>>11748985 ‘One kind of fraud’: Biden won thousands of illegal votes by noncitizens, study shows

This is the study the Washington Times is quoting from, embedded in the attached article a spreadsheet proving all the data

Quantifying Illegal Votes Cast by Non-Citizens in the Battleground States of the 2020 Presidential Election

By James D. Agresti

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/quantifying-illegal-votes-cast-by-non-citizens-in-the-battleground-states-of-the-2020-presidential-election

Based on current population data from the Census Bureau and voting data from previous elections, Just Facts has conducted a study to estimate the number of votes illegally cast by non-citizens in the battleground states of the 2020 election. The results—documented in this spreadsheet—show that such fraudulent activities netted Joe Biden the following extra votes in these tightly contested states:

Arizona: 51,081 ± 17,689

Georgia: 54,950 ± 19,025

Michigan: 22,585 ± 7,842

Nevada: 22,021 ± 7,717

North Carolina: 46,218 ± 16,001

Pennsylvania: 32,706 ± 11,332

Wisconsin: 5,010 ± 1,774

If the lower end of these illegal vote estimates were removed from the vote tallies as of November 8, 2020, 2:00 AM EST, Donald Trump would be leading in states that have a total of 259 electoral votes, or 11 shy of the 270 needed to win the presidency. If the upper end of the illegal vote estimates were removed, Trump would be leading in states that have 285 electoral votes, or 15 more than needed to win the presidency

These estimates account for just one type of election fraud, and they tend to understate it because they depend on Census surveys, which are known to undercount non-citizens.

Just Facts asked two Ph.D. scholars who specialize in data analytics to critically review this study, and they assessed it as follows:

“I find this research of great value—clear in its assumptions, clear about the sources of data used, methodologically sound, and fair in its conclusions. Furthermore, it contains enough references to allow any interested person to ‘fact-check’ every aspect of it.”

– Michael Cook, Ph.D. Mathematician, Scientific and Quantitative Researcher

“Instead of adding politics, vitriol, and bias to this timely, heated topic, this study provides a credible data analysis that supports a strong hypothesis of non-citizens having a significant effect on this election. Any serious critic should try improving on these estimates, as opposed to dismissing them with unproven claims.”

– Dr. Andrew Glen, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Operations Research, The United States Military Academy, and Award-Winning Researcher in the Field of Computational Probability

Pathways to Illegal Voting

All 50 states require people to be U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in federal elections, and federal law forbids non-citizens from falsely claiming U.S. citizenship to register to vote. However, enforcement mechanisms for such laws are limited, and opportunities to get around them are ample.

The federal voter registration form requires people to declare under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens, but it does not require them to provide documentary evidence that they are citizens. Several states, including Arizona and Georgia, tried to implement such a requirement, but they were blocked from doing so by court rulings backed by the Obama administration

>>11750080

More and primary website of reporting

https://www.justfacts.com/

On our main website, Just Facts provides comprehensive research on major policy issues. Here at Just Facts Daily, we publish highly factual articles about recent news and current events. Most of these articles debunk falsehoods propagated by media outlets, politicians, activists, and others.

Just Facts Daily typically addresses matters that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations. There is no need for us to duplicate quality work that is already accessible, so we generally step in when others have not tackled a topic or failed to do so honestly or competently.

What qualifies Just Facts to reliably address those thorny issues? We adhere to exacting Standards of Credibility, and unlike many media outlets and so-called “fact checkers,” Just Facts:

doesn’t rely on unproven claims from cherry-picked “experts.”

doesn’t misrepresent sources.

doesn’t promulgate half-truths.

doesn’t employ bait-and-switch tactics.

doesn’t apply double standards.

doesn’t play “gotcha” by correcting people for minor misstatements.

doesn’t assign subjective ratings like “Pinocchios” or “Pants on Fire.”

doesn’t merely cover the news but conducts in-depth policy research.

offers an actionable Guarantee of Integrity through which we read and answer every serious critique.

We also make it easy to discuss the facts on this site. No registration is required. We only ask that you keep the discussion relevant and civil.

What You’ll Find

Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about freedom of speech. Learn why the founders of the U.S. included free speech in the Bill of Rights, how courts have ruled in such cases, and much more. For example:

• Totalitarianism

• Private Party Suppression

• Student Rights

• Hateful Speech

• Calls for Violence

• Private Property

https://www.justfacts.com/free_speech

• Benjamin Franklin was a famous scientist, sage, U.S. founding father, and president of the nation’s first anti-slavery society.[1] [2] In 1722—five decades before the outset of America’s Revolutionary War—the state of Massachusetts imprisoned Franklin’s brother for criticizing the government.[3] [4]

• In response, Franklin—who was then 16 years old—used an alias to write a commentary about the purposes of free speech in which he quoted the following from a London newspaper:

In “those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own.”

“Guilt only dreads Liberty of Speech, which drags it out of its lurking Holes, and exposes its Deformity and Horror to Daylight.”

“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech….”[5] [6]

• Fifteen years later, the Pennsylvania Gazette published an anonymous essay about free speech thought to be written by Franklin.[7] [8] It began:

Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.

