Arizona Senate Chairman to Subpoena Audit of Dominion Machines, Software

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

This article is published in The Epoch Times on December 15, 2020

An Arizona Senate chairman on Monday announced he will order through a subpoena in the state’s largest county to audit their voting machines and software.

Maricopa County officials told legislators during a six-hour public hearing that they wanted to conduct an audit, but were advised they couldn’t by lawyers because of ongoing litigation.

“We understand that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors feels constrained, based upon the recommendations by legal counsel, in their ability to perform a forensic audit of the voting equipment software during this ongoing litigation. We don’t know how long that’s going to happen,” state Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, a Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at the conclusion the hearing.

“I recognize and I will state that the chairman has been very clear in saying that he supports an audit, but as long as the constraints exist because of ongoing or additional litigation, they don’t feel like they can perform an audit, which continues to leave our constituents feeling like, maybe this election was compromised. So with that said, it is therefore in my intent to exercise my authority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and, with the full support of the Senate president, to issue subpoenas in an effort to audit the equipment software and ballots.”

Some of the language was already drafted, the senator said, and the subpoenas could be issued as soon as Tuesday……

Continue reading at The Epoch Times.


Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber

Joe Biden Wants a Huge New Tax on Gun Owners

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Mark Thornton originally published this article at the Mises Institute on December 3, 2020.

Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.

Joe Biden’s gun policy platform offers support for almost all conceivable forms of government restrictions on the Second Amendment. This includes bans and restrictions on sales, expansion of registration and background checks, expansion of buyback programs and gun-grabbing statutes, and the closing of all sorts of “loopholes.”1

While we are only at the policy platform stage, where proposals are grandiose and imprecise, Biden’s legislative agenda will clearly be anti–Second Amendment and not a program to reduce crime and violence. First, he wants to stop the “gun violence epidemic” with restriction on rifles when it is handgun shootings, not rifles, that are a problem and one that is mostly confined to big cities controlled by leftists. Second, he wants to go after “assault weapons” and “weapons of war” when he should know that rifles like the AK and AR “sporters” are not military-grade fully automatic weapons. Third, he would like to hold gun manufacturers civilly liable for criminal acts committed with guns, a move which would shut down the industry, the true goal.

In support of the government’s buyback program, i.e., the carrot, Biden has added a gun tax for anyone who wishes to keep their rifles and high-capacity magazines. If you want to avoid the buyback and keep your guns and high-capacity (greater than ten rounds) magazine, you would have to register both under the National Firearms Act, which triggers a $200 tax for each rifle and magazine—the stick. The stick behind the stick is a penalty of up to ten years in federal prison and a $10,000 fine. Registration involves filling out a thirteen-page registration form and providing fingerprints and a photograph of yourself.

This is certainly bad enough for gun owners and Americans in general, but if history is a teacher the end results could be much worse, potentially catastrophic.

Continue reading this article at Mises Institute


Mark Thornton is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and the book review editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He has authored seven books and is a frequent guest on national radio shows.

Wanna’ Fight for Liberty and an Honest Election – Here’s How

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute


Hoft: REMINDER – LISTS PROVIDED: Just Copy to an Email, Draft Message and Let State Legislatures Know How You Feel About the BIDEN STEAL

All you have to do is open the links below and copy the list to your email, draft your message and send. You can send these to any state – you don’t need to reside in that state.

1. AZ House email addresses
2. AZ Senate email addresses
3. GA House email addresses
4. GA Senate email addresses
5. MI House email addresses
6. MI Senate email addresses
7. NV House email addresses
8. NV Senate email addresses
9. PA House email addresses – none available
10. PA Senate email addresses
11. WI House email addresses
12. WI Senate email addresses

Below is also a list of state legislatures in five of the key swing states the Biden gang is trying to steal:

Arizona Legislature
Georgia General Assembly
Michigan Legislature
Pennsylvania Senate
Pennsylvania House
Wisconsin Senate
Wisconsin House

For more information on how to contact legislators and those possibly deciding the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, continue reading at The Gateway Pundit: REMINDER – LISTS PROVIDED: Just Copy to an Email, Draft Message and Let State Legislatures Know How You Feel About the BIDEN STEAL

17 States Urge Supreme Court to Review Texas Bid Challenging Election Results in 4 States

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Seventeen states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Texas’s request to challenge the 2020 election results in four battleground states.

