Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 Ground zero in the battle over voter fraud 
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809


    The Battle for Ballot Integrity in Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania is, for the moment, ground zero in the battle over voter fraud. In March, Pennsylvania’s legislature enacted a law that requires identification for voting. The ACLU has sued to enjoin enforcement of the law; a trial on its lawsuit began today and is expected to last for around a week. This illustrates how low the ACLU has fallen. Voting illegally–that’s a “civil right!” But how about not having your vote canceled by the ballot of an illegal voter? Is that a civil right? Naahh.

    At the same time, Eric Holder has announced that the Department of Justice is investigating the state of Pennsylvania to determine whether the law might violate the Voting Rights Act.

    >>>

    As always, the Democrats are furiously demagoguing the issue. This morning, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email titled “BREAKING: Department of Justice Investigating Pennsylvania’s Voter Suppression Tactics.”

    The idea that a photo ID requirement constitutes a “voter suppression tactic” is ridiculous. I have to show an ID to buy beer at a liquor store. Is that a “beer suppression tactic?” Is it a “travel suppression tactic” when I have to produce identification to board an airplane? I am required to show ID to shoot a firearm at our local range; is that an insidious form of gun control? Should Eric Holder be investigating to see whether the Second Amendment is violated by such requirements?

    >>>

    The Democrats have always been over the top, but this is simply insane. In the Democrats’ lexicon, making sure that only qualified voters cast ballots constitutes stealing elections. Whereas supplying the winning margin through illegal votes is democracy in action.

    >>>

    It is hard to imagine how Pennsylvania could have gone farther to assure that every legitimate voter can, with no difficulty, vote. Not to mention the fact that if 10% of adult Pennsylvanians don’t have photo IDs, and therefore can’t buy alcoholic beverages, fly on airplanes, cash a check, purchase a firearm, or otherwise participate in modern life–an absurd claim–the law will allow them, finally, to emerge from the shadows. If the Democrats were not engaging in contemptible demagoguery and actually cared about the constituencies they claim to represent, they would hail such legislation as a giant step forward.

    Here in Minnesota, we too are fighting the battle over ballot integrity. For years, a large majority of Minnesotans have favored a photo ID requirement. As you probably know, we have had at least one major election–Al Franken’s “victory” over Norm Coleman--that almost certainly was swung by illegal votes (not in the recount phase, but on Election Day). Our legislature passed a photo ID bill, but our Democratic Governor, flouting the will of a clear majority of citizens, vetoed it. So now the measure will be on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment. Our Democratic Secretary of State re-named the proposed amendment to make it less appealing to voters; thus does the establishment pull out any stops necessary to preserve the option of voter fraud.

    MORE@Powerlineblog

    ---------------------------------------------------

    In 2008 75% of new 100,000 Philly registrations were found to be illegal. Acorn turned in most of those. Election fraud will doubtless be the single biggest news item this election considering the Chief Community Organizers relationship to Acorn, the unions and the dem Secretaries of State.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhUIJb8g5n4

    Republicans hit Justice Department on voter ID

    WASHINGTON—House Republicans on Thursday criticized the Justice Department's decision to challenge new voter ID laws in several states, saying it shows the Obama Administration is more concerned with Democrats winning in November than protecting against election fraud.

    "The Department of Justice has embarrassed itself," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. "The partisan bias is obvious." >>>

    Another Republican, Rep. Steve King of Iowa, echoed Franks' concerns, saying the decision to contest the Texas and South Carolina laws shows insensitivity by the Justice Department to voter fraud.

    "There are a lot of individuals out there who are happy to break the law, who don't even understand it breaks the law," King said of voter fraud. "...We're seeing voter fraud that's pretty prevalent out there."

    Boston.com

    Eric the Red has already shown he is going to do whatever he deems necessary to re-elect the King of the Culture of Corruption.
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    "I'll be back faster than you can say 'furious.'"

    Priceless!!!
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,046
    The only reason Eric Holder, and the ACLU, is suing these states for the passing the law is because he knows that voter fraud is the only way that obama will get re-elected. Just ask Acorn.

    It is pretty messed up when an illegal immigrant gets more rights than a legal citizen!

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    _ WELFARE IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT! _
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Janice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Southern USA
    Posts
    2,809
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4MTQVMatW0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwAsjErHeU

    Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

    In a little noted decision on July 23, a federal district court judge concluded that internal DOJ documents about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case “contradict Assistant Attorney General [Thomas] Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in” the decision to dismiss the case.

    In other words, the sworn testimony of Perez, the Obama political appointee who heads the Civil Rights Division, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently false. >>>

    As Judge Walton outlined, Judicial Watch’s FOIA request “sought documents relating to the DOJ’s decision to dismiss civil claims in the New Black Panther Party case.” Walton awarded Judicial Watch a small amount of attorneys’ fees and costs, having concluded that the Judicial Watch lawsuit “was the catalyst for the DOJ’s release of records.”

    According to the court, the DOJ documents, including emails from former Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli (who was the number-two official at DOJ) and former Democratic election lawyer and Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch, “revealed that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims.” >>>

    But the court also said that DOJ had failed “to show that its withholding of some documents from Judicial Watch prior to the filing of this lawsuit was legally correct or had a reasonable basis in law.” That is no surprise. Far too many of the actions of this Justice Department, particularly the Civil Rights Division, have not been legally correct or had a reasonable basis in law. And in this case, DOJ tried to avoid releasing documents as mandated by FOIA that it found politically embarrassing since there was no justifiable legal reason for dismissing an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation that had already been won by default.

    But what is most disturbing about this court order is that it strongly suggests that Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez essentially lied in sworn testimony. At a hearing before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on May 14, 2010, Perez was asked by Commissioner Peter Kirsanow whether “any political leadership [was] involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Perez’s answer, on page 79 of the transcript of that hearing, is an uncategorical “No.” When the statements of Perez are compared to the documents that Judicial Watch forced DOJ to release in the FOIA lawsuit, it is clear Judge Walton was polite when he said they are contradictory and “cast doubt on the accuracy” of Perez’s account.

    A less diplomatic judge might have said that Perez testified falsely in his hearing testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights. In other words, he may have committed perjury if he knew his statements were false when uttered. >>>

    Imagine if a conservative political appointee at DOJ had just been cited in a federal court decision as having apparently testified falsely under oath. Not only would it be a top headline at The New York Times and The Washington Post, but the IG and OPR would be rushing to investigate. All of which is a sad commentary on the liberal bias not just of the media, but of too many of the offices and officials within the Justice Department who are supposed to administer justice in an objective, non-political, and impartial manner.

    PJMedia

    Just wanted to get this on record again as The Anointed Ones election approaches this November. If we dont vote and win by large margins this Marxist poser is most likely going to steal the election. Or if its close, he will sue in court to win. Thank you Algore. Good thing Nixon had more class than these clowns against Kennedy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A
    http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd445/JansGraphix/ConsUndergrd-Sig2.jpg
    Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •