Voter Fraud

[AuntieM]

This is most disconcerting!

 

[MeeMie]

Swing State Voter Fraud Crosses Country

Obama campaign staffers are voting in swing states across the county – and it appears they are bypassing state residency requirements.

Palestra.net’s voter fraud investigation started in Ohio where the law entitles only permanent residents, who intend to remain in the state, the right to vote in Ohio.
In the past two weeks, 14 temporary Obama staffers who registered to vote have withdrawn their ballots. The individuals did not meet the legal requirements to cast a ballot in Ohio. When this was brought to their attention, they pulled their ballots. The Prosecuting attorney believes this was a misunderstanding by some “very excited and loyal volunteers.”

On Thursday October 30, Palestra.net turned our attention west to New Mexico.

We found a former California delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Shayne Adamski, registered to vote in Albuquerque. New Mexico’s Secretary of State, Mary Herrera (D), said she would turn Adamski’s information over to the FBI to investigate.

Two swing states with similar stories sparked my curiosity. So I checked into the other prominent states in play: North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Virginia and Nevada. The trend continued.

From swing state to swing state, some out-of-state campaigners are casting ballots without following election law.

Meet Farah Minwalla, an Obama field organizer in North Carolina. She registered to vote in Mecklenburg County, NC on October 4. According to county auditor reports, the address Minwalla used belongs to a Wanda Nabors. But oddly – Minwalla is also registered to vote in New York AND Nevada. All three registrations are listed as active. So, is she a resident of North Carolina, Nevada or New York? Technically, it appears she could vote in all three.

Minwalla's online bio for NextGenNow says she is currently pursuing a degree in English and Journalism in New York City. As recently as July, Minwalla wrote a review for a band in Brooklyn, but now she's registered to vote in swing state North Carolina. The latest RealClearPolitics poll shows Obama ahead by 0.3 percent, in New York Obama leads by 29.7 percent. As I’ve heard so often from campaigners, every vote counts.

I called Minwalla's cell phone on Sunday and she answered. When I asked when she arrived in North Carolina and why she registered, she handed the phone to an Obama spokesperson. The Obama spokesperson took my questions but gave me no answers. North Carolina election law says you must be a permanent resident to vote.


Let's travel a little further south to Florida. In September, Julietta Appleton took a leave of absence from work to support Obama. On a TravelObama.org posting Appleton writes, "I knew Florida was a swing state…and I am fluent in Spanish. So I left my job (unpaid) for 6 weeks." She moved to Miami to get out the vote. Now, she's out of money and requesting help to get back to New York. Appleton’s post continues, "The next four days I will be working 24/7, then celebrating victory, then resting for a day, and then flying home to NY." Appleton included a picture of herself voting for Obama in Miami. Florida election laws only allow permanent residents to vote.

Warren Throckmorton (see link above) discovered Appleton's story on TravelObama.org – a site devoted to matching swing state volunteers in need of money with donors willing to cover their expenses. Have other individuals used this site to mirror Appleton's own story?

Crossing the country to Missouri now, we meet William Jay Urquhart. Will is a field organizer for the Obama campaign in Missouri. Along with getting out the vote, Urquhart decided to register to cast a vote of his own in Boone County. His current cell phone has a Washington, D.C. area code. I called the number, left a message and sent him an email. No response.

Missouri election laws are almost exactly the same as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and New Mexico. All of these swing states have the same guidelines in determining residency – you must be a resident, a resident is defined by the intent to remain in the state permanently or to return to it when you leave.

In other words, where you tell people you are from and where you tell people you voted, should be the same place. Further, in these states, election law states you cannot gain residency by temporarily working in the state. Did I mention voting records show Urquhart is also registered to vote in Massachusetts? I found voter registration records of a William Jay Urquhart registered to vote in Connecticut and Massachussets. Is this the same individual?

If not, William please contact me so we can straighten this out.

Virginia last elected a Democratic president in 1964. Obama's campaign is emphasizing the state known as "the Mother of Presidents" so much, that his final rally will take place in Manassas Park. When I tried to cross check names of out-of-state campaigners and volunteers with the state voter registration database, I hit a wall. The database required name, locality, date of birth and the last four numbers of an individual's social security number to access so checking or verifying information is near impossible.

While there may be a lack of access to information, there's no shortage of out-of-state volunteers trying to 'turn Virginia blue.' A July 24 Washington Post article entitled, "Obama Seeks Out-of-State Volunteers" states Obama's campaign is calling for out-of-state support, despite its claims that 10,000 volunteers are already active in Virginia. Obama Voter Protection Program, Counsel for Change is the mirror group to a Facebook group for lawyers in Ohio.

The founder for the Ohio Facebook group, James Cadogan, graduated from Princeton and Columbia then practiced law in New York City. This year, Cadogan registered to vote in Ohio. After Palestra.net's investigations, Cadogan withdrew his ballot. The Virginia Counsel for Change group has 213 members. Are any of them following in Cadogan's footsteps?

Nevada is a bit of an outlier. The swing state’s law only requires a 30-day residency to vote. I didn't find a clause that mentions intent to remain or the requirement of permanency. According to the campaign’s "Drive for Change" website, "Barack needs support not just from all Nevadans, but also from Nevada's neighbors – especially California. This is the chance for Californians to have a major impact on this historic race." So, technically the many Southern Californians helping to get out the vote in swing state Nevada could vote in Nevada – as long as they stay for 30 days. It all appears legal.


As for the McCain campaign, the numbers aren’t there. Anecdotal evidence and my personal experience of visiting campaign offices around the country do not reflect the same efficient grassroots, get-out-the-vote machine. But we have been looking and we will continue to look.

