American Progressivism

I.  Who were the Progressives, and why are they important? 

II.  The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

III.  How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency

IV. Progressivism and Socialism

V. Progressivism and the Current Crisis




I.  Who were the Progressives, and why are they important? 

R.J. Pestritto

Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College 


 

American Progressivism

by Ronald J. Pestritto

Glenn has asked me to expand a bit on our discussion of America’s Progressives from Friday’s television show, which I’ll do in this and four subsequent pieces for the newsletter.  In today’s piece, I’ll explain who the Progressives were and why they were important.   

Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I.  Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement? 

The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.  Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today.  While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal. 

We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself.  When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.   

In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so.  The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America.  There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20th century.  Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today.  I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles. 

As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.  Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow: 

    1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles? 

    2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives? 

    3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism?  Were the Progressives actually Socialists? 

    4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today? 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




II.  The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding


 

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government.  While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.   

The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded.  The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly. 

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government.  They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.  “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.   

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.  Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.  And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!”  This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.   

In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




III.  How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency 

As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government.  As a practical matter, how was this to be done?  It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency. 

Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution.  The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers.  As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government. 

The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind.  So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle. 

Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole.  In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people.  

It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required.  

In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




IV.  Progressivism and Socialism 

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism.  There are several things to consider in answering this question. 

First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible). 

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it.  In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs).  The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes.  The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble. 

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception.  Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual.  Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.”  Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

    “In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing.  He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness.  He wrote:

    “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




V.  Progressivism and the Current Crisis 

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels. 

The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution.  The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama.  Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem.  Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily.   

Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives.  As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be.  This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized. 

The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy.  The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it.  So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies.  They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies.  Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way. 

The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan.  Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly.  That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

DECODING the Democrats' EXTENSIVE ties to 'Big Tech'

Annie Spratt/Unsplash

The Democrats' ties to "Big Tech" and the entertainment industry have placed them in the perfect position to influence both public policy and our nation's culture. It's impossible to unweave the entire web of Democrat operatives and sleeper cells, but here are a few of the current ties between the Dems and an industry that arguably has more influence on our day-to-day lives than any other.

Twitter Executives

Jack Dorsey, CEO

Omid Kordestani, Director, Executive Chairman

Ned Segal, CFO

Evan Williams, Former Twitter CEO, Current Board Member

Bridget Coyne, Public Policy Director

  • In charge of government/election partnerships with leading global government and political publishers including content strategy for Twitter
  • Intern and Press Secretary for multiple Democrat politicians, plus Rachel Maddow Show

Nicholas Pacilio, Senior Communications Manager, former Communications Manager

Carlos Monje, former Director of Public Policy

Brandon Borrman, VP Global Communications

Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg, CEO

Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer

Andy Stone, Policy Communications Director

Anna Makanju, Global Policy Manager

Brian Rice, Director of Public Policy

Probir Mehta, Global Public Policy

Jessica Hertz, Former Director and Associate General Counsel

    When I first talked about all the problems with mail-in voting two months ago, I said the last thing we want to see is voting rules getting changed so close to an election. Yet, that is exactly what is happening right now across the nation.

    And in almost every case, Democrats are fighting to get rid of simple, common sense safeguards like requiring a witness signature, or requiring that a voter's signature on a mail-in ballot matches their signature on file. It's really an insane effort to change the rules in the middle of the game. And the effort is still going strong even though we're less than three weeks from Election Day.

    Remember how mail-in voting is supposed to save the Republic? If that doesn't sit well with you or make sense to you, you are not alone. Start the video below at the 2:04 mark and see what reassurances Abrams shares.

    "We must adapt to how we conduct our elections?!" That's practically been the Democrats' motto for 2020. Don't like the results you get from regular old-fashioned elections? Let's just create some new "norms" for voting. I mean it's been on their to-do list forever anyway and COVID is the perfect opportunity to finally get it done.

    So, how is that "adapting to new norms" thing going? Well, I'm glad I asked. Because it's the perfect time to welcome you to the inaugural Chaoscar Awards, recognizing achievements in mail-in voting chaos.

    For example, the "Every Vote Matters" Chaoscar award goes to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania where the FBI found nine discarded military ballots in a dumpster.

    The Letter from U.S. Attorney David Freed to the Luzerne County Bureau of Elections says:

    The FBI has recovered a number of documents relating to military ballots that had been improperly opened by your elections staff, and had the ballots removed and discarded…

    The FBI also found additional absentee ballot envelopes that were empty, so who knows where those ballots went.

