Accuracy in Media

[updated 1:00 p.m. 5-9-14]

It is difficult to describe the enormity of the crime being committed by the Obama administration and their Democratic allies. They flagrantly flout the law, while simultaneously turning it into a weapon against political opponents, use government agencies to target innocent Americans, attempt to create legal voters through amnesty, and undermine voter integrity measures to facilitate vote fraud, while denying it even exists. In short, they are corrupting the entire process.

Thus, it is fitting to begin this report by recounting a story of deliberate, blatant official voter fraud. This April 17, the Illinois House Executive Committee voted to authorize $100 million to construct President Obama’s future presidential library and museum in Chicago. AP reported that the Committee voted “unanimously,” 9-0 to support the plan. The report was false. Only four of the 11 Committee members were in attendance—all Democrats. They did not even have a quorum. Furthermore, this was supposed to be a “subject matter only” hearing, i.e., entailing no votes. No matter; the legislators simply made up the results—even counting absent Republicans as “yes” votes. Republican State Representative Ed Sullivan observed, “In this case they didn’t even care to change the rules; they just flat out broke them.”

Motor Voter

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), also known as “motor voter,” promotes easy voter registration at motor vehicle, welfare and other state and local government offices. Voters can apply in person or by mail, and, until a recent court ruling, the federal application required no proof of citizenship. The NVRA also dictates voter roll maintenance, but it is a confusing procedure that can take over two election cycles. States have also frequently been lackadaisical about taking advantages of the methods afforded by the law. Some election boards actually have to be sued to clean up their voter rolls.*

As a result, nationwide, voter rolls are a shambles. According to a Pew report, approximately 24 million voter registrations nationally are either invalid or inaccurate, including about 1.8 million deceased individuals and 2.75 million multi-state duplicates.

The NVRA was authored by socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, and many believe it was deliberately constructed to pave the way for ACORN-style massive registration fraud. The pair is notorious for the Cloward/Piven Crisis Strategy—a plan to overwhelm government with demands for welfare spending, thereby leading to systemic crisis. Cloward and Piven helped launch ACORN to advance their strategy.

They also had other intentions for those burgeoning welfare rolls. “If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses,” they wrote, “it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors.” Cloward and Piven developed the Motor Voter idea to simplify voter registration for this demographic. In 1993, it became law. Successive NRVA lawsuits have forced state agencies to become de facto taxpayer-funded voter registration drives.

Through its criminal activities, massive voter registration fraud and numerous convictions, ACORN made voter fraud national news. Prodded, and in some cases sued by activists, state legislatures began cleaning voter rolls and enacting ballot integrity measures like photo voter ID.

Voter Suppression

Democrats responded by executing a nationwide propaganda campaign of contrived outrage to deliver one relentless message: widespread voter fraud is a myth created by racist Republicans to justify voter ID and other laws that suppress the minority vote. MSNBC even called it a war on voting.

This President has proven over and over, however, that Democrats lie, and the Obama administration has institutionalized the practice. As Robert Popper writes in The Wall Street Journal:

In an April 11 speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, President Obama recited statistics purporting to show that voter fraud was extremely rare. The “real voter fraud,” he said, “is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud.”

Popper responds, “These arguments themselves are bogus.”

And of course he’s right. While they deny, obfuscate and attack, Democrats don’t even bother to hide their true intentions. In an event that can only be described as bad optics for the President, Sharpton’s NAN had just hosted a “Welcome Home Party” for serial convicted vote fraudster Melowese Richardson. After serving only eight months of a five year sentence for her crimes, Richardson was celebrated by Sharpton as a conquering hero.

Voter Fraud as Reparations

Democrats’ attitude toward voter fraud is the voting version of reparations for slavery. Some Democrats have even said that because minorities and the poor have little influence, “extraordinary measures (for example, stretching the absentee ballot or registration rules) are required to compensate.” Democrat election officials do this all the time, and a form of it has actually become official Justice Department policy in its effort to boost Hispanic representation.

Hispanic voters in Port Chester, New York were allowed to use something called “cumulative voting” in an election for village trustees. There were six trustee seats and Hispanics were allowed to cast six votes in any way they chose, for example, casting one vote for each of six candidates or all six for one candidate. Cumulative voting has also been used to elect a school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Alabama, and the city council in Peoria, Illinois.

Having rationalized the moral high ground with their “voter suppression” charge—Democrats go on the warpath. In recent years this has involved lawsuits, organized slander and a nationwide campaign to resist election reform. Under the Obama presidency, it has also included using federal agencies to attack private citizens and organizations.

IRS Targeting of Conservatives

In 2010, homemaker and small business owner, Catherine Engelbrecht, founded True the Vote (TTV), an organization dedicated to combating vote fraud. The group’s experience at the hand of government has become emblematic of the Obama administration’s despotic nature.

Catherine Engelbrecht’s gripping congressional testimony:

AIM interviewed Mrs. Engelbrecht for this article. Read the rest of her story here (PDF).

The travails of TTV are but one example of hundreds of conservative and tea party non-profits the IRS deliberately targeted in the run-up to the 2012 election. For example, the Ohio Liberty Council submitted their application on June 30, 2010. They received the first IRS answer in January 2012. It asked extensive questions about every single event they held and planned to hold, the people in their groups, their qualifications, speakers, publications, websites, Facebook pages and more. The IRS demanded they respond in two weeks.

In 2013, a Treasury Inspector General report stated that as of December 2012, 160 organizations had been waiting between 206 and 1,138 days. The IRS also secretly drafted new regulations to restrict conservative organizations. And while Obama and congressional Democrats feigned outrage, it was their idea to target conservatives. Many conservatives are still awaiting answers. Most recently, it has been revealed that a high level DOJ official asked the IRS to consider criminal investigations of conservative groups. No liberal group has been subject to such abuse.

So who is doing the suppressing? By thwarting efforts to clean up the voting process, Obama and the Democrats are suppressing every single legitimate vote stolen by voter fraud. By cheating conservatives of their ability to organize and communicate with the voting public, Obama’s IRS is denying their rights to free speech. By denying conservatives’ right to educate the public, for example, regarding candidates’ records on Obamacare, the IRS is preventing voters from being informed. Obama and the Democrats are not battling voter suppression, they have institutionalized it.

Crosscheck Program

In 2005, the Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Missouri Secretaries of State agreed to initiate a program called “Crosscheck.” Participating states provide voter data for comparison with voter rolls in other states. One can compare first name, last and date of birth, vote history, and when states provide it, the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number. This can uncover duplicate registrations, and, potentially, voter fraud. Starting with only those four states, the Crosscheck program has now grown to 28.

The numbers of potential duplicate registrations are astronomical, about 3.5 million for the participating 28 states, but the data must be evaluated with caution. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach states that surprisingly, there are many Americans with an identical first name, last name and date of birth (DOB).[1] Election lawyer J. Christian Adams also warns that voter records are notorious for data entry errors.[2] Still, individual Crosscheck states have found striking results worthy of closer scrutiny. North Carolina’s State Board of Elections (SBOE) analyzed Crosscheck data for 2012 and found:

  • 765 voters with matching first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN registered in NC and another state, and voted in both.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB registered in NC and another state and voted in both. (This includes data from states that do not provide SSN info.). Approximately one-third (11,560) came from border states.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN registered in NC and another state—and the latest date of registration or voter activity was not in NC.

