washington, D.C. We have discussed before how Wall Street insiders have told us what to do and how to do it with our money … and that led to the massive collapse in most portfolios in 2008.

Be true to yourself. All politics are really local. When considering who to vote for, make sure your decision includes the consideration of which party stands for, and against, bigger government. Without question, bigger government has caused big problems in our everyday life. And the main reason is the arrogance of our big government leadership.

In the midst of all the politics, many Americans just want a sense of security. Financial security. If you want to have peace of mind with your retirement money, where it is completely protected against market losses and earning a reasonable rate of return, call us.

Our advisors are experts in helping people protect their hard-earned assets. Give us a call today at 877-912-1919 or visit www.www.factsthatmakeyousmarter.com to learn more.

(http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/how-dumb-does-washington-think-we-all-are/)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/10/09/the-little-people-have-had-enough—not-just-here-but-in-america/)