December 2011 - Posts

Eric Holder's Speech Demonstrates Radicalism of DOJ
Wed, Dec 14 2011 7:01 AM

 

Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a disturbing speech last night on voting laws at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library & Museum. His comments are indicative of the radical elites at the Department of Justice under President Obama.  There’s much to say about a number of voting rights topics.

Let’s start with voter ID.

Holder specifically mentioned that “Texas and South Carolina, for example, have enacted laws establishing new photo identification requirements that we’re reviewing.”  Then, why did Holder feel the need to “assure” the audience that there will be a “thorough” review of laws that have been found constitutional?  (Did the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Stevens no less, not undertake a thorough review already?)  The DOJ has the requirement by law to ensure that states clean their voter rolls.  There was absolutely no mention of that obligation.

Holder tries to claim credit for “filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island.”  Why mention the state but not Rhode Island's voter ID law passed by a legislature composed of a majority of Democrats?  Although not a Section 5 state requiring preclearance by the DOJ, it is an example of a voter ID law that the Left conveniently tries to ignore.

Also, Holder praises the result of the same day registration referendum in Maine because “the ability to shape our laws remains in the hands of the American people.”   Dear Mr. Holder, as the American people overwhelmingly support voter ID, why have you taken an “aggressive” stance against voter ID?

Next, the related issue of vote fraud.

Holder said that “voting fraud is uncommon.”  But if you read carefully, he only refers to “in-person voting fraud.”  Like the vote fraud deniers on the Left, he tries to conveniently ignore the many other forms of vote fraud: noncitizen voting, double voting, absentee ballot fraud, voting with a fictitious registration, voting from a place where you do not reside, etc.

Holder asserts that “making voter registration easier is simply not likely, by itself, to make our elections more susceptible to fraud.”  Does he really believe that a system such as “vouching” in a same-day registration state does not make elections susceptible to fraud? Let’s not forget fraud involving vouching in 2010 in Minnesota.

Then, let’s move to military voters.

Holder makes the claim that the DOJ has “worked successfully and comprehensively to protect the voting rights of U.S. service members and veterans.”  Really?  The RNLA was one of the many who demanded that the DOJ ensure that military voters could vote in the fall of 2010 after the Obama administration’s poor record of defending the rights of veterans. 

Finally, what election reform did Holder actually propose we institute?

Holder used this speech to relaunch Obama’s Senate bill on election practices.  Holder said the bill is “an effort to deter and punish …harmful practices” in elections.   Holder’s administration is aimed at punishing someone: his political opponents, and they will seek to punish whether or not their opponents’ practices are harmful.

And this man leads the Department of Justice?  Hardly.

 

Share |
LeftistSpeaks: DNC Advisor Fails to Discredit RNLA Vote Fraud Map on Huffington Post
Tue, Dec 13 2011 7:48 AM

The attacks from the left have begun, and again their assertions fail to reflect reality. Former DNC advisor and progressive blogger Debbie Hines on The Huffington Post seeks to discredit our survey by misreading the data presented.  Hines’ op-ed is just another leftist attempt to ignore the existence of vote fraud by defining vote fraud narrowly.

Nowhere does the RNLA indicate that the vote fraud map is comprehensive.  Nor did the RNLA even attempt to be comprehensive.  It was a limited survey done to see if we could quickly find prosecutions or convictions for vote fraud in a large number of states.  For those wanting something more comprehensive, the RNLA reports on vote fraud almost daily on its blog, and we have plenty of material. 

Of course, the Left ignores vote fraud on a daily basis and tries to define vote fraud extremely narrowly as voter impersonation.  But don’t take our word for the prevalence of vote fraud. Listen to MSNBC liberal Chris Mathews, former Democrat Representative and Congressional Black Caucus member Artur Davis, and leading Rhode Island African -American senior citizen and state Senator Harold Metts.  All have recently admitted witnessing widespread vote fraud. 

The purpose of the vote fraud map was to try to find which states had at least one vote fraud charge filed recently.  At least 46 states have had problems.  It doesn’t mean four states and the District of Columbia have had no vote fraud charges (as Hines claims), but that our survey was limited  (which involved surfing the Internet in response to a request of a New York Times editor) to finding a large number of states quickly and  was not meant to be inclusive of all the states.

Just because we list one or two problems in certain states does not mean that there are only one or two cases at all (as Hines asserts). The goal of the survey was to show that vote fraud does happen across the country and although most vote fraud does not get prosecuted, most states have brought vote fraud charges. 

Lastly, Debbie Hines also misses the point. The map is about all types of vote fraud.   The NAACP report challenged a number of voting law reforms, not just voter ID.  The voting laws mentioned in the report include absentee ballot standards, same day registration, early voting, felon voting as well as voter ID.  The Left aims to limit vote fraud to just one or a few kinds of vote fraud, and Debbie Hines has joined that bandwagon. 