SBOE Director Kim Strach warned against reading too much into the crosscheck numbers yet. The SBOE intends to examine each record individually. Separately, the SBOE also revealed:

  • 50,000 new death records not previously provided to SBOE
  • 13,416 deceased voters on the rolls in October 2013
  • 81 deceased voters that had voter activity after they died

Other groups have explored voter rolls and found numerous problems. The Virginia Voters Alliance worked with Election Integrity Maryland and found 44,000 registration matches. The group also found 31,000 dead voters on the Virginia rolls. The North Carolina Voter Integrity Project handed over 20,000 voters with invalid addresses to the SBOE, and identified 5,167 dual registrations in Florida, of which at least 147 appear to be “either a victim or perpetrator” of voter fraud. In 2013, Kansas found 484 potential double voters through crosscheck. Twenty-one were referred for prosecution.

Double voting is only one explanation for dual votes, however, and perhaps not the main one. Susan Myrick of North Carolina’s Civitas Institute, a veteran elections official, has long believed that vote thieves access the voter database and commit vote fraud using names of inactive voters. Vote officials could never prove it before, but now Crosscheck provides a methodology.

Out-of-State Voters

Democrats now openly say “vote where your vote will count,” i.e., if you live in a dark red or blue state, your vote is wasted; go vote in a swing state. However, in order to do so legally, one must establish residency in the target swing state. How does one establish residency where one does not actually live, or intend to live for any extended period?

A long time ago, the Left began calculating ways to do this. The most promising demographic was college students. They are reliably liberal, reliably malleable, and move temporarily in large numbers. In 1972, the ACLU’s New Hampshire chapter brought a class action suit in U.S. District Court on behalf of an out-of-state Dartmouth college student who was denied the right to vote in NH because he informed authorities he intended to leave NH upon graduation. The judge ruled that out-of-state students could vote in NH, as long as they were “domiciled” in NH.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Domicile” as “not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home.” Normally, your domicile is where you live permanently, where you are licensed to drive, where you pay taxes, are called for jury duty, etc. That is usually not a college dorm.

One can immediately see the irony in the judge’s ruling. For example, how can a student be classified as out-of-state for tuition purposes and yet “domiciled” in-state to vote? What about NH residents who go out-of-state to attend college? New Hampshire still considers them NH residents. This out-of-state condition is called “temporary absence.” Why then are out-of-state students attending school in NH not considered to be temporarily absent from their own home state, and thus ineligible to vote in NH?

Today, out-of-state students in all 50 states can vote wherever they attend college. This has created essentially two classes of voter. Laws vary, but in many states, students don’t have to meet usual residency requirements, like registering a car. Cloistered away on campus, students are largely insulated from state and local politics. They will bear no long-term consequence for the outcomes of those elections, yet their sheer numbers guarantee a heavy influence. For example, residents could be saddled with a tax-and-spend governor because students who will never feel the impact voted for that candidate.

This has been further facilitated by same day registration/voting.

Same Day Registration/Voting

Same day voting allows a person to register to vote, and then vote on the same day. Leftists love it because it simplifies the task of getting out the vote and makes verification difficult. Some states require photo ID and other supporting documentation to prove the registrant’s residence, but many do not. Some states check registrations later; many don’t bother.

Same Day Vote

Cloward and Piven wrote an exemption into the NVRA for states that allow same day voter/registration. This is a big incentive to avoid the NVRA’s arduous voter registration requirements, and is yet more proof of the law’s subversive goals.

New Hampshire Legalized Voter Fraud

New Hampshire is a same-day voting swing state bordering dark blue Massachusetts. New Hampshire Democrats have made a concerted effort to harvest the student vote. The Dartmouth poster below exhorts students to “Vote in the election here in NH where your vote will make a difference!” Another poster from the Sierra Club declares, “If you live in NH, even as a student, you can vote here.”

Dartmouth poster urges non-resident students to register (Courtesy Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers)
Dartmouth poster urges non-resident students to register (Courtesy Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers)
2008 Dartmouth University Sierra Club Poster (Courtesy Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers)
2008 Dartmouth University Sierra Club Poster (Courtesy Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers)

Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers Chairman Ed Naile is a former selectman, seasoned activist and veteran of voter fraud battles since 2000. Naile says that for years students would register and vote on the same day, and rescind their registration shortly afterward. This was investigated by the NH Attorney General in 2001. Below is a list of students who did this.

De-registrations
NH Attorney General list of same day registrant/voters who rescinded their registration shortly after voting

In 2010, Republicans captured a veto-proof majority in both houses of the NH state legislature. They passed a law forcing out-of-state students to become truly domiciled in NH before they could vote. The ACLU sued to neutralize the law for the 2012 election, locating a sympathetic judge who invented an entirely new and utterly fraudulent residence classification just for students: “mobile domiciliaries.” It was likely conceived by the ACLU to undermine future attempts to end out-of-state voting. The ruling has been appealed, but languishes awaiting action. Republicans also passed a strict voter ID law, but Democrats regained control of the legislature in the 2012 elections, and have since watered it down to toothless irrelevance.

Ed Naile’s group has also documented numerous “nests” of out-of-state Democratic campaign workers taking up group residences and registering to vote using the same, sometimes fictitious addresses. They vote in New Hampshire while working on the campaign, and in at least one case, voted elsewhere too. A particularly notorious nest was located in the home of State Senator Martha Fuller Clark. In the following video, Mr. Naile describes the many ways Democrats steal votes in NH.

Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers President Ed Naile describes systemic NH vote fraud:

November 6, 2012: UNH students waiting to same-day register and vote. The full line was much longer.
November 6, 2012: UNH students waiting to same-day register and vote. The full line was much longer.

Durham, a town of 15,000 residents, houses the University of New Hampshire. UNH adds 12,000 students, many of whom are from out-of-state. During the November 2012 election, about 3,000 people registered and voted at one location. Democratic Town Councilor Julian Smith, a retired university professor, walked the line of students waiting to register. Those Councilor Smith queried didn’t even know where the town hall was. One responded “I’m a student, you know?” Her companion said, “We’re here today, that’s all that matters.” Another admitted having to change her domicile. Smith responded, “Well, I’m glad you’re here, and I hope you’re here for the right reason, which is, the Left reason.”

Obama-Biden campaign bus ferrying students to NH poll; Nov. 2012
Obama-Biden campaign bus ferrying students to NH poll; Nov. 2012

Ohio Legalized Voter Fraud

Ohio’s out-of-state voting laws are similar to NH, so not surprisingly, the Obama campaign aggressively cultivated the student vote there. For example, the campaign organized a campus party at the Ohio State University, Columbus campus, with free entertainment from rapper Will.I.Am, and free transportation to the polls where students could register and vote on the same day during Ohio’s infamous “Golden Week.”[3] The New York Times characterized it as a Democrat event with 20 tour buses shuttling students“and other Democrats” to the polls. Of the campus’s 56,000 students, 35 percent, or about 19,600, are out-of-state.[4] All legal, yet those who voted disenfranchised Ohio’s true citizens.

Students Recruited to Support Local Political Machines

In April, 2013, the Pasquotank County, North Carolina Board of Elections sustained 57 of 60 voter registration challenges. All voters listed Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) as their residence. None of the sustained challenges were current students. One was not a U.S. citizen. One admitted she lived in California but voted absentee in NC. One lived in Virginia but admitted voting in NC. Another was a recent graduate who registered in Florida and North Carolina on the same day. He made his NC registration online, a violation of state law. However, in 2012, the (then) Democratic SBOE flouted the law and allowed online voting.

