Fraud? What voter fraud? While progressives continue to deny, deny, deny, investigative journalist James O’Keefe and Project Veritas continues to expose, expose, expose.
The latest target: North Carolina.
Project Veritas pulled up jury refusal forms and voter history documents to show that non-citizens and dead people there are registered to vote.
Watch as a man posing as a non-citizen with a passport is stubbornly encouraged by NC officials — who refuse to examine his ID — to vote. Listen to a conversation with election officials who joke about running over Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Listen to the election judge who only wants to uphold certain parts of the state constitution. And witness a University of North Carolina official chuckling as a “student” brags about voting in two different states to infiltrate GOP primaries.
Over the past five months, investigative journalist James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team have exposed systemic lapses at precincts in New Hampshire, Minnesota, Vermont and Washington, D.C. The ballots of famous public figures have been forked over to complete strangers; disenfranchisement of legitimate voters is routine. While Minnesota and New Hampshire legislators have passed new voter integrity/identification laws, O’Keefe now has been targeted for investigation and possible prosecution for blowing the whistle. And Attorney General Eric Holder is striking his usual see-no-evil, shoot-the-messenger, play-the-race-card pose.
The solution isn’t to sit back and bemoan a fantastical global conspiracy. The solution is to get off the couch, support election integrity activists like O’Keefe, and turn out in force on Election Day to eject Obama’s voter fraud coddlers. Like the old saying goes: If it ain’t close, they can’t cheat.
Florida officials are now saying that nearly 200,000 registered voters may not be U.S. citizens.
Earlier in the week, state election officials announced they had identified more than 2,600 people who are in Florida legally but ineligible to vote.
The Department of State is asking county election officials to verify the information. Election supervisors are contacting voters and if someone is not a citizen, their name will be dropped from the voter rolls.
But an initial list drawn up by the state – and not widely released – shows that a comparison of voter lists and driver’s license information turned up a list of nearly 182,000 people who may not be U.S. citizens. . . . .
Scytl: Voter Fraud Facts and Fiction
by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012
With six months until Election Day, conspiracy theories are percolating on the Internet like bubbling mud pots at Yellowstone: Left-wing billionaire George Soros is going to rig the election for Barack Obama. Foreigners will oversee the nation’s entire vote-counting system. The fix is in, and all is lost.
Before conservatives go all Michael Moore-moonbatty, let’s calm down and separate voter fraud facts from fiction. There’s no time to waste worrying about manufactured scares. And there are plenty of legitimate threats to electoral integrity without having to inflate or concoct them.
FACT: Scytl is a Spain-based business that specializes in “electoral security technology” and electronic voting applications. Its cryptographic research initially was funded by the Spanish government’s Ministry of Science and Technology and later was spun off as a private-sector e-voting venture.
FACT: In January 2012, Scytl acquired U.S.-based SOE Software. SOE writes “election management” programs that assist officials with everything from “Internet voting to election night reporting and online poll worker training.”
FICTION: According to alarmists, Scytl’s acquisition of SOE amounts to a complete takeover of America’s election system. No, not really. While SOE boasts of a presence “with 900 jurisdictions as customers in 26 states,” there is no single contract that the federal government has entered into, or could, with Scytl to count the 2012 presidential election votes. Much of the work Scytl/SOE analysts do is number-crunching and graphics software work after local and state officials have done the vote-counting.
Scytl does have a contract with the feds to use its technology to help overseas and military voters participate in elections. In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act mandated that U.S. jurisdictions allow uniformed and overseas citizens to receive and track their ballots electronically. Scytl’s online ballot program was used in 14 states during the 2010 midterms.
FACT: The security risks of e-voting are still a legitimate concern. University of California at Berkeley computer science professor David Wagner wrote a critical report for the Pentagon about the privacy and accuracy shortcomings of Scytl’s military voting program in 2004 — which prompted the feds to cancel the initial program, according to PBS.
In October 2010, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics encouraged outside parties to try to find security holes in their online balloting infrastructure operated by Scytl. A group of University of Michigan students successfully hacked into the system, commandeered passwords, doctored ballots and programmed audio of the school’s fight song to play whenever an e-ballot was submitted.
Hackers from Iran and China also came close to breaking in. “After the hack,” according to AOLNews.com, “(D.C.) administrators decided to relaunch under a download-only format, allowing users to access ballots but forcing them to fax or mail them rather than cast a vote online.” The D.C. official who oversaw the system, Paul Stenbjorn, now works for Scytl.