All vote fraud takes away legal votes and is not limited to one or two types. We wish the Left were more concerned about voter disenfranchisement than protecting illegal activities.  Every illegal vote, by definition, disenfranchises a legal voter.  The point of the vote fraud map is to show vote fraud charges have been filed all across the country.

For the hypocrisy of those claiming vote fraud does not exist, people like Dennie Hines need to look no further than liberal leaders opposing the issue such as vote fraudster Al Sharpton.  The RNLA deplores all kinds of disenfranchisement of voters.  It is too bad those on the Left do not agree.  

Share |
Vote Fraud Denier Al Sharpton Committed Vote Fraud
Mon, Dec 12 2011 9:33 AM

The leader of vote fraud deniers, Al Sharpton, who has a feature on MSNBC called “Block the Vote,” himself committed vote fraud.  As the Daily Beast reports:

A grand jury report issued by Democratic District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman in 1984, which is used at the very top of Heritage’s history of vote fraud in America, culminates with a detailed description of the attempted theft of a 1982 congressional election by Sharpton’s then-mentor-and-sidekick Brooklyn state senator Vander Beatty, who went to jail for orchestrating the largest forgery scheme in American politics. Sharpton is alleged to have participated in the scheme. 

The liberal Daily Beast indicates that Sharpton “registered at three different addresses scattered across the [Brooklyn] borough.”   In court, Sharpton violated election law by registering at three addresses because three black Democratic district leaders wanted to run him against other candidates. Sharpton was knocked off the ballot.

A Village Voice journalist reported that Sharpton was “forging thousands of signatures on voter-registration cards to create enough fraud to invalidate” a win by an opponent of Brooklyn state senator Vander Beatty. A jury that convicted Vander Beatty found that Beatty used his own orchestrated forgeries as proof of so many irregularities that two courts overturned his opponent’s win.  So a probable reason Sharpton denies vote fraud when there is so much other evidence of it really occurring is because he, himself, made up vote fraud in a backhanded strategy to win elections through the courts instead of by votes fairly cast. (If you doubt that there’s evidence of vote fraud today, check out the vote fraud mapJust last week, the Associated Press reported that three individuals in Kentucky pled guilty to vote fraud in federal court.  All three individuals are currently listed on the vote fraud map.)

Ken Shepherd of Newsbusters reported last week, “All this week MSNBC is giving Politics Nation host Al Sharpton a platform to attack voter ID laws as a move to ‘Block the Vote’ and keep black voters from the polls.”  MSNBC apparently thinks there’s nothing wrong with giving an alleged vote fraudster the platform to deny vote fraud exists.

 

Share |
Obomination: The Left Responds to Vote Fraud Investigation by Denying Vote Fraud Exists
Fri, Dec 9 2011 8:53 AM

Prosecutors in St. Joseph County, Indiana are now currently investigating what appears to be a concerted effort of forging signatures to get Obama on the primary ballot. The question must be asked: Was the person now in office really even supposed to be on the ballot?

Instead of confronting this serious concern and supporting reforms at the polls, the left proceeds to flat out deny vote fraud exists.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) issued a report this week claiming that there were “a grand total of nine suspected fraudulent votes” over the last decade. A mere 9.

Well, the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) researched this issue too. Guess how many states have had vote fraud issues according to a brief survey by RNLA. 10? 20? Try 46. (Note that the RNLA did not try to find all instances of vote fraud, as our blog tracks that on an almost daily basis.  Rather, the RNLA sought to research how many states have problems with vote fraud.)

These are not unsubstantiated reports; a federal, state or local criminal prosecutor actually charged each of the individuals listed with a crime such as absentee ballot fraud, impersonation fraud, double voting, felon voting, noncitizen voting and vote buying.  

The vote fraud deniers often derive their research from the Brennan Center, which published a poorly researched paper by Justin Levitt. Upon reading these papers from the NAACP and the Brennan Center, one wonders if the authors ever cracked open a newspaper in the last ten years. In addition to vote fraud cases, charges and years, the RNLA website often link to news articles from papers across the country.

Then again, the reason for the shoddy research might be that the Brennan Center staff is reading The New York Times. Last month, The New York Times editorial page editor dared twitter followers to offer him any examples of vote fraud but concluded that we “Haven’t gotten any.”

Here’s some news for the Times: Forty-six states have charged individuals with vote fraud in the last decade. This is not a thing of the past or something that only a few encounter. This is a problem that affects almost the entire country today.  The RNLA is a small group without the resources of the NAACP, The New York Times, or the Brennan Center.  If they looked, they could find vote fraud across the country, as the RNLA did in just a limited survey. 