Those abuses of the freedom of speech are the excesses of liberty. They ought to be repressed; but to whom dare we commit the care of doing it? An evil magistrate entrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible.[9]

• The essay then provided numerous examples from history to support those statements, such as the following:

Augustus Caesar, Emperor of the Roman Empire from 27 BC to 14 AD,[10] “introduced the law whereby libeling was involved in the penalties of treason against the state. This law established his tyranny; and, for one mischief which it prevented, ten thousand evils, horrible and afflicting, sprung up in its place. Thenceforward every person’s life and fortune depended on the vile breath of informers. The construction of words being arbitrary, and left to the decision of the judges, no man could write or open his mouth without being in danger of forfeiting his head.”[11]

During the reign of Henry the Eighth, the King of England from 1509–1547,[12] “every light expression, which happened to displease him, was construed by his supple judges into a libel, and sometimes extended to high treason.”[13]

Under Charles the First, the King of England from 1625–1649,[14] “corporal punishments, inflicted with all the circumstances of cruelty and infamy,” kept people “under a servile fear of the like treatment; so that for several years no one durst publicly speak or write in defense of the liberties of the people, which the king’s ministers, his privy council, and his judges had trampled under their feet.”[15]

Under Charles the Second, the King of England from 1660–1685,[16] “a licenser was appointed for the stage and the press; no plays were encouraged but what had a tendency to debase the minds of the people. … Thus the stage and the press, under the direction of a licenser, became battering engines against religion, virtue, and liberty. Those who had courage enough to write in their defense were stigmatized as schismatics, and punished as disturbers of the government.”

• After listing the above examples and others, the essay stated:

In the former part of this paper it was endeavored to prove by historical facts, the fatal dangers that necessarily attend a restraint of freedom of speech and the liberty of the press; upon which the following reflection naturally occurs, viz. that whoever attempts to suppress either of these our natural rights, ought to be regarded as an enemy to liberty and the constitution.[17]

• In 1783, near the end of America’s war for independence, George Washington—the military’s commander-in-chief—declared that:

if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent, we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.[18] [19] [20]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Justice Department Reaches Landmark Agreement with Massachusetts Department of Children and Families to Address Discrimination Against Parents with Disabilities

The Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) announced today that they reached a landmark agreement with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF).

The agreement resolves findings by the Justice Department and HHS that DCF discriminated against parents with disabilities in the administration of its child welfare program in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This is the first Department of Justice settlement to address disability discrimination by a state child welfare agency.

“The stakes are never higher than when a parent faces the possibility of losing a child,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Civil Rights Division. “Individuals with disabilities have just as much a right to raise their children as any other person in this free country, and no government should unnecessarily infringe upon that sacred right. While child welfare agencies are faced with challenging and weighty decisions on a daily basis, they must always strive to ensure that no child is removed from a parent on the basis of unsupported stereotypes, discriminatory attitudes, or other unlawful reasons. This agreement will ensure that parents with disabilities are treated as individuals, and that they receive the supports and services they need to have an equal opportunity to retain or regain custody of their children. We believe this agreement will not only help thousands of families in Massachusetts, but also will provide a roadmap for child welfare agencies nationwide on how to treat parents with disabilities with the fairness, dignity, and respect that they deserve.”

“Parents with disabilities should never lose custody of their children due to discriminatory assumptions about their abilities. The love of a parent, coupled with proper support services, can overcome a multiplicity of challenges,” said Roger Severino, Director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights. “We are pleased to have reached this great result with the Department of Justice and Massachusetts.”

In 2015, the Department of Justice and HHS jointly found that DCF discriminated against a mother with a developmental disability and sought to terminate her parental rights to her infant daughter based on assumptions about her disability. Over the past five years, the Department of Justice and HHS received similar complaints against DCF from parents with physical, hearing, developmental, and other disabilities. The departments also received numerous complaints alleging that DCF denied requests for reasonable modifications, failed to provide interpreters to individuals with hearing impairments, and otherwise denied parents with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from DCF’s programs and services. The Justice Department investigated and substantiated many of these allegations, as well as allegations that DCF’s methods of administering its programs and services have the effect of discriminating against parents with disabilities.

Under today’s agreement, DCF will take critical steps to ensure the ADA’s protections extend to parents with disabilities throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. DCF will not base decisions about removal of a child on stereotypes or generalizations about persons with disabilities. Rather, DCF will base such decisions on an individualized assessment of the parent with a disability and objective facts. Additionally, DCF will appoint statewide and regional coordinators to oversee DCF’s efforts to comply with the ADA and Section 504; create a new Parents with Disabilities Policy, including processes for requesting disability-based accommodations and filing disability-based complaints; train staff on DCF’s obligations to parents with disabilities and its new policies and procedures; and periodically report to the Department of Justice and HHS on its handling of accommodation requests and disability-related complaints.

The ADA requires that child welfare agencies provide parents with disabilities an equal opportunity to access and benefit from their services. Such agencies must reasonably modify policies and practices when necessary to avoid disability discrimination. They must ensure that communication with parents with disabilities is effective. And they must not use criteria or other administrative methods that result in disability discrimination.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-landmark-agreement-massachusetts-department-children-and-families