FICTION: Chain e-mails about Scytl claim that George Soros owns, operates or controls Scytl. In reality, the company’s investors are Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker SCR. Soros doesn’t “own” any of these international venture capital firms — and as far as my research shows, he has no involvement whatsoever with any of them. Moreover, Scytl’s board of directors doesn’t include anyone with Soros financial or management ties.
This report reveals the Left’s vote fraud strategy for the 2012 elections. Like a KGB operation, it is thorough, multi-faceted and redundant. It has overt and covert, illegal and legal elements, the latter of which are designed, at least in part, to facilitate illegal activities later. It is a deliberate, premeditated, comprehensive plan to win the 2012 presidential election at all costs, and is in keeping with the organizational methods, associations and ethics of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama.
The Left seeks fundamental structural change to our entire form of government. In keeping with their amoral, means-justifies-ends philosophy, they will register any voters, dead or alive, legal or illegal, who will then vote as many times as possible, in order to establish a “permanent progressive majority.” As two New York Democrats recently caught in a vote fraud scandal told police, “voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections…”
Low income individuals are the perfect dupes for this strategy. An expanding welfare state makes them increasingly dependent on government benefits, a development that guarantees their vote for liberal-left candidates. At the same time, people with marginal attachment to society may be less inclined to report illegal activity at the polls—or actually participate. The “victim” narrative promoted in popular culture and press may even encourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a growing tax burden and public debt suck private enterprise dry—pushing ever more people onto the dole.
Politicians of both parties are not above engaging in vote fraud. But this kind of corruption is relegated to individual campaigns or areas where corrupt political establishments have been able to develop unchallenged. It is not a systematic component of overall national strategy, as it is with the Left.
This strategy has been under development for decades. They have constructed an entire industry devoted to this task and pursue a multifaceted strategy to accomplish it:
1. Swamp election officials with overwhelming numbers of registrations at the last possible minute, a huge proportion of which are deliberately fraudulent, in order to create systematic chaos. This accomplishes numerous goals:
Makes verification of registrations difficult, given the small size and limited budgets of state and local election offices.
Provides multiple opportunities for vote fraud.
Throws the entire voting process into question, providing pretext for lawsuits where concessions may be obtained from election officials.
When election officials challenge registrations, they are accused of “voter suppression.” This in turn serves complementary goals:
Charge of “voter suppression” reinforces the Left’s narrative about America as an oppressive, “racist” country.
Publicity and lawsuits intimidate election officials, who settle on terms favorable to the Left.
2. Activists sue state authorities for “voter suppression,” creating further chaos and pressuring them to become de facto taxpayer-funded voter registration operations;
3. Eric Holder’s Justice Department tacitly supports voter intimidation tactics, sues states and backs private lawsuits, and resists reform as “voter suppression.”
4. Leftist echo chamber discredits allegations of vote fraud, supports “suppression” theme, and promotes advantageous legislation.
The ultimate goal is a systematized, taxpayer-funded voting machinery that will guarantee maximum participation from the Left’s voting demographic while undermining the ability to manage elections and prevent fraud.
The ACORN Swamping Method
Key to understanding the Left’s vote-fraud strategy is the community organizing group ACORN. ACORN has become synonymous with corruption, complicity in the subprime mortgage crisis and especially vote fraud.
The message being pounded home by the elites through the mainstream media is that Mitt Romney is now the nominee.
The Republican Party establishment has employed all types of shenanigans and underhanded tactics to ensure its candidate to oppose President Barack Obama is Mitt Romney and not a true conservative.
Most of the Republican voters find Romney less than slightly palatable. Whereas 2008 nominee John McCain was truly a bitter pill, Romney is a bitter pill with a thin honey coating. If you swallow it fast enough, maybe the bitterness won’t make you retch.
Conservatives recognize that Romney is not one of them. They see through the veneer the elites have pasted over him. He’s trying to sound conservative, but it’s not working. Americans know a phony when they see one.
But the message being pounded home by the elites through the mainstream media is that Romney is now the nominee; and more specifically, that he’s the Republicans’ best hope to beat Obama in November. Republican talking heads continuously take to the airwaves to push this meme.