Obama’s party and his administration have launched a wide-scale assault on necessary electoral reforms like voter ID. Obama called voter ID laws a “big mistake,” and the Justice Department pledges “aggressive” scrutiny of laws which actually are constitutional according to the Supreme Court. And the DNC Chair, former President Clinton, and Jesse Jackson have all compared such laws to racially discriminatory laws of the past, such as Jim Crow and the poll tax.

The NAACP report also claims that “the risk of voter fraud appears to be little more than an after-the-fact rationalization for discriminatory laws.” They claim there’s a hidden agenda, but it seems like ignoring vote fraud is a convenient way to let it continue.

Someone’s a fraud here, and it’s not those calling for open, fair and honest elections now. 

by Maya Noronha | 1 comment(s)
Filed under:
Share |
DNC Chair’s Voter ID Comment Is Finalist for PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year”
Thu, Dec 8 2011 8:03 AM

 

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that voter ID was comparable to Jim Crow laws has been featured as one of the top ten lies of 2011 by PolitiFact.

Here’s the ‘winning’ lie (which was said to CNN's Roland Martin in June):

You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally -- and very transparently -- block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates.

PolitiFact criticized “the inflammatory nature of the phrase, which all but calls the laws’ supporters racists.”  PolitiFact points out that voter ID has a “feasible ‘out’ -- getting an ID card.”  PolitiFact concludes, “they would not return the United States to Jim Crow. Saying so offers more heat than light.”

PolitiFact relied on input from Harvard Law School Professor Michael J. Klarman, FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie, East Georgia College historian Thomas Adams Upchurch, Yale Law School Professor Heather Gerkin, and Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen to rate Wasserman Schultz’s comment false.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s character came into question this year also for letting the DNC use footage of House chamber for political ads in violation of House of Representatives ethics rules.

Will Debbie Wasserman Schultz ‘win’ the title of ‘liar of the year’?  She stands a good chance, but then again, President Obama is also a finalist on the top ten list... twice.

 

Share |
Brown, Collins and Snowe: Among the Senators Who Voted No
Wed, Dec 7 2011 5:44 AM

Senator Harry Reid failed to get enough votes to get another radical into a robe.  With cloture failing to receive 60 votes, Caitlin Halligan was filibustered.  Among those voting nay to cloture were Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

The RNLA had previously issued a letter of opposition. Thomson Reuters News & Insight reported on the RNLA’s position on the nomination:

The Republican National Lawyers Association has also come out against her nomination, claiming that she made inconsistent statements about her judicial philosophy. In Senate testimony, the association says, Halligan wasn't candid about her views on the Constitution as a ‘living document.’

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Ms. Halligan’s record of advocacy for an activist view of the judiciary and a legal career…leads any reasonable person to conclude that she would bring that activism to the court.”  He added, “We should be putting people on the bench who are committed to an even-handed interpretation of the law so everyone who walks into a courtroom knows he or she will have a fair shake. In my view, Ms. Halligan is not such a nominee.”

The ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Republican, Charles Grassley, said, “there is a lot at stake with nominations to this court” (referring to the D.C. Circuit, to which Halligan was nominated).  Despite the Democrats’ complaints, they have been guilty of obstruction to the D.C. Circuit. One specific example Grassley identified was Bush’s D.C. Circuit nominee Peter Keisler; Grassley explained, “Mr. Keisler was eminently qualified to serve on that court. He had a distinguished academic and professional record. Despite his qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for a committee vote, which never came.”  Grassley pointed out that six of Bush's nominees, including eventual Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, endured “delays, filibusters, multiple hearings, and other forms of obstruction.” 

 

Share |
Halligan Would Undermine Second Amendment
Tue, Dec 6 2011 10:29 AM

The D.C. Circuit is often considered the “second highest court in the land” because of the important decisions heard by its judges.  One such example is District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment case.  Judge Silberman’s 2007 opinion was affirmed by Justice Scalia the following year. 

Given the role that the D.C. Circuit plays in pivotal cases which greatly impact our country, nominees for those seats should be seriously scrutinized.  Caitlin Halligan, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, gives cause for concern.  Instead of faithfully upholding the Second Amendment, Caitlin Halligan, if she were to be confirmed as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, would likely undermine the right to bear arms.  The National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America have both issued letters in opposition to her nomination.

Halligan worked to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which passed Congress with strong support for both sides of the aisle.  When Halligan was solicitor general of New York, the state sued the firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of guns by third parties.  In 2001, Halligan represented New York in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers, arguing that the legal sale of handguns created a “public nuisance” under state law.  Halligan was also involved in an amicus curiae brief in the Second Circuit claiming that the PLCAA was unconstitutional, but her arguments were rejected by the Second Circuit, and by every other appellate court considering the issue.

