I decided to see what was required to vote in Pennsylvania. What I found was amazing. It appears, at least from the official online voter registration form, that you don't even have to prove that you are a US citizen. There is a check box for, "I do not have a PA driver's license or PennDOT ID card or a Social Security number." If you check that box, you are unidentifiable --period. Is Pennsylvania going to allow non-citizens, or out of state citizens vote with provisional ballots?

Take a minute and scroll through this form.

There is a section where it mentions that it's illegal to lie on the form and that you might be fined $15,000 or could end up spending 7 years in prison or both. But this is absurd because the law is unenforceable. How are the authorities supposed to find someone with a fake name, no SSN and no driver's license or state issued ID? Answer: THEY AREN'T.

But it gets even worse. Now a Judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that they can extend the counting deadline, and the supreme court punted.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that extended the deadline for mail-in votes in the November election by three days.

But wait, it gets even more ridiculous. Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons.

The Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruled Friday that ballots in the state cannot be rejected because of signature comparisons, backing up guidance issued by the state’s chief elections officer heading into Pennsylvania’s first presidential election with no-excuse mail voting.

The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.

"We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion signed by six of the seven justices, including five Democrats and one Republican.

The seventh justice, another Republican, concurred with the ruling.

The court directs "the county boards of elections not to reject absentee or mail-in ballots for counting, computing, and tallying based on signature comparisons conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third party challenges based on such comparisons."

But there's even more to it than that. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also said that the postmarks on the mail-in ballots don't have to be on or before the Nov. 3rd deadline (effectively extending mail-in voting). In fact there doesn't even have to be a postmark there at all.

But even more concerning to Republicans than extending the deadline is that the state Supreme Court also ruled that mail ballots without postmarks proving they were submitted before the election deadline on Nov. 3 will be counted. “We conclude that a ballot received on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day,” reads the decision.

So people who are unidentifiable, can mail in, or drop off ballots after the deadline? Is the state of Pennsylvania actively trying to invite fraud?

To illustrate the illogical decisions made; why not just allow vote counting BEFORE election day? Not an extension --count ahead of time, that makes sense. You can at least remove the impression that you're adding mail-in votes after the in-person votes have been counted (because that's the only reason for counting after the deadline). You already knew that there were going to be a record amount of votes counted. Why didn't Florida have these issues?

You might as well have people write who they want for president on a napkin and drop that off. After all, it's about the integrity of the vote right?

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

There are quite a few sites from which you can watch the election results come in. The two I'm going with are:

Newsmax and OANN (One America News Network).

You can stream OANN from 123news.tv.

You can stream Newsmax directly from their site.

So, if you're going to stay up and watch it all go down. These news channels might interest you. Plus I'm sure the coverage from Newsmax and OANN is going to be much more insightful than the national news networks, or Fox News for that matter.

It's going to be a long night. We won't know the winner by the end of the night. But I believe we'll have a pretty good chance of knowing which way it's going to tilt.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I called this weeks ago, but as a joke amongst friends. I didn't really think that they would try to somehow tie Amy Coney Barrett to rape!? The left (found an accuser) and went after Brett Kavanaugh with sexual assault allegations as well. Is it just me, or is there a pattern here?

A number of high-profile sexual assault survivors released a statement Friday accusing Judge Amy Coney Barrett of “siding with powerful abusers” and urging lawmakers to vote against her confirmation.

“Our society now demands we hold people who abuse their power accountable for sexual harassment and assault, no matter how important those people are,” actresses Michelle Hurd, Padma Lakshmi and Mira Sorvino wrote in a statement.

"Yet multiple times, Judge Barrett ruled against survivors of rape, instead siding with powerful abusers and the powerful institutions that enable them,” the statement continued.

“We know painfully well that the systems for survivors to pursue justice are broken. They cannot be repaired and must be rebuilt. But Judge Barrett’s record shows she’d reshape the law to make it even harder for survivors to be heard and for justice to be achieved.”