    But wait, Stacey Abrams told us mail-in voting is safe and secure! Secure? Well, maybe not if you're in the military and sending your ballot to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

    The "It Takes Two to Tango" Chaoscar goes to Fairfax County, Virginia for mailing duplicate absentee ballots to 1,400 voters.

    But don't worry, election officials have it all under control. They say only one of the ballots will be counted — unless you're a Democrat. Okay, they didn't really say that, but they were probably thinking it. Officials blamed a printer problem and said people should destroy their duplicate ballot. Or, they could just send it to our next Chaoscar winner — Texas mayoral candidate Zul Mohamed.

    He was arrested last week on voter fraud charges after applying for 84 absentee ballots and having them sent to a P.O. box that allegedly belongs to a nursing home.

    Nice try.

    Next, the "You've Got No Mail" Chaoscar goes to Outagamie County, Wisconsin. Three trays of mail, which included multiple absentee ballots, were discovered in a ditch along a state highway.

    Does no one bury anything anymore? If you want to get rid of ballots, why are you using dumpsters and ditches?

    New York City wins the "G.I. Schmo" Chaoscar for sending voters mail-in ballots marked for military use.

    That's right, New Yorkers who have never served in the military have received the ballot, which says "Official Military Absentee Ballot."

    Maybe there was supposed to be a slash between the words "military" and "absentee," but voters are obviously confused and concerned about whether they're supposed to go ahead and use the ballot even though they're not in the military.

    Over 520,000 ballots have already been sent out and the New York Elections Board does not know how many of those have the error.

    The 'Every Vote Matters' Chaoscar goes to...

    We hop over to New Jersey for our next award — the "Dumpster Diver" Chaoscar goes to a mailman who has been arrested for allegedly tossing 1,875 of pieces of mail — including 99 election ballots — into a dumpster.

    What was that Stacey Abrams? I forgot...

    Next, New York City wins its second Chaoscar of the night — it's the "You Had One Job" award for sending out 140,000 absentee ballots to Brooklyn voters with the wrong names and addresses.

    These voters are supposed to complete their ballot and put it inside the official absentee ballot envelope, then sign the outside of the envelope and send it in. But these return envelopes have the wrong name and address, so voters cannot sign them unless they want their ballot to be voided.

    Many voters do not even have the right name on the ballot itself.

    And this is great — the New York Board of Elections says a "printing error" is responsible for the bad ballots. Wow — really, a printing error? Gee, how did they ever solve that mystery?

    One report on this said:

    It was unclear exactly how the city planned to handle voters who had already mailed their completed ballot back in the provided envelopes.

    That is a huge red flag, because it's exactly the kind of issue that will help fuel chaos and endless litigation all over America after Election Day.

    Next, the "I See Dead People Voting" Chaoscar goes to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for its new temporary rules allowing dead people's votes to count.

    Before this year, Massachusetts allowed early voting to start ten days before the election. If you voted early and died before Election Day, sorry, your vote would not count.

    But Massachusetts changed the rules this year because of the pandemic. Now early voting starts 30 days before Election Day. And if you cast your vote during this early window, and then kick the bucket before November 3, you can rest in total peace knowing your vote will still count!

    America — land of opportunity, even after you're dead.

    Our final Chaoscar of the night is the "It's So Crazy It Just Might Work" special achievement award, which goes to Houston, Texas. This is for an alleged ballot harvesting and voter fraud operation that — if the allegations prove to be true — dwarfs any election-related fraud we've seen anywhere so far this year.

    Two private investigators — one a former FBI agent, the other a former Houston police captain — filed sworn affidavits with the Texas Supreme Court as part of a class-action lawsuit against Harris County.

    This is a copy of the lawsuit and I want to quote directly from it, so you understand what the specific allegations are:

    Licensed Private Investigators... have been investigating ballot harvesting in Harris County for many months...
    The organization and operation of the illegal harvesting program is being used to commit fraud in the November 3, 2020 election...

    According to the investigators, witnesses have identified Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis... and Texas State Senator Borris Miles as leading the organization tasked with harvesting ballots. The investigators further state that witnesses have identified Houston businessman Gerald Womack and political consultant Dallas Jones as lieutenants working directly under Commissioner Ellis and Senator Miles.

    By the way, in September, Dallas Jones was hired by the Joe Biden campaign to be its Texas Political Director.