But in the back rooms they don’t really believe it. According to POLITICO, if you give the “Republican professionals” a truth serum, they’ll tell you they think Romney will lose.
The article reads:
But under the table, there is pervasive pessimism among Republicans about Romney’s prospects this fall. It’s apparent in rampant discussions about which Republicans will run in 2016—talk that obviously presupposes a loss in November—and it’s downright glaring in private conversations with GOP officials on Capitol Hill and in consulting shops across Washington.
And the skepticism about Romney isn’t just a Beltway phenomenon. Rank-and-file Republican voters are also uncertain he can win, though it’s the chattering class that is most bearish.
What’s going on here? Are Republicans (I mean the elites and string pullers, not Joe and Jane Republican Voter) trying to lose?
Robert Ringer recently asked a similar question when writing about a GOP gathering in Arizona. He wrote:
What is it that causes the mushy masochism that drives Republicans to seek out disaster year after year, decade after decade? It wasn’t enough that the Republican Party stubbornly picked yet another RINO automaton, apparently believing that the 2008 election disaster was just an aberration. No sir, it had to taunt conservatives by bringing McMush back from the dead and pushing him on stage, front and center, with MittMan… And, of course, Romney had his moderate mode on cruise control, once again being careful to say nice things about Der Fuhrbama. He said he liked him as a man, but felt his decisions were disappointing. Aw … shucks, Mitt. You brought a tingle to my leg.
It seems clear that the Republican establishment — or at least the behind-the-scenes party apparatchik — is once again trying to lose, which brings us to the question of why. What is to be gained by a Republican loss? I posited one theory last fall. But now I believe there is a better answer. But before I get to it, a short history lesson is in order.
The Republican Party grew out of the ashes of the Whig Party.
So much in life depends on the “what ifs.” When it comes to American politics, however, the outcomes can be disastrous. It’s a lesson that we need to address more often.
I got to thinking about this as the news of the John Edwards trial continues. For me, it’s not so much if he is found guilty or innocent. After the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial and the more recent Casey Anthony trial, one becomes inured to miscarriages of justice. Worse off are the poor souls found guilty and serving years behind bars before being exonerated.
John Edwards, though, is emblematic of so much that is wrong with politics in America and a poster boy for why the profession of law is so frequently held in low esteem. Particularly troubling is the fact that he was chosen by John Kerry to be his running mate in the presidential campaign where, mercifully, George W. Bush defeated him in 2004.
Do we really need to be reminded that, were Kerry elected and if he were to have died in office, we would have had President John Edwards in office?
That’s why the trial about whether he misused campaign funds to cover up an affair with Rielle Hunter that led to the birth of a child (while his wife was dying from cancer) is of far less importance than the fact that America could have ended up with a President Edwards.
Let me remind you, too, that it was not the mainstream media that broke the story of Edward’s affair and love child. It was the tabloid, the National Enquirer.
To be candid, I have still not forgotten or forgiven Bill Clinton for debasing the office of President with a tawdry fling with an impressionable intern, Monica Lewinski. And, of course, he lied about it as long as he could. This flaw in his character still troubles me.
As for Kerry, the Senator from Massachusetts sets a whole new standard for stupidity and hypocrisy, but a previous Senator who made it to the Oval Office, John F. Kennedy was likely saved from ignominy by an assassin’s bullet. His philandering has been well documented and the media of his era covered for him.
Edwards strikes me as a particularly loathsome individual. If a jury sends him to jail it will merely be a paragraph in a future history book. Legal experts tend to think that he will be found not guilty of using campaign funds given the complexity of where they came from, whether they really were gifts, and other factors too arcane for me to fathom.
Consider the present situation. If Barack Obama should suffer a massive heart attack this nation and its destiny would be in the hands of Joe Biden, another fool worthy only of late night comedian’s jokes. But Biden is not a joke. He is the proverbial one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States.
Biden’s current status as campaign “attack dog” suits him well, He is capable of saying anything and mostly what he has to say is a tissue of lies. Putting aside Obama’s destruction of the nation’s economy, Biden is sufficient reason to vote for Mitt Romney and whoever he selects as his running mate.
If you’re a liberal, you would probably insist, depending on which one you attended, that Harvard, Yale, Stanford or UC Berkeley, was the finest college or university in the country. If you went to Harvard, you would probably say, in the world.
If you were a conservative, you would probably vote for Hillsdale.