At this point, nothing surprises me. Sexual assault allegations are all the left has anymore. They know that there are no legit reasons to disqualify these judicial appointments.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I believe this has been the plan all along. After all, Democrats can't count on the American public to vote the "right way." They need to give everyone a little push. Or a little burning or looting, then you might understand which way you should vote. But when that doesn't work. There's always the courts. I believe the plan is rather genius, but in an evil sense.

I believe the plan is as follows:

Stuff the ballot boxes for both sides. Consider; what if the Democrat operatives were to accomplish this. They would turn in more Biden ballots than there are registered voters in a district, but they would also turn in more Trump ballots than there are registered voters district. This would cause complete chaos. It might also cause a complete lack of confidence on the part of the electorate as a whole.

If there is rampant fraud on both sides, or the impression thereof, it would definitely end up in the courts. The courts are where the Democrats have a perceived advantage. Not because they are on the right side of the law, but because they have the Supreme Court wrapped up. If they can come up with an excuse to keep Amy Coney Barrett from being able to rule with regards to the election, they just might be able to get away with something. I believe that Justice Roberts is on their side (the Democrats) or they wouldn't push the issue.

Remember, Cory Booker let the cat out of the bag last week. Democrats won't do, or say anything unless there is some angle that might benefit them. People like Booker are very rarely off script. Why else would Booker mention Barrett? Then right after he mentions it news stories start popping up about how Barrett should recuse herself in relation to the election. Barrett would keep the decision from being swayed by Roberts.

That's what I think is going to play out.

What do you think!?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Amy Coney Barrett needs to recuse herself!

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC's Meet the Press that he would be willing to meet with Barrett ahead of the committee hearings for her confirmation that will start next month.

"I think you know my spirit, which is to sit down and meet with people and talk to them. And I'm going to make it very clear, one of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself ... in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized," Booker said on Sunday.

The Democrats could not be more predictable. The left aren't going to be able to stop her nomination in the Senate, so they have to grasp at the next straw! This was the first think that came to mind, as soon as I heard that Trump had nominated a woman.

It didn't take long.

There is no legal precedent for Amy Conney Barrett to recuse herself either.

“A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the Code of Conduct reads.

The code of conduct then proceeds to list off the many reasons one might be required to recuse themselves, including the following:

* If the judge has "a personal bias or prejudice" concerning the case.
* If the judge "served as a lawyer in the matter."
* If the judge has a "financial interest" in the subject matter.
* If the judge or the judge's family member is involved in the case
* If the judge "has served in governmental employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding..."

Our legal experts emphasized that these rules are not constitutionally binding. While judges in lower courts can be reprimanded by a committee on ethics if they fail to follow these rules, there is nobody policing Supreme Court ethics.

“The ethical rules do not apply to the Supreme Court of the United States," said Nourse. "They help administer these rules.”

Nourse said that justices will often recuse themselves, but this is a personal decision. Recusals are not mandated for these justices.

"They do it as a matter of grace (as) they call it," she said. "Or a matter of wisdom.”

Within political and legal circles, there's still considerable debate as to whether Barrett should recuse herself in such a situation. But there is a consensus that she would not be required to recuse herself by the Constitution, if the Supreme Court were to hear a case, regarding a disputed 2020 election.

This is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. There is absolutely no possibility that a Democrat appointed SCOTUS member would EVER recuse themselves for any reason.

To put the icing on the cake. Biden last night in the debate, wouldn't answer as to whether or not he would stack the court. Increasing the number of justices to offset a conservative legal presence.

Biden declined to tell debate moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News whether he would support adding justices to the court if Trump’s conservative pick, Amy Coney Barrett, is confirmed to replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You’re in voting, now vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. But vote now,” Biden said.

Democrats are floundering. They won't answer questions that are very much a reason to vote or not vote for a presidential candidate. Then Joe goes a step further and tells people to, "Go out and vote." He's been speaking out about how it's not safe to vote in public since the COVID-19 issue started. Biden is even talking about shutting down the country again!? But not before you go vote!

As I stated in my previous posts about vote buying and ballot stuffing; courts are making these methods increasingly hard for Democrat operatives to accomplish. Pair that with Project Veritas and the actual audio and video evidence of vote buying and fraud.

Democrats are now pushing for people to get to the polls. Even a stacked court might not help them.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!