Former Pasquotank County Board of Elections official Betsy Meads asserts that ECSU students are regularly told to register and vote in local elections, even if domiciled elsewhere.[5] ECSU students told Deputy Elections Director Bonnie Godfrey that they were promised perfect grades for voting. Some students said voting was “mandatory.” In another case, the ECSU cheerleading squad was ordered to register and vote, despite out-of-town domiciles. When one refused, the cheerleading coach yelled, “Get in there and vote.” Almost all did.

Voter I.D.

Eric Holder’s DOJ has moved mountains to forestall or prevent legislatures from enacting voter ID, but things have been slowly changing. In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which required certain states to obtain approval, or preclearance, to change voting laws. As of February 2014, 34 states have voter I.D., but only eight states have strict photo voter ID laws.

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Strict Voter ID—Voter without ID receives provisional vote, counted only after voter provides necessary ID.

Non-strict Voter ID—In some cases, voters without acceptable identification may cast a ballot that will be counted without further action required by the voter.

ID Table

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV)

NPV is an unconstitutional nationwide movement wherein states agree to award all presidential electors to the popular vote winner, regardless of how the state voted. Direct elections become universal when enough state legislatures have joined to make up a majority of the electoral vote (270 of 538). As of April 15, 2014, 10 states plus DC have joined, totaling 165 electoral votes, 61 percent of the 270 needed. Bills have also been passed by one House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Oregon.

NPV would bias the election in favor of large population centers—which are usually 80 percent or more Democratic—that could dictate the outcome of presidential elections. The Electoral College was enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee less populous states influence in federal elections. Political analyst Dick Morris also predicts much more voter fraud if the NPV goes through. Because large cities will be more important, Democrats will pull out all the stops to pad the vote.

Universal Voter Registration

UVR calls for automatically registering voters listed on various state and federal databases. Cloward and Piven’s goal has always been UVR. They described NVRA as an intermediate step, but UVR will create even more problems:

  1. UVR undermines the Constitution
  2. UVR facilitates illegal alien voting
  3. State and federal lists create duplicates
  4. Duplicates are likely to go uncorrected

Leftists chant the UVR mantra. Nation Magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel even cited UVR’s great success in Russia and Venezuela! However, under our noses the Obama administration has achieved a form of UVR with passage of Obamacare. The law provides for online voter registration. DEMOS has projected that this will register 68 million new voters.

Felon Voting

Eric Holder has added his voice to the chorus of demands to allow for felon voting, another reliable Democratic demographic.

Conclusion

Voter fraud, and the corrupt political infrastructure that facilitates, or at best ignores it, is an existential threat to our American Republic. The only answer is to elect principled conservative leaders willing to recognize and confront this threat.

 

[1] Kris Kobach, telephone Interview with James Simpson, April 18, 2014.
[2] J. Christian Adams, email message to James Simpson, April 9, 2014.
[3] Golden Week has since been eliminated by the Republican legislature. Democrats are calling it “voter suppression” and ACLU has sued to restore it. Ironically, in 2009, when Democrats controlled the legislature, they were all in favor of banning Golden Week.
[4] According to the OSU Admissions Office; May 2, 2014.
[5] Betsy Meads, interview by James Simpson, May 22, 2013 and April 30, 2014.

 

[Correction * The italicized sentence is a correction/replacement for this sentence that was previously there: NVRA also dictates voter roll maintenance, but actually makes it more difficult by requiring an exhaustive procedure that takes a minimum of four, and sometimes more than eight years, before a deceased or otherwise ineligible voter can be removed.] We regret any misunderstanding this may have caused.





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Barbara Ann

    When the Republicans have majority in the House & Senate we need to force them to overturn all election laws and reform them with the requirement that all states clean up their voter rolls by Jan 2016 and every voter has to show an ID that matches the name on the books. End early voting. We set aside Election Day for a reason, to vote on Election Day. There is no need to have election month. This has to stop, it is criminal and unfair when one party thinks they can continue to steal elections by this kind of fraud.

  • chrismalllory

    Unless we do something to stem the tide of 3rd world invaders and start working to remove them from our nation voter fraud does not matter.

  • James Simpson

    Right and especially, repeal the NVRA.

  • gmalarki

    As I keep pointing out, election fraud seems to be a long-standing tradition for Democrats. I refer you to Thomas Nast’s cartoon, “How the Copperheads Obtain Their Votes,” Harper’s Weekly, November 8, 1864.

    Be that as it may, the first line in the defense against election fraud is the local Precinct Delegate, or whatever that office is called in your state. As a Precinct Delegate, you should be able to obtain a printout of the voter roll for your precinct. This helps you canvass your precinct, but, being familiar with your own neighborhood, you should be able to quickly spot obvious irregularities. In past years in the rolls for my precinct I have spotted nonexistent addresses, single family homes allegedly housing five families, and voters registered to commercial buildings without living space. You may also be aware of deceased neighbors whose names have not been
    removed from the rolls. The last is amusing since in many jurisdictions the County Clerk’s office both maintains the voter rolls and issues death certificates. Likewise the Register of Deeds is often also in the County Clerk’s office so you would think the five families in one home situation could be checked.

    Most voter roll errors are, in fact, innocent clerical mistakes and the County Clerk will thank you for alerting her to problems.

    Regardless, any error opens the door for election fraud. As a friend pointed out,it is difficult to “throw” an election where one candidate has a solid lead. But election fraud can make all the difference in closely-contested elections.
    A former Precinct Judge (which is what Precinct Delegates are called in Texas) made a deathbed confession that he managed to produce 80 fraudulent votes for Lyndon Johnson the first time he ran for U.S. Senate. This was enough to give “Landslide Lyndon” the two-vote majority he needed to be seated to the Senate. Think how history would have been different had Johnson lost that election!

    By the way, Barack Obama was, apparently, a student of Richard Cloward (1928-2001) at Columbia University. “Apparently” because none of his classmates can remember Obama ever attending any classes. Refer
    to editorial by Wayne Allen Root.

  • Ikia

    This is all Bu**sh**!

    How many PROSECUTIONS have there been over the last 10,20, 30, 40 years for “voter fraud” ??? (Probably nowhere near as many as for jaywalking!)

    Bu**sh**!

  • Ikia

    So, weese is all da’ nigahs an’ youse is all da’ mastahs ???

    Is youse all married up to ol’ Jimmy Crow ???

    I’ll betcha!

  • Proto

    Did you even bother reading the NVRA before spouting off about it, James? Section 8’s notice and wait requirement applies only to voter roll removals of voters who changed their residence, not removals of “deceased or otherwise ineligible voter[s]”. You also linked to the DOJ website page on the NVRA to support your claim that sometimes the waiting period for removing voters can be up to eight years, but you clearly didn’t bother to read that either, because that page (like the NVRA) says that voters can be removed from the rolls after “two federal general election[s]”. Last I checked, there’s a federal election every 2 years. Oh, and the court case you mentioned that “requires proof of citizenship” on voter registration applications? Yeah, that case just says that the federal government must modify the federal voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship IF a particular state requests it; it doesn’t require all citizens provide such documents. Seriously, try putting in a minimal degree of research on what you want to attack before publishing an article attacking it.

  • toto

    With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

    16% of Americans live in rural areas.

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

  • toto

    Foreseeing apocalyptic mythical fraud as a reason for keeping a system where most people’s votes don’t count for anything is not a compelling argument.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000
    popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

  • toto

    Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

    With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts and matters to the candidates equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn’t be about winning a handful of battleground states.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits.

    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT,
    ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red
    or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!

  • toto

    National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

    States agree to award all of their presidential electors to the popular vote winner.

    The current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

    The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

    As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

    National Popular Vote is not direct election of the president.
    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538).

