Thursday, October 30, 2014

Vote Fraud Deniers Attack the “Police” to Protect Democrats

James O’Keefe has a new video that once again shows the attitude on the left toward vote fraud, this time on non-citizen voting.  O’Keefe has been attacked for his methods and his results are ignored by the left wing media; but the videos speak for themselves.  That is the pattern from the far left vote fraud deniers.  Ignore or attack the people who expose the vote fraud instead of address the underlying problem exposed.

It is not just new media experts that the left will attack like O’Keefe;  they will go after academics such as “Political Scientists” Jesse Richman and David Earnest (note the left will not even call them professors) who in a recent research study proclaimed they were “confident” that non-citizen voting fraudulently won the 2008 Senate Race in Minnesota for Democrats which allowed Obamacare to pass.   (The attacks have pointed out some potential inaccuracies in the underlying data but have not discredited the study’s conclusions.)   Ironically the study probably understates the non-citizen voting problem because it goes to reason that most non-citizens would not want to admit to voting illegally. 

Of course this is nothing compared to what happens if law enforcement agencies dare to investigate vote fraud.  Last year in New York, the Department of Investigation found it very easy to vote in the name of the dead, moved, and felons.  They turned over the results of their investigation to the New York Board of Election.  The Board of Election ignored the substance of the report and asked the District Attorney to prosecute the Department of Investigation investigators!

The fact of the matter is the vote fraud deniers will never admit to the existence of vote fraud and substantively debate the topic.  They will instead attack those who dare to shine light on the topic. 

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Ann Ravel’s Shakespearian Tragedy

In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, a conspirator discusses murdering a King, “And, by that destiny, to perform an act, Whereof what’s past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge.” The immortal line reminds (or warns) how past events direct the present and predict the future.

Federal elections are ready-made plays where potent mixtures of power, money, ideology, and personality coalesce to produce climatic moments when Americans select their leaders. The FEC plays a small but significant role in the drama, regulating the stage where candidates, parties, and advocacy groups perform.  

FEC Vice Chair Ann Ravel, however, is determined to transform the Commission’s role from stage manager to producer; in essence giving it final say over ‘budgets’ and ‘scripts.’ In Checks and Balances for Economic Growth (MUR 6729), the Commission deadlocked on whether online advertisements fell under the FEC’s aegis. The Republican Commissioners, adhering to precedent, refused to embroil the FEC in online political advertisements. The vote, however, allowed Ms. Ravel to advocate for expanding the Commission’s enforcement authority into cyberspace.  

Commissioner Ravel’s past career as head of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) revealed the prologue and predicted the future—a future inimical to the American political experience.  

Ravel fixated on internet speech in her tenure at the FPPC. In 2012, she proposed requiring California political bloggers—even those residing outside the state—to disclose funding sources and place disclaimers on their websites. The widely panned measure would have eviscerated anonymous online speech and required volumes of regulations.  

Among the questions raised: Could a blogger evade disclosure by working for a consultant, not the campaign itself? What value should be reported for a hyperlink from one website to another? Would disclosure be required if a candidate responded to a favorable blog post by later buying advertising on the site? The FPPC quickly canned the measure after immediate and fierce blowback.

The Vice Chair’s current bid to regulate internet political speech has also attracted stinging reviews from critics. And as Chairman Lee E. Goodman pointed out, the proposal would place the FEC in the ultra vires position of regulating speech itself, instead of political expenditures.

Commissioner Ravel’s background foretold more than just her speech-stifling ambitions. She also revealed a penchant to cast herself in a starring role. In her last act as FPPC head, she triumphantly held a news conference to announce a settlement in a “dark money” case, and then promptly hit the media circuit.

Now as Vice Chair, she recently completed a three-city “listening” tour. Her tour happened to coincide with the height of election season in the ambit of three hotly contested races. A Larry Lessig-backed group (one tentacle in his Less-Squid of “reformer” organizations) heavily promoted the tour and provided handy talking points to supporters attending the meetings.

Unfortunately, Commissioner Ravel has carried over a final attribute from her Golden State days: a penchant for sloppiness. In her FPPC closing act, she repeatedly cited “the Koch Brothers” and their “network,” as villains, despite their denials of involvement in the case. She later retracted the charge in an interview. After last week’s deadlock, she cited a 2003 California government report to support her internet-regulatory objectives. The report’s recommendations, however, do not comport with her aims:

Our Commission believes that the advantages of enabling Internet political activity currently do, and for the foreseeable future will, far outweigh the benefits of restricting its potential through heavy-handed regulation. For that reason, we urge the legislature, the FPPC, and all others with interpretive or enforcement power to resist the temptation to adopt laws or regulations that, no matter how well intended, would have the practical effect of reducing the remarkable ability of new technology to empower candidates and voters. In particular, we think that the government should resist calls for excessive requirements that could unnecessarily, and perhaps unintentionally, inhibit or criminalize citizen participation in politics via the Internet.