The states, led by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Dec. 9, underscoring that the case filed by Texas is of great public importance and requires the attention of the nation’s top court.

Texas on Dec. 7 filed a motion asking for permission to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin in an attempt to protect the integrity of the 2020 election.

The Lone Star state alleges that the four key battleground states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot integrity measures.

In the brief, the 17 states argue that the Texas lawsuit warrants review by the high court as it presents important constitutional issues under the Electors Clause. It also raises concerns about election integrity and public confidence in the handling of elections, they added.


Continue reading at The Epoch Times….


This article by Janita Kan was originally published in The Epoch Times on December 9, 2020.

Texas Asks Supreme Court to Rule Election in 4 Battleground States Unconstitutional

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

The state of Texas on Dec. 8 filed an election lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that the states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures.

“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election.

“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections. Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”

Continue reading at The Epoch Times.


This article by Ivan Pentchoukov was originally published in The Epoch Times on December 8, 2020.

Diversity’s Huge Double Standard: Why Walloons aren’t counted as a minority in diversity initiatives

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Nasdaq recently announced that it was going to require companies listed on its stock exchange to have a set number of racial minorities, women, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals on their boards of directors.

Parroting the official government lingua on race, Nasdaq’s quotas for minorities were in reference to African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. Other minority groups with far fewer people in the U.S. population and on boards of directors were excluded, just as they are excluded in all diversity initiatives.

As a general diversity rule, the smaller the minority group, the less it is counted in diversity initiatives.

Nasdaq is the same outfit that was founded and headed by Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme defrauded investors out of $50 billion. His buddies at Nasdaq didn’t have enough judgment to recognize that he was a scoundrel but now see themselves as experts in social engineering.

Like so many American institutions nowadays—especially big media, big corporations, big academia, and the big diversity industrial complex—Nasdaq doesn’t even have an objective, science-based definition of “minority.” It simply and thoughtlessly parrots the word willy-nilly and thus doesn’t know what it is measuring. It’s akin to the stock exchange not having a definition of “earnings per share” or “price/earnings ratio.”What is a minority? Is a minority a member of a racial or ethnocultural group that comprises less than 50% of the U.S. population, or that is economically disadvantaged compared to other groups, or that doesn’t have political power, or that has faced discrimination, or that has descended from slaves, or that has descended from natives who were conquered, persecuted and placed on reservations?

African Americans and Native Americans meet most of the above criteria (as groups, but not necessarily as individuals). But things get squishy after that.

Consider all of the diverse groups that are seen as part of the so-called white majority but individually comprise a tiny segment of the U.S. population. There are about 100 such groups, including Walloons, Bosnians, Tatars, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Karakalpaks, Persians, Egyptians, Kashubians, Greeks, Cypriots, Italians, Albanians, Abkhazians, Yakuts, Slavs, Occitans, Lezgins, Kumyks, Turks, Galicians and Moravians.

Although all of those named above are officially classified as white, none are Anglo-Saxon. The same for many other minority groups classified as white. Scores of them have faced discrimination or worse at the hands of Anglo-Saxon Protestants, including being victims in the early 20th century of the Progressive eugenics movement and of anti-immigration laws and nativist hostility. For example, Italians were considered an inferior race in the North and equated to blacks in the South, especially those from southern Italy and Sicily. Eleven of them were lynched in New Orleans.

The economic status of Walloons and the other above-named minorities is largely unknown today. The same for their political power and their representation on boards of directors.

That’s because they aren’t deemed important enough to be separately tracked by those who track such things. By government policy, they are aggregated with all other whites, as if they are homogenous in values, beliefs, ideology, history, religion, experiences, socioeconomic class, and skin shade. Then, due to their assigned race, they are stereotyped by the woke mob as having the same advantages, privileges and political power as blue-blooded, porcelain-white Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose lineage goes back to the nation’s founding, or whose forebears might have passed down wealth from dealing in cotton, tobacco, and sugar during slavery.