Halligan has also mischaracterized the PLCAA, claiming that the PLCAA “would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions—through the legal system or their own state legislatures—that might reduce gun crimes or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers”  and that the PLCAA “would make the gun industry the only industry in the country to be so broadly shielded from lawsuits.”  In fact, Congress had previously passed targeted liability protection for many industries and other enterprises, ranging from aircraft manufacturers to food banks to makers of medical implants.

Halligan’s views on the Second Amendment have been widely rejected by every other court.  She came out in opposition to a law that had wide bipartisan support.  Her legal analysis of gun laws was not even factually correct.  Halligan should not be on the second highest court in the land.

Share |
All Political Persuasions Can Support Voter ID Together
Mon, Dec 5 2011 10:30 AM

 

“Americans of all political persuasions can agree that it is the integrity of the vote that safeguards the integrity of our democratic process.” 

This is what Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has said about voter ID.  His comments stand in sharp contrast to what the Democratic National Committee chair has been saying.  Debbie Wasserman Schulz declared recently, “Republicans across the country have engaged in a full-scale attack on the right to vote, seeking ways to restrict or limit voters’ ability to cast their ballots for their own partisan advantage…Democrats refuse to stand by and watch this happen.”

These comments fail to capture the real truth about voter ID.  Voter ID is something that transcends political party because it is a good government issue.  And it is ironic that Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks of Republicans as the ones behind voter ID when there are prominent Democrats who support voter ID.  The Bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, which was co-chaired by U.S. President Jimmy Carter (D) and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker, III (R), came out in favor of voter ID. In Rhode Island, a legislature where Democrats hold the majority in large proportions, a voter ID law was passed.  Then it was signed by a governor who is an Independent.  People from both sides of the aisle – and even those in the middle - have thrown their support behind voter ID.

Voter ID can be accepted by Americans of all persuasions.  It already has.  But you don’t have to take Mr. Priebus’ word for it. 

Take the words of former Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) who was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus: “I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one.

Or of Governor Lincoln D. Chafee (I-RI): I believe that requiring identification at the polling place is a reasonable request to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections.”

Or Harold Metts (D-Providence), African American and senior citizen who sponsored the voter ID bill in the Rhode Island state Senate: “For me it is not about red or blue states, or who is on the right or who is on the left.   It’s about doing the right thing!”

From wherever you come from or what party you belong to, voter ID is good for this country and deserves your support.

 

Share |
Obomination: Obama Continues to Support ACORN
Fri, Dec 2 2011 9:56 AM

Apparently, Obama’s right hand (his DOJ) ignores what the left hand (which Obama uses to sign) is doing.  Obama’s Office of Justice Programs awarded a grant of $138,130 in 2011 to Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) in order to “sustain the efforts” of the organization. But wait!  In December of 2009, President Obama signed into law a bill that prohibits federal funds from going to ACORN.

Unfortunately, continuing support of ACORN is not surprising for President Obama.  Our 44th President titled his campaign’s voter registration effort “Project Vote” which has the same name of an organization intricately tied to ACORN. As a young lawyer, Barack Obama worked for a Chicago chapter of Project Vote!

The media widely reported that ACORN shut down back in March of 2010, and with that news, many eyes were turned away from following this disgraced organization.  The President also likes to appear to be distanced from ACORN and its fraudulent efforts, but to find out what Obama really supports, you need to just follow the money.

Share |
Support for Voter ID Spreads at the Local Level
Thu, Dec 1 2011 8:56 AM

North Carolina governor Bev Perdue vetoed the state’s voter ID bill last June.  While some might consider that veto a setback for election integrity in the Tar Heel State, voter ID laws are still being considered… at the county level.

Gaston County passed the measure.  According to the Gaston Gazette, County Commission Chairman Donnie Loftis and Vice Chairman Tracy Philbeck, sponsors of the resolution in Gaston County, said they are “following the wishes of local constituents who see voter identification as a way to ensure elections are fair, open and honest.”  Loftis and Philbeck are asking the state’s other counties to submit similar requests for legislation.  Before they can be enforced, the county’s measures must be approved by the state legislature.

This local effort for voter ID is gaining traction across the state. This past Monday, Craven County Commissioners approved a voter ID measure.   Davidson County has followed, and another measure is being considered in Rowan County

75% of Americans – across all demographic lines – support voter ID.  Governor Perdue vetoed voter ID and even has said “we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years.”

At least local officials in North Carolina are not so out of touch with their constituents.

Share |
More Posts « Previous page