    The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would be elected by the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

    The post omits that on February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

  • NewHampshire

    Thank you for mentioning NH! Our group is working very hard to expose what goes on, unfortunately we don’t have an SOS or AG who will prosecute. What can be done?

  • FlyingScottishTerrier

    If there is no fraud… what are you leftist so afraid of?
    You are afraid because you know it’s true… otherwise you’d have nothing to loose by having stricter voting laws.

  • FlyingScottishTerrier

    The candidate will only have to campaign in urban areas in large states. To heck with rural and small states.
    Essentially there will be no campaining in states like West Virginia, Kansas and the like.
    This mean no respresentation for all of America… only the areas that are needed to gain power.
    Legislation and exectuive orders will be doled out to the urban voters for their votes.
    Good by rural America.

  • James Simpson

    In Democrat run states it is BS because Democrats refuse to prosecute cases. They deliberately avoid cleaning rolls, and wilfully neglect their duties to protect elections from fraud. In NC in 2012 the Board of Elections CHOSE to violate NC law to allow online voter registration, a method fraught with vulnerabilities. In the NH case cited above, where the Democrat prosecutors found students registering as residents long enough to vote and then unregistering a few days later, there were tons of violations. They dropped the case! In Democrat run states vote fraud doesn’t exist because they don’t allow anyone to discover it. When someone does, they refuse to prosecute. You are all institutionally corrupt!

  • James Simpson

    Keep up the great work. Sooner or later they will feel the heat.

  • James Simpson

    You are right, I missed Oklahoma.

  • toto

    None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%,
    KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY –69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

    NationalPopularVote

  • Guest

    No the federal general election refers to presidential elections. The requirement to remove voters is onerous. A name can only be removed when voter cards sent to the voter’s address are returned. And even then they have to wait and try again. If the card doesn’t come back as “undeliverable”, the voter remains active, whether alive, dead, still in the state or moved out of state.

  • toto

    Now there is now campaigning in states like West Virginia or Kansas.

    As I just said:

    In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

    Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

    Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5
    electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

    Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

    NationalPopularVote

  • toto

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11
    most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation’s votes!

    But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states,
    the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
    * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
    * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
    * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
    * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
    * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
    * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
    * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger
    margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  • toto

    With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and
    matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts,
    and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

    16% of Americans live in rural areas.

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in
    virtually every state with a significant city.

    A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal,
    everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan,
    Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
    In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

    Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

    There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

    With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

    Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because
    the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

  • toto

    In November 2008, there were Republican Attorneys General in seven closely divided battleground states that Barack Obama carried. These states possessed more electoral votes (102) than Obama’s 95-vote margin of victory in the Electoral College in 2008:
    ? Colorado (9 electoral votes),
    ? Florida (27),
    ? Michigan (18),
    ? New Hampshire (4),
    ? Pennsylvania (21),
    ? Virginia (13), and
    ? Wisconsin (10).

    Were these seven Republican Attorneys General derelict in
    the period immediately following the November 2008 election in fulfilling their legal duty to prosecute crime in their own states?

    Are these seven Republican Attorneys General also guilty of
    not promoting the interests of their own political party in attempting to prosecute cases of election fraud that would, at the minimum, embarrass (if not convict) members of the Democratic Party and embarrass the sitting Democratic
    President?

    In November 2012, there were Republican Attorneys General in most of the battleground states that determined the outcome of the 2012 presidential election:
    ? Florida—29 electoral votes,
    ? Ohio—18 electoral votes,
    ? Virginia—13 electoral votes,
    ? Wisconsin—10 electoral votes,
    ? Colorado—9 electoral votes,
    ? Pennsylvania—20 electoral votes, and
    ? Michigan—16 electoral votes.

    These seven battleground states with Republican Attorneys
    General together possessed 115 electoral Votes. President Obama won each of these battleground states by low-single-digit margins. In 2012, President Obama received only 64 more than the 270 electoral votes required for election.

    I don’t recall successful prosecutions involving the tens of thousands of ballot boxes in these seven outcome-determining states in the 2012 presidential election.

  • James Simpson

    You’re right. They didn’t investigate ballot box stuffing. They should. GOP poll watchers were barred from 16 precincts in Philly because elections officials did not want anyone witnessing what was going on. What they did was illegal. Why would they break the law if they had nothing to hide? Inner city precincts do it all the time but few are willing to investigate or prosecute because it would be very difficult and they are afraid of being tagged as “racists.” Has nothing to do with racism but is all about intimidation. You democrats really have made a successful industry with the race card. It works. Congratulations.

    But AGs don’t just launch investigations. Cases are referred to them for prosecution when uncovered by voting officials. In Ohio, the SOS referred 17 cases of illegal aliens voting for prosecution. In Kansas the SOS referred 21. Sounds like nothing but is actually a lot. Vote fraud is difficult to prosecute and they only refer the most ironclad cases. Still, Ohio needed to be sued to clean up voter rolls. They finally did.

    Local election boards don’t always cooperate either. In Florida, Allen West’s seat was plainly stolen. The state GOP leaders couldn’t be bothered. The county elections officials have still not come clean. In TX, despite obvious registration fraud in the 2010 election, no one was prosecuted.

    But finally, you missed the main point of this article, which is that Democrats battle tooth and nail to prevent anyone from discovering vote fraud while creating laws and rendering judgements that allow what should be considered fraudulent.

  • Patricia Lanergan

    One does get sick reading this stuff. It goes on and on, we all know now what is going on and have for some time BUT, and that is more than a three letter word, NO ONE is taking action to do anything about it and no one will. We are paying people in Washington to look after their jobs and rake in our money and do nothing to help the country pull out of this mess that we are in. enough is enough…..the old saying ” D on’t just talk about it, FIX IT”. Would anyone of us common folk be able to get away with what’s going on in Washington. Our jobs would be on the line in a minute.

  • Ikia

    Right. And Jesus wouldn’t have died on the cross if he had had competent legal counsel.

    And, if you ask me, the most glaring example of corrupttion is Republican/Neo-Conservative in the persons of Bu**sh** and Cheney … since they clearly lied to the American people about Iraq … and their lies cost $2 trillion, 5,000 lives, and 100,000 American military injured.

    And, before that, there was the presidential election of 2000 … stolen by the Republicans via their corrupt election management in Florida and conservative corruption on the U.S. Supreme court.

    And, of course, there’s always Iran Contra and the ongoing institutional corruption of Republicanism initiated by one Richard Nixon.

    Today’s Republicans suck … in every possible way … and it’s incredible how consistently the rednecks, hillbillies and cowboys in the Red States CONTINUOUSLY pursue actions and vote in ways that are inimical to their own interests.

    Nincompoops, all.

  • blackyb

    Shut down the Socialists/Communists in our country. They are disrupting our lives, our political proceess, our voting processes, our schools and Law. Imprison and fine those doing this.

  • James Simpson

    Actually, I didn’t spout. I read it and spoke with elections officials as well. There is a lot of confusion about the provisions, and the DOJ doesn’t even list them all. You are correct though. The two election cycles refer to Congressional elections, and while it can take a long time, it is at least partially because local officials do not stay on top of voter roll maintenance. I have issued a correction. Regardless your tactless comments, thank you for pointing out the error.

    The decision on “proof of citizenship” was brought by KS SOS to avoid having separate registration forms and records for federal elections and state elections. The decision dictates that the EAC MUST change the federal form. They haven’t done it though. Just another demonstration of the Obama administration’s arrogant disregard for any law or decision that doesn’t go their way.