The aggregation of these diverse minority groups results in them being treated as if they are in the majority. By contrast, the aggregation of favored racial/ethnic groups into the contrived categories of Asian and Hispanic results in them being treated as minorities. As a consequence, to take two examples, Walloon Americans are not seen as minorities, but Mexican Americans are seen as such, although they vastly outnumber Walloons.

What explains this insulting and insensitive double standard and the associated bad math?

First, Asians and Hispanics had enough political and media clout to be added to the equal rights movement and legislation that had been originally intended for African Americans. This clout has carried over to the diversity movement.

Second, the diversity movement is based on the false premise that only non-whites are deserving of diversity initiatives, because they lack the privileges, power and wealth that have accrued to all whites, including white Walloons.

Never mind that East Indians, Han Chinese, and other racial/ethnic groups classified as “Asian” exceed whites, on average, in income and education. Never mind that many Hispanics are white and wealthy descendants of Spanish aristocrats. And never mind that plenty of whites are impoverished descendants of indentured servants and tenant farmers.

Another false premise is that an Asian or Hispanic on a board of directors, or in the executive suite, or in a college classroom, is representative of all Asians and Hispanics and thus can speak for everyone else. Under this convoluted thinking, a Japanese is the same as a Korean, is the same as a Cambodian, is the same as an East Indian, is the same as a Filipino, and so on. Likewise, a Mexican is the same as a Columbian, is the same as a Guatemalan, is the same as a Nicaraguan, is the same as a Cuban, and so on. And a Boston Brahmin is the same as a Walloon, is the same as a Kashubian, is the same as an Armenian, is the same as an Abkhazian, and so on.

Universities have not only bought into this gross corruption of sociology, anthropology, history, and math but have led the descent into the scientific malpractice.

Too bad for male Walloons. Because they are classified as white they won’t be counted as a racial minority in Nasdaq’s quotas. But at least they have other ways to be counted: They can change their gender or claim that they are gay, bisexual or transsexual.

“People of Color” is a Brainless Term

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Democrats are always coming up with snappy new terms to describe their political antics. “Medicare for All,” “Public Option,” “Democratic Socialism” and “Progressives” are samples of current nomenclature. The terms typically replace a prior term that has failed to capture public acceptance. The press simply follows suit, never questioning the new terms and phrases as they become commonly used by the press. Soon the rest of us are forced to use terms du jour or we are scorned. It is not clear who came up with the term “People of Color,” but there is not a more deceitful and manipulative term than this.

The term basically divides everyone into two groups – White people and everyone else. It treats each group as if it were homogenized. The usage of “people of color” has been traced back as far as 1796. That was really when there were two non-white groups: Blacks and Native Americans. Today that has radically changed.

It is foolish to state that all Whites are just that – people of the same ilk. There are many White Americans with whom I have zero in common. There are many Jewish White Americans I believe live on another planet which Is not part of this solar system. In addition, the fact that there are European Jews (Ashkenazi) and Sephardic Jews who are non-white doesn’t even put all Jews in the same place, but the people who use these terms group all Jews as White.

While Hispanics are often grouped with Blacks politically, they seem to have different political leanings. Hispanic men voted for Trump twice as frequently as Black men and Hispanic women voted for Trump four times as often as Black women. These groups have little in common. While many Black (and some Whites too) were out looting and rioting this past summer, you did not see a lot of Hispanics jumping on board. Part of it is so many Hispanics have a European (White) heritage. Recently a large population of Colombians relocated to Miami as their country was riddled with drug wars. This group has little in common with people here from Central America. Likewise, Cubans have little to do with the Puerto Ricans. Then there are the Dominicans. While they arrived from Spanish speaking countries, these groups have as much in common as the English do with Bulgarians. And they have little in common with Blacks and Asians.