But I contend that far and away, the best one doesn’t even have a campus, an endowment fund or even a football team. In fact, it’s the one that people tend to ignore except once every four years. I’m referring to the Electoral College.
As a rule, the only time people even talk about it, they’re complaining that it should be abolished. But, as is nearly always the case, they happen to be wrong and the Founding Fathers were right.
Just as the geniuses who came up with the Constitution didn’t want the federal government to be able to lord it over the states, they also didn’t want a few larger states to lord it over the smaller ones. There is possibly nothing that makes a stronger case for those men having been divinely-inspired than Article Two of the Constitution, which declared that the presidency would not be determined by a popular vote.
Just as they sought balance by deciding that each state, whatever its population, would have two senators, they also wanted to avoid having a few large states controlling presidential elections. They had, after all, set out to create a republic, not a democracy.
So it is that Barack Obama could easily win the popular vote this November by taking such states as California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts, by several million votes, but still wind up losing the election because his Republican opponent wins in places such as Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, Kansas, Alaska, the Dakotas and the Carolinas, by anything from 10,000 to 50,000 votes.
If that happens, we can all be sure that the Democrats will whine about it and cry, “Foul!”
But how is it fair that a minority of 15 or 20 states should be able to impose their will on 30 or 35 others?
Although, the Electoral College generally reflects the popular vote, that’s not always the case. For instance, in 1876, Samuel J. Tilden received 250,000 more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, but lost the election by one electoral vote. In 1880, James Garfield only garnered 16,000 more votes than Winfield Hancock, but clobbered him in the College 214-155.
In 1884, Grover Cleveland narrowly squeaked by with a 25,000 vote margin, but he defeated James Blaine by 37 votes where it counted. However, when Cleveland ran for re-election in 1888, he wound up with 90,000 more votes than Benjamin Harrison, but lost in the Electoral College 233-168.
In 1960, JFK, thanks to typical left-wing hanky-panky in Texas and Illinois, wound up with 114,000 more votes (out of roughly 69,000,000 cast), but easily defeated Nixon in the College 303-219.
In 1968, Nixon only received a trifling 500,000 more votes than Humphrey (out of 73,000,000 cast), but buried him in the College election 301-191.
In 2000, in an election reminiscent of the ones that took place in 1876 and 1888, Al Gore took the popular vote 50,992,335 to George W.
One side of the political aisle claims that requiring American citizens to show a photo ID to elect other Americans to positions of power presents a hardship to “the poor,” blacks, and Hispanics. The claim is absurd on its face and even more so when you consider that people have to show photo ID throughout their lives, including when cashing a check, boarding a plane, or even entering the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which opposes voter ID laws.
Voter fraud doesn’t have to be rampant to pose serious problems. One fraudulent vote is one too many, especially in close contests. In a stunning and ironic display of potential fraud, James O’Keefe, who released undercover videos of ACORN employees advising operatives on how to break the law, released this week an undercover video that revealed how easy it is to commit voter fraud in the nation’s capital.
During the April 3 primary in the District of Columbia, an operative entered U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s polling place in northwest D.C. and gave Holder’s name and address. The poll worker searched the records, found it, and asked the operative to sign “his” name. The operative said he left his ID in the car. The worker said he didn’t need it. The operative said he’d feel more comfortable showing his ID and left.
The DOJ downplayed the sting. “It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”
Manufactured or otherwise, doesn’t the sting expose the potential for fraud? The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics thinks so. The agency has launched an investigation into the incident.
Columnist and author John Fund notes that absentee voting also is open to fraud. Most states don’t require ID for absentee ballots. In Jamie Dean’s WORLD cover story on voter ID laws, she paraphrased Fund on the issue. Absentee ballots tend to favor Republicans. Just as Democrats oppose voter ID laws because the people likely not to have photo IDs tend to vote for Democrats, Republicans “often downplay serious abuses of mail-in ballots.”
The right to vote is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, but it’s not absolute. States are authorized to set voter qualifications. For example, they may require an age minimum and residency, but they may not require poll taxes or literacy tests. No laws prevent “the poor,” the elderly, or racial and ethnic minorities from voting. Any citizen qualified to vote may vote. Even if one is poor in the true sense of the word, one can obtain a state-issued photo ID at no cost. All it takes is going down to the local DMV—which can be an equal opportunity nightmare.