  • Find the Truth

    Bullshit, you live in a fantasy, time to see a shrink.

  • Find the Truth

    What an absurd article, with all this “voter fraud”, how in the hell do Republicans hold any offices in America??? R’s control the House and the majority of the governorships and state legislatures, if Democrats were cheating they would control everything. Yet the people who believe this garbage NEVER let facts get in the way of a good story… How many people have been convicted of in person voting fraud in the last 50 years in this country???
    Let’s get one thing straight, Republicans lose because AMERICANS disagree with their policies, simple as that…no fantasies needed to explain the losses.

  • James Simpson

    This is what passes for Democrat intellectual commentary. Take note.

  • Find the Truth

    Another fantasy, where is your evidence that poll watchers were barred??? Oh that’s right you don’t have any!

  • Find the Truth

    If there is fraud, why do Republicans control the House of Representatives, the majority of the state legislatures and governorships? How about a real answer that stays away from fantasy and conspiracy theories…

  • James Simpson

    Are you insane? That is a rhetorical question:
    http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_21938702/philly-da-probes-reported-voting-inspector-issues
    It happened in NH in 2008 where poll watchers were caged in an area that prevented them from doing their jobs. In 2010 Houston, poll watchers lodged 3,000 complaints of intimidation, illegal vote assistance and other violations. This stuff has been fairly widely reported. You would know if you read at all. Go back to your basement, troll.

  • Find the Truth

    Of course, moron, you linked to an article about the ALLEGATIONS, that my troll friend is NOT PROOF. Where did they educate you, in a cell???

  • Find the Truth

    You make an assumption that you are intellecutal and that what you wrote was intelligible, it wasn’t and only required a very short answer…you believe in conspiracy theories or fantasies OR you’re making money selling this garbage to the gullible. I suspect the later is the case…a professional phony.

  • Find the Truth

    If we have this massive amount of “voter fraud” committed by Democrats, why do Republicans control the United States House of Representatives, the majority of the state governorships and state legislatures??? Can anyone actually answer that question without deleting my comment??? Are you people afraid of real dialogue???

  • Find the Truth

    States actually have to be in play for either party to pay attention to them, if the polling indicates a chance of winning candidates will spend time and money, if not, they won’t and really, why would they? Why would a Democrat go to Alabama or Mississippi???

  • LawReader

    Simply put – anyone against Voter ID is in favor of voter fraud. Doesn’t get much simpler than that…

  • chilly1952

    It would be nice if an article on voter fraud would present at least one instance of actual voter fraud. The reason is they can’t find any. Duplicate voters registration is not voter fraud. When people move to a new state they register in the new state. There is no way to un-register from the state old state. That does not mean they are voting in both states. Voter fraud is so rare it is statistically insignificant to any election outcome. Furthermore, voter fraud can favor either party, thereby further reducing is impact on election results. The Wisconsin investigation to justify their law found and actual rate of voter fraud to be 0.00035%. Pennsylvania’s results we about double that but still insignificant.
    No one is in favor of voter fraud, but the problem with the Voter ID laws that have been forwarded thus far is that they would disenfranchise thousands of voters for every fraudulent voter it might stop. If the it could even successfully stop any fraud. Voter suppression laws are passed only to eliminate Democratic voters. Any Republican who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves or is unaware of the facts.

  • SWohio

    2/23/2014: A crosscheck of voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland turned up 44,000 people registered in both states, a vote-integrity group reported Wednesday.

    “The Virginia Voters Alliance is investigating how to identify voters who are registered and vote in Virginia but live in the states that surround us,” Alliance President Reagan George told the State Board of Elections.

    1/2/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Stephen “Stat” Smith: absentee ballot fraud

    Martine Powers, Everett legislator, charged with voter fraud, vacates seat, Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2013.

    11/29/12: MINNESOTA: voter impersonation (South Washington County Bulletin, Nov. 29, 2012).

    12/3/12: MINNESOTA: William Manzano, Braulio Manzano: noncitizen voting

    “Two Charged with Voter Fraud in Austin, (Austin Daily Herald, Dec. 3, 2012).

    12/10/12: NEVADA: Mike Hays: non-resident voting ( Mohave Valley Daily News, Dec. 10, 2012.)

    1/10/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: absentee ballot fraud. 280 applications for absentee ballots were then dropped off at the East Longmeadow Town Clerk’s office.” Laura Hutchinson, New Charges for Villamaino and Llewellyn in Voter Fraud Case, WWLP, Jan. 10, 2013.

    “Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico “Jack” Villamaino has been
    released on his own recognizance after he and his wife Courtney Llewellyn answered to new charges in their voter fraud case…

    1/18/13: WISCONSIN: Karl Reinelt: felon voting (Pewaukee felon charged with voter fraud, Living Lake County, Jan. 18, 2013.)

    1/21/13: INDIANA: Michael R. Marshall: absentee ballot fraud (Plain Dealer-Sun, Jan. 21, 2013.

    1/31/13: OHIO: Dominique Atkins: double voting (Columbus Dispatch, Jan 31, 2013)

  • SWohio

    good try. too bad all you can do is repeat lies. Of course, LIES are the cornerstone of the Democrat Party.

    2/23/2014: A crosscheck of voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland turned up 44,000 people registered in both states, a vote-integrity group reported Wednesday.

    “The Virginia Voters Alliance is investigating how to identify voters who are registered and vote in Virginia but live in the states that surround us,” Alliance President Reagan George told the State Board of Elections.

    1/2/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Stephen “Stat” Smith: absentee ballot fraud

    Martine Powers, Everett legislator, charged with voter fraud, vacates seat, Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2013.

    11/29/12: MINNESOTA: voter impersonation (South Washington County Bulletin, Nov. 29, 2012).

    12/3/12: MINNESOTA: William Manzano, Braulio Manzano: noncitizen voting

    “Two Charged with Voter Fraud in Austin, (Austin Daily Herald, Dec. 3, 2012).

    12/10/12: NEVADA: Mike Hays: non-resident voting ( Mohave Valley Daily News, Dec. 10, 2012.)

    1/10/13: MASSACHUSETTS: Enrico Villamaino, Courtney Llewellyn: absentee ballot fraud. 280 applications for absentee ballots were then dropped off at the East Longmeadow Town Clerk’s office.” Laura Hutchinson, New Charges for Villamaino and Llewellyn in Voter Fraud Case, WWLP, Jan. 10, 2013.

    “Former East Longmeadow Selectman Enrico “Jack” Villamaino has been
    released on his own recognizance after he and his wife Courtney Llewellyn answered to new charges in their voter fraud case…

    1/18/13: WISCONSIN: Karl Reinelt: felon voting (Pewaukee felon charged with voter fraud, Living Lake County, Jan. 18, 2013.)

    1/21/13: INDIANA: Michael R. Marshall: absentee ballot fraud (Plain Dealer-Sun, Jan. 21, 2013.

    1/31/13: OHIO: Dominique Atkins: double voting (Columbus Dispatch, Jan 31, 2013)

  • Dear Mr. Simpson:

    Interesting stuff. Do we have enough information yet to answer this question:
    If x% of voter fraud (broadly defined) was counted for Mr. Obama and the democratic senate candidates in the affected states in 2012, how big does x have to be, at a minimum, for the elections to have been fraudulent?

    Nationally Obama won by less than 2%: by less than 100,000 votes in Ohio, less than 40,000 in Florida – those numbers are easily in range for the electoral votes from those states to have been awarded to him on the basis of fraudulent votes.