Then there are the Asians. People of Asian extraction gravely dislike being grouped with everyone else that might have a similar look. My friend Michelle Steel, who recently was elected to Congress, told of how some members of the press addressed her as if she were Chinese despite being of Korean heritage and also speaking Japanese. The Koreans do not like the Chinese and certainly the Taiwanese have no affection for mainland Chinese. Then there are the Asians from Thailand, Vietnam, India, Laos and Singapore. Gosh knows the people of Hong Kong who are Chinese do not like the mainland Chinese. They are all “People of Color” who are supposed to all think alike. Not even close.

Not even all Blacks think alike. American-born Blacks are distinctly different from Blacks who have immigrated from Africa in recent generations. It became well known recently that Nigerian Americans are a particularly successful group. Why would they relate to a Black American who thinks the country really started in 1619? In fact, African American immigrants act just like every other immigrant group. They want to succeed in America and not be grouped by “well-meaning liberals” as people of color.

These groups realize this hoopla about “people of color” is nothing more than an attempt by white liberals to appease their self-imposed feelings of guilt or “privilege.” These groups want the government out of their way so they can earn a living, get ahead, raise their children and make sure the next generation is more successful than they are. That is why as a whole immigrants are more successful than native-born Americans and have a higher home ownership rate.

The supposed “people of color” realize that the average American does not really care about their skin shade or native country. They realize we ask they only do two things: Learn to speak English and become an American citizen. Experience shows that these people appreciate this country at a higher level than native-born Americans. They have seen what life is like elsewhere and how fortunate we are here.

People of Color do not exist. It is a stupid and insulting term. There are only two kinds of Americans: ones who love this country and understand what a gift it is to live here, and those who do not.


This entry by Bruce Bialosky at Flash Report was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2020 at 2:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.

Are You Surprised They Think You Are Stupid?

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

There is a lot of talk about how we don’t have enough civility in our public discourse. Mr. Biden has called for unity and reaching across the aisle. Many people would like to blame President Trump. Though he adds to this situation, this has been going on for years. Previously, I have delineated that Democrats think Republicans are evil. I have also delineated that every Republican President since Eisenhower has been called stupid except Nixon who was called evil. Democrats (not all) think most Republican supporters are just beyond understanding societal concepts.

Recently, I had a discussion with a gay friend. Over dinner he said he did not want to engage in political discourse because it just leads to bad feelings. Even though we have different political beliefs I always want to listen to what others say so I can learn how others are thinking.

At a further time, I told him he was wrong to have that thought. I then told him a story. I had been on the forefront of accepting gays; the Best Man at my wedding in 1986 was and is gay. I could not give a hoot about whether someone is gay.

When gay marriage became a hot topic before any court ruling, I told my gay friend I heard arguments in support of gay marriage and found them lacking substance. Then one night while the Beautiful Wife and I were having dinner with a gay couple, one made an argument that stuck with me. He said he wanted to have a wedding. He wanted to experience that. You know — when one person commits to love, honor and cherish the other for the rest of their lives. That argument made sense to me. That made me reconsider my position on the subject. Because of honest discourse between parties with different opinions, sometimes opinions change.

After conveying the story of how my opinion had changed, I switched topics. I told my friend that I still believe the ideal situation for children is to be raised by a female and male couple. We had a back and forth where he made the typical arguments such as a child raised in a household by a loving gay couple is better than a dysfunctional straight couple. We went around and round as I batted back every argument, he made and stuck to the fact I believe a child having a male and female parent is best for both a female and male child. That does not mean that single parents or gay couples are not sometimes better, and significantly better than a child with no parents at all.

Then he offered his last point. While he could accept my rationale, he believes my argument is “dangerous” because some people would not understand like “those folks in Mississippi.” Stating others who you don’t know may not have the mental capacity to comprehend an argument is never a convincing position. He had accepted me as a mental peer, but thought the rest of people who might hear what I said were heathens who would twist my arguments in a vulgar way.

This is not a new experience for me. I hear this regularly. I believe the ordinary American can intelligently come to conclusions — especially made to them in plain English. They can make up their own minds. When I argued for parental notice for minors having abortions, I was told the reason to not have parental notice was not about me. Of course, I would treat my daughter properly. It is the other guy who would act irresponsibly because so many parents would act tragically with a teenage daughter who is pregnant. Thus, we must step in and protect that daughter from her parents because ‘we’ know better.

