Over the last two days, liberals on a number of websites have been beside themselves over a post written by Chuck Norris. On Tuesday, for example, the far-left blog Crooks and Liars said Norris put forward a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton is set to steal the 2016 election through voter fraud.
The site said Norris made the claim at WND, but failed to provide a link to the original story so readers could verify the claim for themselves. We found the same basic story at a number of left-wing sites and articles. With only a couple of exceptions, all of the posts we found failed to provide a link to Norris’ article
“You see, it’s a win-win-win-win-win-win to socialist Cloward-Piven progressives like Obama and Hillary,” reads the paragraph quoted by all of the various sites. “Illegals flood the country; illegals get driver’s licenses; illegals get voter rights; illegals get welfare benefits; illegals overload the U.S. welfare system; illegals keep progressives in office, who crown the Cloward-Piven strategy and the fundamental transformation of America as a victory.”
But were these sites being completely honest with their readers? We searched WND and found the actual article. It turns out the paragraph being used was just one small part of a lengthy 20-paragraph-long op-ed that went into a fair amount of detail regarding the Cloward and Piven strategy and how it could easily be used to win a presidential election. What Norris provided was hardly a “conspiracy theory” as liberal bloggers maintained, but a thorough analysis of how Clinton could game the system to win.
Almost all of the bloggers in question, for example, failed to present a quote from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who said: “I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory.” As Norris pointed out, “it’s not a coincidence either that these new drivers and voters, who have flooded and are still flooding into our country through porous borders, are also at the heart of plan to overload the U.S. welfare system under the Cloward-Piven strategy.”
None of this is a “conspiracy.” For a growing number of Americans, it has become a fact. And it’s enough to cause Norris concern.
“For example in Oregon, legislators have just enacted a subsidiary law that registers a person to vote when they obtain or renew a state driver’s license,” Norris wrote. “That might sound all fine and dandy, too, until one realizes that a stone’s throw away in neighboring states like California, they are doling out licenses to 1.5 million illegals over the next three years. How long will it be until California’s Motor Voter laws extend voting rights to illegals, too?”
Again, this was kept from those reading left-wing blogs and writers looking to demonize conservatives concerned about the integrity of the elections. For them, it is easier to laugh such concerns off as a “conspiracy” instead of looking at the evidence being presented.
Worse yet, they make it easier to fool their readers by cherry-picking certain parts of articles, taking them out of context. Then they refuse to provide links to the original article lest someone discover the attempted deception. Moreover, the word “fraud” figures heavily in the attack pieces, but is not found once in Norris’ article. Neither is the word “conspiracy,” but readers of those left-wing writers would never know that.
Norris even highlighted a story he said “demonstrates the power of her connection to the Clintons.” According to Norris, the story was provided by Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Bait and Switch, and is part of an article posted at the American Sociological Association.
“Sometime in the mid-1990s, Frances found herself on the way to the airport without her driver’s license,” Ehrenreich wrote. “She called Richard at their home and asked him to find it and bring it to her at the train station. He failed to find it, and instead brought her a photo of herself and Bill Clinton taken at the time of the signing of the motor voter bill. That was enough to get Frances on the plane.”
While some may disagree with Norris’ analysis, he did one thing practically all of the liberal bloggers failed to do. He provided links to his sources as well as context and honest analysis.
It’s also no secret that Democrats want illegal aliens to vote, as an article at Investors.com points out. Citing a Rasmussen poll, IBD said that some 53 percent of Democrats want illegal aliens to have the vote. A voting bloc that large would almost certainly ensure a victory for Clinton if she becomes the nominee. Sadly, 21 percent of Republicans also want illegals to have the vote, Rasmussen said.
Liberal bloggers like those demonizing Norris fail to take such information into consideration. Perhaps they want us to believe Rasmussen is part of the giant right-wing conspiracy to keep elections fair and honest.