    I suspect an article tabulating the numbers by state and senator would be a barn burner…

  • Peregrino

    If someone can register to vote when they are applying for a driver’s license, how is it racist to then require them to show that license at a polling place to prove that they are indeed the registered voter they say they are? This is not imposing a hardship on the poor, they already have the license!

  • chilly1952

    Exactly my point. Pretty insignificant versus the 100’s of millions of votes cast in the several elections over the time frame. I don’t dispute the fact that voter fraud occurs but it is hardly anywhere near the level implied in this article. I think voter fraud is despicable. Catch them and convict them! My point is that it has no impact on election results. Whereas the Voter ID laws will have a major impact and Republicans know it would be in their favor and that is the real reason Republicans forward the legislation. They don’t deny it. Be honest with yourself.
    Voter fraud is wrong but the voter suppression laws are a much greater injustice.
    I do agree with Mr. Simpson’s assessment that the voter registration system needs improvement. Find a way to fix that without disenfranchising legal voters. Using voter ID laws that sway election results is just as despicable as voter fraud and infinitely more destructive to the country. This makes those who support these laws, IMO, more dangerous to my beloved country then the fraudulent voter.

  • YAYittle

    Massive Voter Fraud. We started a revolution for less than this.

  • chilly1952

    Two wrongs do not make it right.

  • chilly1952

    Yes, Obama should have won by even more!

  • Ed Naile

    Here in New Hampshire in 2008 a Hillsborough Superior Court Judge, Jillian Abramson, ordered several municpalities to stop partitioning off the Republican poll watchers from access to thousands of same day registrants.
    In NH poll watchers, by statute, are to be given a position at which they can hear the voter announce his name to the election official.
    The towns relented by early afternoon after many same day voters ahd registered and voted but at least thius activity, which had gone on at college towns for years has stopped.
    I went to Durham that year at the request of the lawyer for the Republican Party who brough the suit that morning to document the violation and photograph what was going on.
    It happened to me and two helpers in 2002 in Hanover, NH when we were credentialed poll watchers there.
    Ed Naile

  • Rabbittownman

    The Republican party is barred from protesting an election due to voter fraud due to a court case decided in 1982. That consent decree has been renewed several times by the liberal judge that originally decided the case. He, not that long ago, came out of retirement to pass this case over to another liberal judge to continue. Read further details here…

    http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
    Sad but true…

  • Ed Naile

    Our Attorney General, no matter what party wants to put on a good show and pretend we have clean elections. So does our Secretary of State.
    In 2012 718,000 people voted in the Presidential Election here. 99,000 registered same day.
    14,000 showed up at the polls with no identifiation to register and simply signed an affidavit saying they were who they said they were.
    NH is currently looking for thousands of those same day voters by mail and supposedly by a visit from the AG’s Office.
    Short story: Our NH statutes say the AG MAY investigate and prosecute voter fraud – not SHALL! (RSA 7:6a)
    Our state wide taxpayer organization, The Coalition of NH Taxpayers, gave up turning voter fraud evidence over to the proper officials in 2005-6.
    It was a total waste of time.
    Now we expose who we catch on the internet.
    Just Google “Caitlin Ann Legacki” to view a sample of some street justice for fraudsters.

  • Rabbittownman

    The best way to explain why the electoral college is needed that I have thought of is that of a sinking ship. If a ship is sinking, you close off the part that has the hole in the hull. Each state is a different compartment so that if there is rampant voter fraud in one state, it will be limited in how much damage is done to the election. If the EC is removed, as mentioned in the article, presidential candidates will just have to visit the main population centers. The rest will be just pretty scenery.

  • I can’t speak for the country as a whole but in Pennsylvania, where I live, there are 18 congressional districts. Of these 13 are held by 13 are held by Republicans and 5 are held by Democrats.

    PA is a swing state for the presidential election because, essentially, the popular vote for the state sends all of it’s electoral votes. and the bulk of the population is in the South East (Philly and surrounding area) and the West Central (Pittsburgh and surrounding area) The heavily urban areas are more liberal while the the rest of the state, (Land mass) “tends” to be more conservative.

    Since the conservative areas get to send a congressman from corresponding districts and there are more conservatives spread throughout the state we have many more conservative congressmen from PA. I can only assume that the same holds true for other states as well.

    Then there is the fact that most alleged voter fraud or voter imtimedation cases tend to be centered in urban areas rather than rural areas.

  • I believe that this is a serious matter and needs serious attention but I can’t help be be reminded of a joke I once heard.

    “My grandmother faithful voted Republican for 70 years. Since her death 10 years ago she has voted only for Democrats.”

  • LoJoFo

    Reparations are being claimed/taken all over the place–not just in voting. One of the worst is the “knockout game.” We are no longer a nation of laws.

  • LoJoFo

    Yes. As Dennis Miller says, those guys revolted over someone’s messing with their breakfast drink–and it wasn’t even coffee!

  • Proto

    Thanks for issuing a correction. To follow up though on the documentary proof of citizenship point: each state is allowed to have state-specific instructions with the federal form. Under the decision, the EAC must change the federal form’s state-specific instructions for Kansas and Arizona only, not for every state.

  • LoJoFo

    Meloweese Richardson, 2013, Ohio, charged with 8 counts of illegal voting. Convicted on four counts after a deal. Sentenced to 5 years in prison.

  • Proto

    No, “federal general election” encompasses Congressional elections, as James himself acknowledged in the above comment. No, the NVRA does not require multiple notices be sent. No, the NVRA’s notice requirement does not apply to removals based on death (or felony status, or mental incompetency, or citizenship status); it only applies to removals based on change-of-address. I’m not sure where you get your information from, but it’s misinformed. I suggest reading Section 8 of the NVRA: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg77.pdf

  • James Simpson

    The Kansas SOS told me that EAC was refusing to change it as ordered by the court. I assumed he meant for all but you are right the suit regarded only KS and AZ. Sounds like you know your stuff.

  • 1hyperborean1

    When do we start getting names and pushing them into the ocean. H.S. and parent alike. They are lost cheaters with no hope of common sense.
    Move on DC now. Massively.

  • 1hyperborean1

    Sorry. L, ibta,rd leaders assumed your master role 5 decades ago… ‘youse’ is just too ‘stoopid’ to see it.

  • 1hyperborean1

    Uh it was on several new s outlets at the time. Are you 9?

  • 1hyperborean1

    Can’t wait for your free s, h.it to run out. Especially for your party’s voting base. Gonna be fun. Guarantee one party is waaaay more prepped for li,bta,rds policies coming to fruition. One EMP per coast oughta do the trick.

  • 1hyperborean1

    So it is a fraud that repubs control any legislative body…? You are a young, uninformed idiot then. Clueless about life. The perfect democrat

  • Ed Naile

    Same as public support for vote ID.

  • Independent1

    You people are unbelievable! Call yourselves a Democracy?

    I note you are missing some potential voter fraud cases. Ohio springs to mind, when the Republican Electoral Commisioner promised to ‘deliver it to Bush’ after installing E-voting machines with no paper trails. You should include these things for the sake of ‘Accuracy’ you know!

    By the way, you do know the constitution gives THE STATES the authority to designate electors to the electoral college in any way they choose…Yes?

    They don’t actually need to hold a vote or abide by the results of the vote.

    The interstate voting compact means the states will assign their electors to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote and not the STATE vote – this is perfectly in line with the constitution and legal.

    Oh, and before you decide to flame me for being a leftist or democrat or whatever. I’m not. Nor am I republican/conservative. I’m an independent, outside, observer.

    Thankyou for the funniest thing I’ve read for a while!