Reflecting on this, does it surprise you at all that the now infamous interlude happened on CNN’s The Don Lemon show? Three talking heads disparaging people who would deem to think Donald Trump was a responsible president, one being the host laughing uproariously. Afterward, he attempted to explain that he was not really laughing at a large portion of the American public, but at a joke line. We know who he was laughing at. Us.

There is a great divide. There are as many smart people who do not want to control people’s lives as there are that want to micromanage our lives because they believe we cannot manage on our own. Many people have fallen into this mode of thinking. They take decisions out of the hands of others and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that people can no longer make decisions for themselves by reason of they have not made any decisions and thus lost that ability. The COVID period has validated that.

People attempt to define the divide in America. The divide is simply this. The people who believe Americans can and should make decisions for themselves and those who think others are incapable, i.e., because ‘they’ are smarter and wiser, decisions should be made by them. Pick your side. I believe in Americans. They don’t.

P.S. If Mr. Biden wanted to show some leadership and bring us together, he could give a speech and tell his supporters who have suggested retribution against Trump supporters to stop it. He should make clear their behavior is atrocious and un-American. That speech would go a long way toward legitimizing his desire to reach across the aisle.


This entry by Bruce Bialosky was originally posted at Flash Report on Sunday, November 29th, 2020 at 2:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.

Election Fraud and the State of the Republic

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Some years ago, a popular phrase was, “you are what you eat.”

Today, we might more accurately say, that from a political perspective, “you are what you read.”

Perhaps the best example is the difference between the Establishment mainstream Progressive press and the more Conservative independent press. The Epoch Times is giving considerable details on specifics of election fraud, while the Washington Post hardly mentions it. NEWSMAX television gives extensive coverage, CNN hardly at all.

Therefore, if you read or listen to one source rather than the other, your entire impression of the current debate over election integrity would be different. It is almost as if Americans are split, living in an alternative universe, because their information flows are so different in perspective.

Notice I did not say Democrat or Republican. There are an uncomfortable number of Republicans, who disliked the outsider Trump, who seem oddly unconcerned about the integrity of the process, because the result rid them of Trump. This position is perhaps even more odious than that of Democrats, who understandably for partisan reasons, liked the results. Republicans are supposed to know better. A good example is the recent editorial from National Review, that believes all of this controversy is simply because Trump can’t admit he lost.

This should not be the case. Either there is evidence of election fraud or there is not. We might differ in opinions but it seems today, we now differ in facts as well.

Thus, for many of us, we see evidence of significant fraud in the election, while the victors (mostly Democrats and Progressives) see no problem at all with the recent election.

In a sense, this should strike us all as odd. As voters, should we not all be concerned about the integrity of our elections? Afterall, the whole idea of “We the People” is that government works for us, not we work for the government. We are supposed to be ruled by the consent of the governed, and if that consent cannot be transmitted to political power in what all should agree was an honest process, then the very integrity of our democratic process is in doubt.

If you feel elections are a “rigged game”, then the very faith in the country is undermined. This is a dangerous development for everyone.

The current thinking seems to break into three camps.

There was no election fraud, and any suggestion that there was “undermines democracy.”  However, if you truly believe there was no fraud, and this is just pique by Trump over the results, an investigation would prove your case. Therefore, why would you object to an investigation?

There was election fraud, but not to a degree that it would really alter the outcome. This is an interesting position since it raises the question, exactly how much fraud are you willing to tolerate? And how much fraud was there if you oppose the very investigations that will uncover the extent of the fraud?

The third camp, says there is already enough fraud determined in key states like Pennsylvania and Nevada, that the election results have gone to the wrong party. Some 70% of Republicans seem to believe this position.

This is an enormous number of people who feel the election was a sham. Further, this is really bad for the country.

Mr. Biden may well take power, with a serious split in his own party, only to be faced with huge numbers of people who feel he is illegitimate.

This is much worse than “gridlock.” We are talking about millions of people who doubt the government is even properly elected, let alone divided.