    This is a copy of the affidavit from one of the private investigators, Mark Aguirre. He says:

    I have in my possession video-taped interviews of witnesses attesting to the aforementioned people having groups of people completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots, including completing ballots for deceased individuals; illegally going into nursing homes, with the complicity of the nursing home staff, and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester's address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual's signature.

    And this is from the affidavit of the second private investigator. He says:

    [One] witness stated to me that an employee of Commissioner Ellis, Tyler James, has bragged that he could guarantee that the illegal ballot harvesting operation, with the help of mass mail-in ballots, could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots.

    Democrats successfully created chaos and now they're working overtime to change voting rules across the nation, taking advantage of friendly courts and judges to legislate from the bench. It's all about election insurance, tweaking the state voting systems to make Joe Biden's path to victory easier, including — in many states — rigging the ballot.

    While Big Tech, the Democrats and the media insist mail-in voting is safe and secure, it's already going off the rails in many states and uncovers the left-wing forces behind the massive litigation war being waged by Democrats to permanently change the way you vote.


    Democrats are freaked out about Amy Coney Barrett joining the Supreme Court. But don't let their fretting fool you, because as Glenn Beck reveals, the Left is doing just fine in the federal and state courts. In fact, the Left is thriving.

    Tonight at 9 p.m. ET, 8 p.m. CT, Glenn shows how Democrats successfully created chaos with their massive push for mail-in voting. Now they're working overtime to change voting rules across the nation, taking advantage of friendly courts and judges to legislate from the bench. It's all about election insurance, tweaking the state voting systems to make Joe Biden's path to victory easier – including, in many states, rigging the ballot.

    While Big Tech, Democrats, and the media insist mail-in voting is trustworthy and there's nothing to see here, Glenn exposes how mail-in voting is already going off the rails in many states and uncovers the left-wing forces behind the massive litigation war being waged by Democrats to permanently change the way you vote.

    Because the content of this show is sure to set off the Big tech censors, the full episode will only be available on Blaze TV. Start your free trial to watch it tonight, and save $20 off a one-year subscription with code SAVEOURELECTION.

    Watch a preview of the show below:

    Want more from Glenn Beck?

    To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

    The left learned their lesson from 2016 and are working overtime to stack the deck against President Trump and will do whatever it takes this time around. On tonight's special, we will expose how they are tweaking the state voting systems to make sure Joe Biden's path to victory is easier, including many states — I believe — rigging the ballot.

    Tonight, we're going to show you how mail-in voting is already going off the rails in many states and in three weeks, you can bet the argument will be: "There was voter fraud on the right!"

    FULL EPISODE ON BLAZETV: Election Hijacking: How the Left Is Ensuring Your Vote Doesn't Count

    And they're going to be fighting in every swing state, with courts. With the hanging, pregnant or dangling chads.

    All of it.

    The Washington Post reported in August, that more than half a million ballots were rejected in the primaries, because of ballots that arrived too late or had voter errors. So no matter who you vote for, it's going to be a mess if you vote by mail.

    Twitter announced it's going to expand its crackdown on misinformation surrounding the election and mail-in voting, according to the New York Post. Here's an excerpt:

    Jack Dorsey, the company's CEO, said in an appearance on "The Daily" podcast last week that Twitter will "continue to evolve our policy to protect the integrity of the conversation around elections." That includes, he said, suspending any accounts that might engage in "particular egregious aspects of violations of the terms of service," even if it belongs to the President of the United States. "We won't hesitate to take action on the accounts and use every tool that we have together with that," Dorsey said.

    If a social media channel belonging to Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Mark Levin or myself gets "fact-checked" by Big Tech, the consequences could include a hard-strike, resulting in demonetization or the complete shutdown of the channel.

    But it's not about the money. It's a warning shot.

    First they take the revenue, which we use to help pay for our research and to get our voices to the masses. And then they take the platform entirely. It's a way to curtail the kind of content that we put out that they don't approve of because of an opinion disagreement.

    Since Big Tech is so anxious for any reason to silence us, tonight's special will not be available on any other platforms and will air exclusively on BlazeTV for subscribers. If you are not already a subscriber, I urge you to join today. Use the promo code SAVEOURELECTION for 20% off.

    FULL EPISODE ON BLAZETV: Election Hijacking: How the Left Is Ensuring Your Vote Doesn't Count

    If you aren't able to subscribe at this time, please sign up for my free newsletter to make sure you and I are not cut off from each other. Signing up is simple and easy, just enter your email address and we'll make sure you're up to date on everything you need to know for these crazy times.