  • toto

    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today’s political climate,
    the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.

    Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures
    that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

    Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a
    handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.

    10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.

    Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.

    Two-thirds of the general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

    None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.

    About 80% of the country was ignored –including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

    With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and
    matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

    16% of Americans live in rural areas.

    The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

    Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can
    change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against
    manipulation.

    National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

    The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

    For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

    Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

  • Richard Hellstrom

    In the article
    Report: White House Adviser, NSA Employees Bought Phony College Degrees
    By The Public Record Staff it stated that
    A senior military adviser working at the White House and two National Security Agency employees with top-secret security clearances were discovered among a list of nearly 10,000 people who purchased phony college degrees from a Washington state diploma mill,
    The newspaper reported that the Department of Justice refused to publicly release the list once it completed an investigation.
    =======================================
    Our government wants to place people in positions who haven’t graduated high school under the socialism and my favorite people act while claiming bliss and then further contending they know so much information on people that they can’t precur work or maintain any kind of normal social or professional life.
    Communism 101

  • Jack

    You know, for all the hysterics about “voter fraud,” it’s quite telling that voter-ID proponents can never come up with any actual cases of voter-impersonation fraud, which can be stopped by requiring a photo ID. The best they can do is make accusations, but when such accusations are investigated, they never pan out. In the real world, voter fraud is about as common as hens’ teeth.

  • The Major

    I agree with Barbara Ann. ( I typed a long rant ,,but Big Brother erased it)
    2 important Elections coming folks,,,watch & wait,,,& watch some more,,VOTE
    IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICA,,, Marxists are taking over in the name of Liberalism,,,& they want to crash the system

  • Bob Schadler

    Most interesting and well done. And I’ve seen little elsewhere.
    One might turn the issue into a different framework by asking a few questions:
    Would one expect the temptation to cheat to rise or diminish as the stakes became greater?
    If one needed to commit voter fraud in 2014, say, simply for the thrill of it, where and with whom would you work to achieve this goal. My thought would be where people were very motivated to “win”, where people could plausibly be “resident” in more than one place, where precincts were so overwhelmingly partisan the other party rarely showed up, and in states where a high level of civil morality was low and in states where the outcome was more in doubt.
    It may not mean exclusively students, Hispanics and Black voters outside of Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, the Dakotas and Wisconsin — but one might think of starting there. And, the contours shift for very local elections and national elections, as to where voter fraud makes sense.
    BTW: The Senate vote approving ObamaCare needed every senator voting yes that did; appointed, not elected senators from Illinois, Delaware, NY, Colorado MA ? (when Kennedy died). A likely extended fraudulent vote count in Minnesota. Possibly one or two others that con’t come to mind.

  • Ed Naile

    After the 2012 presidential election here in our swing state of student voter dominated New Hampshire we watched the out of state activist/voters leave for Virginia’s race for governor. That being the only hot race around it was a natural fit for fresh enforcements of campaign savvy help.
    I would think 2014 will see the important US Senate races attract out of state help and voters.
    Then it will be the early start of the 2016 presidential election with the opening of offices and hiring of help to orgaize the fresh batch of incoming students, students already on our checklists, and people to vote for the students who graduated and left NH but remain on our lists.
    This is the NH style vote fraud we see.
    Just google “Caitlin Ann Legacki” to see how that works.

  • terry1956

    I’m strongly against E- verify because it smacks of the mark of the beast, its unconstitutional, Un American to have a law requiring an ID or number including a social security number or tax number to exercise out God Giving right buy, to sell, to work for those willing to sell to us, buy from us and hire us.
    On the other hand voting is not a right, its a privilege of citizenship but here in Tennessee I am against requiring either a federal ID or state ID to vote.
    No American citizen should be required to have a federal ID or a State government ID unless they work for the federal or state government or for a pass port if they plan to leave the Country and want to come back.
    Here in Tennessee even driving should not be a state issue but should be left up to each of the 95 counties, if a county decides not to have a drivers licence then the locals would have to understand that they could only drive inside that county without one unless one or more neighboring counties also did not have a driver’s license requirement.
    Here in Tennessee a pictured voter ID should be required to vote but if an American and proper residence of the county does not want to have a state or federal ID then the county election commission should issue the ID.
    Here in Tennessee like with the County Sheriff, the head of the county election commission is elected by the local people.
    Machine voting should be done away with here in Tennessee.
    In 1946 Tennessee law stated ballots should be counted in public and the ballots need to be paper to do that.
    In McMinn County the people and returned GIs forced the politicians in Athens at gun point to count the ballots in public.
    Today the voting process, except the actual voting should be videoed, broadcasted, streamed on the internet live, including a snap shot of every person signing in to vote, then the vote count should be done in public and videoed, broadcasted, streamed live.
    If no one gets over 50% of the vote then a runoff in both the primary and general should be called with the dates and times stated in public.

  • terry1956

    What should be done is to take a snap shot of the person who is signing in to vote, as while as videoing, broadcasting and live streaming the process, then compare the snapshots and videos with others in the state and other states to see who is voting more than once in a election.
    The snap shots, the videoing, live broadcasting and live internet streaming will also help prevent intimidation of voters, ballot stuffing etc and of course the paper ballots should also be counted in public, videoed, broadcasted and streamed live.
    Machine voting should not be allowed.
    voting through mail and abinstee voting should not be allowed except for our troops.
    state or federal government ID should not be required to vote, nor should an American citizen be required to have a state or federal ID for just about all other normal activities such as working for a private non government contracting business or non profit, selling, buying, running a non corporate or non LLC or non LLP business, driving locally, broadcasting locally, flying an aircraft locally, no federal or state tax number, no social security number should be required.
    A picture ID should be required to vote in but the local election commission can make up registration cards and take a picture of the registered voter.
    If a person has a problem getting to the election commission office to get the new ID then the election commission can send at least three people to the persons home to take the picture, one person from each of the two main parties and another representing the county election commission.

  • terry1956

    Well only paper ballots publicly counted should be allowed.
    We are a not a democracy at the federal level or state level, we are a constitutional federation republic of 50 sovereign federation republics of various number democratic republican counties and or townships of democratic local communities.
    The democrat part comes in at the lowest local level, at Jefferson’s Ward Republic level.
    Even at the local level a jury of peers of the defendant can veto a local ordinance case by case if it would be unjust to apply that ordnance in that case against the defendant.
    flexyourrights.org
    jurybox.org.
    Its a serious mistake to go with a popular vote for president nation wide, stupid as hell in fact for smaller states.
    It would be far better to go the other way by having a Constitutional Amendment giving each state an equal number of electoral votes and the electoral votes and the electorals would be elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the counties.
    The primaries should be done that way also.
    Also if no one gets at least 51% of the vote in the county then that county will have a run off election in both the primary and general election.
    Oh yeah while we are amending the Constitution limit the terms of office for president, US House, US Senate to two year and two terms. limit judges to one 4 year term and require a regular citizen jury of 12set in to make the decision with the judge in every case, or judges in appeal cases or justices in the supreme court, require a unamious decision of the fully informed jury in the local case to carry for the defense, a unamious decision of the jury and judge to convict, a unamious decision of jury, judges or justices to carry in appeal and supreme court cases.
    One US Representive and One Congressional district for every 30,000 people.
    Two US Senators for each state, one elected by a popular vote state wide of 51% or more.
    The other elected by 51% or more of the voters in a county and 51% more of the counties in a state.
    State House districts of 1,000 people each and state senate with equal representation to each county.