At The Prickly Pear, our position is as follows: Investigate to the maximum degree possible the integrity of the elective process. That mean judges and legislators should not impede an investigation. Priority should be given to the integrity of the elective process and a liberal approach should be taken. We will accept the results whatever they may be, after an exhaustive and unbiased uncovering of the facts.

Thus, it would seem to us, there is no harm to any of the three positions by having a complete and comprehensive investigation of the election results. Whomever is determined the winner, takes office with much more confidence.

What is most important right now, is not which candidate is elected. What is at stake is the very faith Americans have in the electoral system.

Addressing Election Integrity in Arizona for 2020 and Beyond

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Fresh off the heels of a ten-hour public forum in which several Arizona lawmakers and President Trump’s legal team—led by attorney Rudy Giuliani—discussed potential irregularities and fraud with the Presidential election results, State leadership is facing extreme pressure to hold a formal legislative hearing and overturn the certification of the 2020 elections in Arizona.

There are several key takeaways lawmakers and patriots alike should consider from the events that have transpired as we chart a path to move forward.

1. Confidence in our Election System is Precarious

The fact is approximately half of the American population has lost faith in our election system. This is a democratic crisis that left unattended will irreparably damage our republic.

Regardless of the scope or degree election fraud played in the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, only a comprehensive review and debate on a state-by-state basis will uncover these facts and, more importantly, mend the broken fidelity between millions of voters and the promise of free and fair elections.

Calls for action by leaders such as Congressman Andy Biggs to conduct a full audit are appropriate and dire. As the states most under scrutiny – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona—move forward on the certification process, they owe it to the public to investigate every aspect of how the elections were executed and make these proceedings and findings available for public consumption. Full transparency is critical.

2. Election Fraud is Real

Election fraud occurs. It has been well documented. Whether that takes the form of holding raffles and giving away gift cards in exchange for votes in Nevada, ballot harvesting in North Carolina, or a Judge caught taking bribes to stuff the ballot box in Philadelphia, election fraud exists and is a real problem.

Yet despite decades of evidence, it has been irritating to watch the media, which trafficked absurd Russian collusion conspiracy theories, election “hacking” claims by the Clintons and lionized Stacey Abrams, now harrumphing anyone that raises concerns about voter fraud. Legacy media should be the last people questioning the credibility of election fraud concerns when they have zero credibility themselves.

So as the process moves forward, the Club believes the Trump campaign has a right to and should exhaust all legal remedies to investigate and review the results of the 2020 election.

3. Election Integrity Reforms are Needed

In the last few years, Arizona has taken some steps to reduce the more nefarious methods of voter fraud. A ban on ballot harvesting (which Democrats at the time claim didn’t exist), reducing the abuse of “emergency” voting centers and enhanced voter ID laws have improved the process.

However, Arizona still has work to do, and additional reforms must be prioritized by the legislature. Areas of reform include additional transparency and oversight on vote tabulation, Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) fixes and enhanced scrubbing of our voter rolls to remove non-eligible voters from our lists.

Election integrity continues to be a priority for the Club and we support legislative efforts that improve the credibility, transparency and security of our elections. This year’s session will no doubt be ripe for many of these reforms that have failed to pass in recent years.

4. Conservatives Must Continue to Fight

Arizona has some work to do to improve our elections systems. However, concerns over election fraud cannot be used as an excuse to not engage politically or ignore that Democrats have made gains in the state. The thinning Republican majorities at the legislature have not been garnered through vote rigging. Irrespective of the 2020 election outcome, our focus must be on building our movement and growing our numbers so that we can win outside the margin of cheating.

And above all else, we MUST continue to fight. Right now, Donald Trump’s campaign team is in Georgia to help Kelly Loeffler and David Purdue win their races and retain the Senate Majority. In fact, Donald Trump himself is planning a visit to the state this weekend, despite concerns over voter fraud. If Trump is not throwing in the towel, then neither should conservatives.


This Blog from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club was originally published on December 4,  2020 and is republished with permission. The opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of The Prickly Pear or of our sponsors.