Vice Chair Ravel took an important step by voting to update the Citizens United regulations. Some thought it was the beginning of a new act for the FEC. The past may be prologue, but that doesn't mean the script can’t be edited.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Colorado All-Mail Election Creates a Situation Ripe for Vote Fraud

As you may recall, Colorado passed a law in 2013, the Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act, which made it the third state with all-mail elections. (Washington and Oregon are the other two).

As one might imagine, this situation is ripe for fraud and many Coloradans are concerned about it, as they should be. As Valerie Richardson writes in The Washington Times,

Now that all-mail voting is the law of the land in Colorado, the challenge for campaigns is to persuade voters to drop off or mail in their ballots — or hand them to the foot soldiers who turn up on their doorsteps offering to do it for them.

While it’s legal to give your ballot to someone else — one person may turn in up to 10 ballots — election watchers worry that the practice is ripe for abuse.

Marilyn Marks, the president of the Citizen Center, an Aspen-based group that focuses on election integrity is concerned, stating

These are totally unauthorized people coming to the door and gathering ballots and doing whatever they want to them.

If I have collected your ballot, I could do the honest thing and put it in the mail for you, or take it to the clerk’s office and drop it off — or I could look inside, open it gently, see how you voted, and if I didn’t like it, I could make some changes. Or the other thing I could do, if I don’t like the way you’re voting, I could throw your ballot in the trash can.

Both Ms. Marks and the Secretary of State Scott Gessler have warned and urged voters to not turn their ballots over to strangers, and to only give their ballots to people they know. Mr. Gessler has also suggested voters go to to ensure their ballot was received by the polling authorities.

James O'Keefe went to Colorado to further investigate this all-mail election, and to see if there might be Democrats perpetuating vote fraud there. Disguised as a college professor, he was told by Meredith Hicks, the director of Work for Progress (a liberal group funded through Democratic Super PACS)  to fill out unused ballots that are mailed to each household. She said,

That is not even like lying or something, if someone throws out a ballot, like if you want to fill it out you should do it.

She took her fraud a step further, even offering O'Keefe a job with her group to essentially participate in fraud.

O'Keefe's videos show other encounters with other vote operatives as well. One Greenpeace employee responded positively to O'Keefe's claim that he might have access to unused ballots from people who have recently move out of fraternity houses. Christina Topping, the employee, said,

I mean it is putting the votes to good use. So really, truly, like yeah, that is awesome.

The Colorado law passed with not one single Republican vote, and is a prime example of the way Democrats pass laws to loosen voting laws to create a situation where vote fraud can be conducted, and with little chance of being caught, so they can continue their narrative that “vote fraud doesn’t exist”.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Soros Group Continues to Fund Progressive Groups in an Attempt to Create a Permanent Democratic Majority

Matthew Vadum wrote an article in the most recent issue of Foundation Watch, discussing the Democracy Alliance – an organization put together by George Soros –how it is continuing to grow and the levels of irony behind it.

Vadum writes,

The Democracy Alliance—a secretive, pro-Democratic Party funding powerhouse—is embracing more union bosses as members, amid growing fears in left-wing circles that Republicans are poised to take over the U.S. Senate in the November elections. This trend adds to organized labor’s already considerable clout within this elite fundraising empire, which claims to have funneled more than $500 million into liberal and pro-Democratic organizations. The invitation-only Alliance, co-founded by far-left billionaire philanthropist George Soros, calls itself a “first-of-its-kind partnership of change-makers who are committed to a stronger democracy and a more progressive America.”

He explains that over the past nine years, the organization has given extreme progressive politicians the funding they need to “secure victories at the ballot box and in policy fights,” polarizing our nation and plaguing us with progressivism.

He explains that the Democracy Alliance funds many extreme left-wing groups, such as

People for the American Way, EMILY’s List, ACORN, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Progressive States Network, Center for Community Change, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund, and the (now defunct) Secretary of State Project, which helped elect left-wing candidates to be the chief electoral official in at least nine states (these little-noticed officials become critical when vote fraud occurs).

This election cycle, the wealthy millionaire and billionaire members of the Alliance plan to bring $200 million into
[K]ey groups that are working for a permanent left-wing Democrat majority. Among the groups benefiting from the Alliance’s largesse are the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, America Votes, and Organizing for Action.

For a group of people who spend a majority of their time vilifying Charles and David Koch, the fact that most members are millionaires and billionaires themselves make them extremely hypocritical.

This is another way Democrats look to distract from Obama and other progressive politicians’ failed policy ideals. 