  • terry1956

    No he should not, without voter fraud and if there had been an honest vote count in the general then Romney would have won in the general in 2012.
    Of course if there had not been vote rigging in the primary season in 2012 and 2008 Romney and Obama never would have came up against each other in the 2012 general because Romney never would have won in the primary season of 2012 and Obama never would have won in the primary season of 2008.
    Oh by the way if the vote count was honest then still Obama was the first choice of less than 15% of Americans able to vote in the 2008 primary season and Romney was the first choice of less than 10%.
    So combined the two was the first choice of less than 25%.
    Since only 7 states have run offs in the primaries in, local, state, congressional elections and only one- GA in both the primary and general of local, state and congressional races we would not know if Romney or Obama was the second choice in the primaries in most states if the run offs applied to the presidential race but they don’t, but they should.
    plus there should be run offs in both the primary and general in all the states which very well may have been that Al Gore would have won in 2000 except for the fact that Clinton likely would have not won in 1992 and thus Al Gore likely would have not been VP in 2000 and could not have run on the coattails of Slick Willy.

  • terry1956

    Well its doubtful most states would give up their electoral privilege to a national popular vote count or if they did they would soon pull it back.
    I will fight to keep that from happening in TN and will encourage other small states to do the same, it lacks good common sense for a small state to give that up, down right stupid as hell.
    But I do encourage dividing up 9 of the electoral votes here in TN to each of the 9 congressional districts and the two other votes divided equally in geographic area regardless of population size between East TN and West TN.
    Further more I call on run off elections in both the primaries and general if no one gets 51% in local, county, state, congressional and presidential races in all states, and encourage states that have them to do away with the caucuses and lets do away with the national conventions as a method of nominating those running for president.

  • Ed Naile

    This line of reasoning has a flip side.
    Can anyone opposed to photo ID show a single example of a person who was disenfranchised by having to prove who he was?
    In any state?
    I hear that thousands will lose the ability to vote if they have to show an ID but never seem to see a real, live, plaintiff.

  • Ed Naile

    What can be done now is to prosecute those we catch and to have the very reluctant prosecutors in various states do their job.
    Our AG in NH selects, at the most, two per year to prosecute then ignores the rest.
    If we did the same with, for instance, the crime of arson, we could eradicate that crime altogether.
    When we caught a sitting NH State Senator, Martha Fuller Clark, harboring 8 out of state voters at her million dollar home the NH AG simply redefined the statute to accomodate her.
    She is a big wig in the Dem. Party.
    Check it out on Google:
    Martha Fuller Clark NH voter fraud

  • Jack

    Barring absentee voting effectively disenfranchises people who for whatever reason (illness, away on travel, going to college away from home, etc) can’t get to the polls in their home district. Are you sure you thought this one through?

  • GianniP

    “How many PROSECUTIONS have there been over the last 10,20, 30, 40 years for “voter fraud” ??? ”
    >>> Your premise is that vote fraud cases are prosecuted. It’s false; they are not. For example, in NC, where I live hundreds and hundreds of people have ben turned over to DA’s for prosecution. Not one ever was; and that was to maintain the erroneous meme that you just so glibly parroted.

  • GianniP

    “How many PROSECUTIONS have there been over the last 10,20, 30, 40 years for “voter fraud” ??? ”
    >>> Let’s hope he passes soon. He’s earned his time in that gnarly place.

  • GianniP

    Is this discourse? Your liberal skirt is showing.

  • GianniP

    You’re just a bully, FTT…..

  • GianniP

    “If there is fraud, why do Republicans control the House of Representatives, the majority of the state legislatures and governorships?”
    >>> They’ve succeeded despite the best (or worst) effort so the Party of Corruption. I hope you’re a Vet and in need of medical care.

  • GianniP

    Replaced now with roving truckloads of Somalis…..how apropos.

  • GianniP

    This federal government has become far more oppressive than King George could even have hoped to have been. But they didn’t have mindless lib-drones back then to gum up the works.

  • GianniP

    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
    >>> Puh-leeze, that is an absurdity. We are a nation divided into three camps: The GOP rurals, the Dem urbans and the battleground suburbs. Any attempt to subvert the Electoral College amount to nothing more than a power grab for the corrupt Democratic Socialist Party and our Constitution is wholly incompatible with socialism. Any attempt to change that will lead, inevitably to civil war, and an urban area would be the last place you’d want to be, let alone vote from.

  • Ed Naile

    Same thing in NH no matter who the AG is.
    Our Statute RSA 7:6 says the AG “may” not shall prosecute and investigate.
    So that is how they let thousands of non-residents vote here.

  • Find the Truth

    What are you saying? You hope I don’t get needed medical care??? The Veterans Adminstration has problems, no doubt, yet they are not confined to one adminstration, this problem spans a couple of decades.

  • Find the Truth

    No, I just don’t suffer fools gladly. Actually know what your talking about and we can have a conversation, make things up and lie, I’ll hammer you…

  • Find the Truth

    He’s a liar, he knows it and so do you…There is no need to allow such garbage to go unchallenged.

  • GianniP

    True, but it was a campaign trick of Obama in 2008 to say he was going to “fix the problem” and here we are, nearly six years later and we’re stuck with yet another
    false promise and by all accounts, the problem has grown much worse. Obama is proof you get what you pay for…..

  • GianniP

    You’re a bully. Perhaps if you untie the tourniquet around you neck, oxygen will return your brain.
    And as for your hammer, that which I “keep and bear” has hammers, too.

  • GianniP

    “He’s a liar, he knows it and so do you”
    >>> Assume you’re referring to Obama, because everyone knows he ‘s a liar. Don’t forget to try on that crystal slipper….

  • Dean Chambers

    In Massachusetts, for instance, only Republicans get prosecuted for voter fraud. Liberals who deny voter fraud even exists, will gleefully point to that rare example of a Republican convicted of voter fraud, while they cover up and deny most of the real voter fraud done by Democrats. And if anyone thinks ACORN has disappeared, they’re as strong as ever operating in very stealth fashion under other names, and still getting government grants for their criminal enterprises under those other names.

  • James Simpson

    How do you suffer with yourself then? You are doing nothing but attack. You provide no substance to any argument. It is all BS, like you.

  • Dean Chambers

    Wrong. You folks on the far left are the bullies, everything you do and have gained is by bullying. The far left forced by pure bullying the APA to stop classifying homosexuality as a mental illness, not based on science, but based on bullying. The Obama Regime is the Bullying Regime, everything they do is based on bullying. His State of the Coup address, the last one, was a threat to bully Congress if they didn’t pass what he wanted passed. The left can’t win debates because you all have no substance intellectually to win a debate. You can’t win elections fair and square, that’s why you engage in voter fraud and real voter suppression and squeal like stuck pigs when we expose you for it, and it’s why you so falsely cry “racism” in response to voter ID because you have no argument against it, you ca’t tell the truth and say “we oppose voter ID laws because they will make it tougher for us to engage in voter fraud.” That would be the only honest response a liberal leftist could offer.

  • Find the Truth

    Pal, anytime you want to discuss actual facts, I’ll be happy to have a conversation with you, but the nonsense you wrote in this post is not worthy of a real discussion. Can’t you get a real job or write a real article with facts and stuff???

  • Ronald Kirk

    Greetings. I write on behalf of Nordskog Publishing and our public service e-newsletter The Bell Ringer. We wanted you to know that we shared a quote by James Simpson on the crimes committed by the Obama administration. You can view this newsletter online at http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/327151/4baa9ceab5/1426000451/ab83c6a235/. Regards, Ron Kirk–TBR editor