    To stand up to these Tech Tyrants and continue to fight for freedom and liberty, we need your help to spread the message far and wide. To win this battle, you'll need to arm yourself with information but make no mistake about it, this election is not the end of the road.

    In fact, it's just the beginning.

    As the results most likely will not be known for days, weeks or quite possibly even months, I'm putting together a running list of stories that fall into three categories:

    1. Voter Fraud/Potential Fraud
    2. Mail-In Ballot Chaos
    3. Election Litigation/Court Decisions

    Voter Fraud/Potential Fraud

    October 2020

    • Federal Agents Raid Home of Pittsburgh-Area Mail Carrier, Collect Bags of Suspected Undelivered Mail (KDKA-TV)
    • 'I thought it was somebody playing a prank': Man finds dozens of ballots in California trash (Washington Examiner)
    • Carrollton Mayoral Candidate Zul Mirza Mohamed Arrested, Charged With 100+ Counts of Voter Fraud (CBS DFW)
    • NJ mailman allegedly tossed 99 election ballots into dumpster (New York Post)
    • USPS collection boxes broken into in multiple Virginia counties, sparking fears of missing ballots (TheBlaze)
    • Florida man who requested mail-in ballot for dead wife hit with voter fraud charge (FOX News)

    September 2020

    August 2020

    • Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots (New York Post)

    July 2020

    • Four Plead to Voter Fraud Scheme on Skid Row (LADA)
    • Former congressman indicted on voter fraud, bribery charges (Politico)

    1982 – Present

    Mail-in Ballot Chaos

    October 2020

    • Pennsylvania's Rejection of 372,000 Ballot Applications Bewilders Voters and Strains Election Staff (Propublica)
    • Utah: County Mails Over 13,000 Ballots with Missing Signature Line (Breitbart)
    • California elections officials order GOP to immediately remove unofficial ballot boxes (Los Angeles Times)
    • 50,000 Ohio Voters to Receive New Absentee Ballots After Error Found (NPR)
    • New Jersey residents receiving ballots for out-of-state voters, dead people; election officials confident in anti-fraud measures: reports (FOX News)

    September 2020

    • Reports: Nearly 1,400 Virginia voters got two ballots in the mail (FOX 5 DC)
    • NYC voters are wrongly receiving mail-in ballots marked for military use (New York Post)
    • Brooklyn Voters Receive Absentee Ballot Envelopes with Wrong Voter Names and Addresses (Gothamist)
    • Pennsylvania election officials sound alarm over 'naked ballot' ruling, warning it could jeopardize 100,000 votes (FOX News)

    Election Litigation/Court Decisions

    October 2020

    • Pennsylvania's Rejection of 372,000 Ballot Applications Bewilders Voters and Strains Election Staff (Propublica)
    • The Courts Can't Decide How Many Ballot Drop Boxes Ohio Needs, and Now Everyone Else Is Confused Too (Reason)
    • Key battleground states don't require signature-matching on mail-in ballots (Just the News)
    • Lawsuit calls for voter registration extension in Virginia following online portal shutdown (WTOP News)
    • Federal judge upholds Minnesota's extended ballot counting (FOX News)
    • A legal fight over how to fix ballot errors in North Carolina (The Washington Post)Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Denies GOP Efforts to Halt Mail-In Voting in Montana (Daily Caller)
    • NJ federal judge rejects Trump campaign's challenge to state's mail-in voting plans (FOX News)
    • Massachusetts' new voting rules will allow the state to count dead people's votes this year. Don't worry – it's 'temporary' (TheBlaze)
    • Federal judge orders Arizona to extend voter registration deadline until Oct. 23 (AZ Central)

    September 2020

    • Court upholds Wisconsin ballot extension, hands Dems a win (ABC News)
    • Federal Judge in Ohio Rules Changing Signature-Matching Process This Late in the Election Would be 'Damaging' (Daily Caller)
    • Michigan judge says ballots received within 14 days of election should count if postmarked on time (FOX News)
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court extends state mail ballot deadline to 3 days after election (FOX News)
    • The Green Party's presidential candidate is off the ballot in a big win for Pennsylvania Democrats (The Philadelphia Inquirer)
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Green Party bid for Ballot Access (PBS News Hour)

    August 2020

    • Dems get Green Party kicked off ballot after pressuring petition-signers; 'voter suppression' alleged (FOX News)

    We'll continue to update this list as additional stories come in. If you see stories that you think we should add to the list, let us know in the comments section below, or email them to me here.

    We need you standing with us as we stand with you. As Ben Franklin said, we all better "hang together," or we certainly will "hang separately."