Friday, October 24, 2014

Hans von Spakovsky Once Again Proves Voter ID Does Not Disenfranchise Voters

On October 16, 2014, Hans von Spakovsky spoke at the National Press Club on the impact of state voter ID laws on the 2014 midterm elections, as well as recent court rulings on the laws.

Von Spakovsky reminded everyone that all of the claims about how voter ID laws deprive citizens of their right to vote were initiated by the NAACP about eight years ago, and those claims have since been proven incorrect through data.

He further pointed to data gleaned from a “case study” in Georgia, which since it was under Section 5 of the VRA, they were required to keep data on all registered voters. Georgia implemented a strict voter ID law in 2008 and the data showing how many white, Hispanic, and black voters turned out to vote after the law took effect. Instead of the turnout for black voters going down, it actually went up dramatically.

The data in Georgia further shows that that was not a fluke. It went up again in 2010, and in 2012, the number of black voters in Georgia actually outnumbered the number of white voters in Georgia.

Justice John Paul Stevens (yes, a liberal) on the Supreme Court wrote an opinion upholding the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter ID requirement – which was called one of the strictest in the nation – and opined that it was not an undue burden on voters to obtain an photo identification.

Indiana also kept records on how many voters of each race voted in the elections after they instituted their voter ID law, and they saw a similar pattern to Georgia. Just after the law was implemented in 2008, Indiana saw one of the largest increases in Democratic turnout of any state in the country. In 2010, their turnout went up again, and in 2012, the census bureau reports that blacks voted at a higher rate than whites in Indiana by 10 percentage points.

It is clear that voter identification does not disenfranchise minority voters, nor is such a law racist. The reason Democrats are against it is because they need to commit voter fraud in order to continue to win elections, and requiring an identification when one goes to the polls to vote puts a damper on that. 

Thursday, October 23, 2014

In Illinois, Democrats Resorting to Multiple Forms of Vote Fraud

Democrats continue to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes when it comes to voter fraud. Their most recent tactic: “calibration errors.”

When Illinois State Representative Jim Moynihan – a Republican – went to early vote at his local library, he found he was not able to vote for himself, or any other Republican on the ballot. He would vote for the Republican candidate in a race, and the machine’s screen would move his vote to the Democrat candidate in that same race, including his own. Discussing the situation, Moynihan said:

I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent. You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.

Moynihan is clearly concerned that citizens might not pay as much attention as he did to the situation, and vote for someone they don’t want to,

Clearly, I am concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice, especially if they are in a hurry and do not double check their ballot. I cannot say whether or not this was intentional, but Cook County voters deserve better and should not have their right to vote suppressed.

This continues a trend found in Democrat Governor Quinn's last election when numerous voting machines in predominately African American precincts  in Chicago were programmed to change Green Party candidate Richard Whitney's name (who presumably was siphoning off Democrat votes) to RICH WHITEY.

The deception in Illinois does not stop there, however. President Obama continues to vote in his home state of Illinois, and in 2012 when he went to early vote, he had to show his photo ID. This time around, however, the Illinois legislature took that part of the law away on the second-to-last day of this year's legislative session.

Further, the changes the legislature and Gov. Quinn made to the laws, including expanding polling places for presumed Democrat voters and same-day registration, apply only to this election, which is close and hotly contested.

Also interesting, is that the poll workers in Illinois, when Obama came in to vote, told him to "vote Democrat," which we all are well aware is illegal. Who knows who else the poll workers told to "vote Democrat."

Even in the deep blue state of Illinois, Democrats are afraid they cannot win an election without voter fraud and misleading voters.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

More Vote Fraud in the Home of Vote Fraud Deniers the Brennan Center

While some New York based groups such as the Brennan Center are busy trying to deny vote fraud nationally, there is so much vote fraud in New York that it is hard to keep track of it.  In this election cycle, we have seen corrupt election officials, attacks on police officers for trying to stop vote fraud, voter impersonation schemes, busing in live voters to vote for the dead, voters from other countries, and much more. 

However, once again New York proves that there is an unlimited amount of hubris when it comes to vote fraud.  For currently the Bronx District Attorney is looking into vote fraud allegations in a race to fill an assembly member who had to resign because of, you guessed it, vote fraud.

The Bronx DA is investigating claims of voter fraud in a hotly contested Democratic primary for the Assembly that was decided by two votes.

. . .Ironically, Pichardo, by winning a special election, succeeded Assemblyman Nelson Castro, who was nailed for election fraud after nine voters were discovered registered at his one-bedroom apartment.

The New York ironies continues with the Brennan Center’s denials of vote fraud.  I would like to suggest that leading vote fraud deniers the Brennan Center move their location to another state.  It is really hurting their argument that vote fraud does not exist when it is continually happening in their own neighborhood.