The best way to prevent voter fraud is to require in-person and mail-in voters to verify their identity. Politics is contentious by design, and common-sense voter ID laws will help ensure the integrity of the voting process. Ask yourselves what sort of person would object to accuracy and honesty in choosing men and women to positions of power.
I saw this discussion going on here at SUFA during the day yesterday and decided I would wade into these waters with my own thoughts. I won’t spend hours writing, but I will simply offer up what I think and allow the debate to grow from there. There were some who claimed that voter fraud wasn’t as rampant as reported. I am unable to prove that claim right or wrong, although I think that it is clear that there are cases of voter fraud out there. Do they have a significant impact? I think that they can. I also think that in certain races and certain voting precincts that there have been those who fully exploited the system to create a big enough impact. But I will focus only on the concept that has been put forth, primarily by the Democrat party, that to require ID at the voting booth disenfranchises the poor. I find this to be an utterly ridiculous claim. And here is why…
Let’s start with the claim. According to pundits on the left, somewhere between 10% and 15% of voting age Americans do not have a valid form of government issued ID with which to prove their identity at the polls. Take this excerpt from a NY Times article:
Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities…
There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.
The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.
So where did that number come from? Nearly every single article I can find that lists a source links back to a survey from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. In other words, nearly every single person citing such statistics is operating on info released from a very heavily left leaning source. If we are going to base the claims all on one study, I thought it pertinent to look a little closer to what the survey entailed, because they would have you believe the survey simply asked “do you have an ID?” But that is not what they asked.
Before we get to the reaction of Eric Holder’s office to the video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, here’s a little background on the video for those who are unfamiliar with the story:
In a shocking new video exclusive to Breitbart.com, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas demonstrates to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, just why he should be concerned about lack of voter ID laws – by walking into Holder’s voting precinct and showing the world that anyone can obtain Eric Holder’s ballot. Literally.
Here’s a quick flashback reminder of the words of Attorney General Holder from March of this year during an interview in which he said there was “no proof” that US elections are marred by vote fraud:
Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed any belief of in-person voter fraud damaging American elections Tuesday evening, a day after the Justice Department blocked Texas’ photo voter ID law.
In an interview with NBC Nightly News’ Pete Williams, Holder reiterated his previous comments before Congress labeling photo ID laws a “solution in search of a problem” and emphasized the importance of being allowed to vote.
“What were talking here is a constitutional right,” he said. “This is not a privilege. The right to vote is something that fundamental to who we are as Americans. We have people who have given their lives, people have sacrificed a great deal in order for people to have the right to vote. It’s what distinguishes the United States from most other countries.”
So, all qualified citizens have the constitutional right to vote… but do they all have the constitutional right to vote as somebody else? Here’s the video of an election worker handing a man a ballot that would have allowed him to vote as Eric Holder. You’d think it might cause the DoJ to believe that the solution has found its problem:
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the same guy went back in five minutes later and asked about some other well known person from that district to see if he could do it again.
Naturally the Department of Justice was so shocked and outraged that somebody could have so easily gained access to the Attorney General’s ballot that they are re-thinking their stance on voter ID.
A DOJ official responds to a video released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas that shows a D.C. poll worker offering Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot to an undercover activist:
“It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”
In other words, there wouldn’t be any holes in the system if conservative activists would stop pointing them out.
For decades, this nation has been held hostage by countries that do not like us. Over federal regulation has created a wall between our God given natural energy resources and energy producers. We must tear down this wall! The "Made in America" energy plan will make this country energy independent, and we can do it in 9 years! www.cainconnections.com
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
This report reveals the Left’s vote fraud strategy for the 2012 elections. Like a KGB operation, it is thorough, multi-faceted and redundant. It has overt and covert, illegal and legal elements, the latter of which are designed, at least in part, to facilitate illegal activities later. It is a deliberate, premeditated, comprehensive plan to win the 2012 presidential election at all costs, and is in keeping with the organizational methods, associations and ethics of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama. 
During the April 3 primary in the District of Columbia, an operative entered U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s polling place in northwest D.C. and gave Holder’s name and address. The poll worker searched the records, found it, and asked the operative to sign “his” name. The operative said he left his ID in the car. The worker said he didn’t need it. The operative said he’d feel more comfortable showing his ID and left. 
Before we get to the reaction of Eric Holder’s office to the video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, here’s a little background on the video for those who are unfamiliar with 
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