Tomorrow is Election Day and Palestra.net doesn't have the time or resources to document every individual voting in every swing state. But something is going on and for every person I profiled, I have additional names in queue. Out-of-state temporary campaign workers are registering and voting in swing states around the country without meeting the letter of Election law.

I hope these people realize that their illegal votes will be challenged after the election, and they will be prosecuted for voter fraud.

 

[MeeMie]

How is this acceptable?

Are any of you lefties okay with this?

Win by any means possible?
And, justify it in your own heads as comparable to your mantra about Bush beating Gore?
While you're at it, remind yourself that those votes were recounted by independent groups and found Bush's win to be true.

Do you know the meaning of democracy?

Are you willing for the United States of America to become like banana republics that rig their elections?
(Venezuala, to mention one)

 

[The_Trouvere]

Republican dirty tricks:

I am less afraid of voter fraud than I am afraid of Republican efforts to intimidate legitimate voters, or to fool them into not voting:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/dirty_tricks

Democrats might be doing this too, but minorities and first time voters are more likely to vote Democrat, and they are more susceptible to being fooled or intimidated.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

They are all ok with it, it's their MO.

Hard to understand how anyone would throw away the idealism of the US simply to favor the candidate of their choice.

I bothers me to see people coming out in droves to vote for Obama because I seriously believe that he will hurt this country for years to come. But, I would never wish to deprive a voter of his/her choice.

We are a democracy.

Even if I vehemently disagree with their choice, they are entitled to it.




What you see on this board is a microcosm of Obama supporters. Low on understanding issues, high on rhetoric.

 

[cjh]

How is this acceptable?

Are any of you lefties okay with this?

Win by any means possible?
And, justify it in your own heads as comparable to your mantra about Bush beating Gore?
While you're at it, remind yourself that those votes were recounted by independent groups and found Bush's win to be true.

Do you know the meaning of democracy?

Are you willing for the United States of America to become like banana republics that rig their elections?
(Venezuala, to mention one)

voter fraud was a huge issue for ashcroft and gonzales. got rid of some united states attorneys over it.

remind me how many convictions they got so i can get a better feel for whether the fabric of democracy is being ripped asunder.

 

[Sean]

Do you know the meaning of democracy?

Are you willing for the United States of America to become like banana republics that rig their elections?
(Venezuala, to mention one)

You mean the Venezuelan elections certified as free and fair by international observers? Or the constitutional referendum that Chavez lost early this year?

 

[MeeMie]

You mean the Venezuelan elections certified as free and fair by international observers? Or the constitutional referendum that Chavez lost early this year?

Yes, exactly.



Here's one:

Study shows how Hugo Chavez rigged elections in Venezuela

A statistical study done by two Venezuelan scientists, Maria M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo Marquez, has determined that Hugo Chavez alleged victory in the recall referendum of 2004 was unlikely. The reports concludes by saying "the Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence."

The report, which has been peer reviewed by the International Statistical Institute (ISI) and the International Statistical Review, has been published as "A statistical approach to assess referendum results: The Venezuelan recall referendum 2004"

Henceforth the adjective illegitimate can be added to that of dictator, that is to say Hugo Chavez is Venezuela's illegitimately elected dictator.



two:
Study shows Hugo Chavez rigged elections

The New York Sun reports a blue ribbon study which shows that Hugo Chavez, who has assumed dictatorial powers in Venezuela,*rigged both his election “landslides.”

Hugo Chavez may have lost both the recall referendum in 2004 and the December 2006 presidential election, according to studies conducted by a distinguished multidisciplinary team in Caracas, Venezuela. The team includes the rector of Universidad Simon Bolivar, Frederick Malpica, and a former rector of the National Electoral Council, Alfredo Weil.

Astonishing as it may seem to Americans who believe the contention by Mr. Chavez that he won both elections by a landslide - 58% to 42% in the recall and 61% to 39% in the presidential election - the studies show that since 2003, Mr. Chavez has added 4.4 million favorable names to the voter list and “migrated” 2.6 million unfavorable voters to places where it was difficult or impossible for them to vote.

How can this be? Jimmy Carter certified both of them.


three:

Even EU Wouldn't Accept Venezuela's Election

Venezuela's recent recall election, monitored by former President Jimmy Carter, was so rigged in advance in favor of President Hugo Chavez that the European Union (EU) refused to play an observer's role.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed also claimed that Jimmy Carter's "complicity in the prevention of a reliable vote count was a betrayal of Venezuelan democracy."

As for the EU, they warned that the election rules for observers were so absurd, that although they wanted to play such a rule they declined in the interest of honesty. "Unfortunately, it has not been possible to secure with the Venezuelan electoral authorities the conditions to carry out an observation in line with the Union's standard methodology," the Journal reported.

Among the restraints imposed was the fact that observers were not to be allowed to independently audit the entire vote, and both the number of observers and their freedom of movement was to be restricted.

Wrote the Journal, "Such conditions were clear impediments to observers, yet implausibly, Mr. Carter claimed in a letter to the Journal this week that his center "observed the entire voting process without limitation or restraint."

Two observers working on behalf of the Organization of American States, writing in Canada's Globe and Mail, on Tuesday tried to answer the question of whether the outcome reflects the will of the people.

"Yes," write Ken Frankel and John Graham, "if the focus is on the election-day process. International observers have not uncovered evidence of significant manipulation or voter harassment during voting day or the post-election audits." But "No, if the focus includes Mr. Chávez's pre-election maneuvers that tilted the table in his favor through control of the electoral apparatus and indirect intimidation."

They added ominously: "Thousands of citizens who had signed the petition that triggered the referendum lost jobs, pensions or suffered harassment. Many feared that their choice would be known to the government, and the ubiquitous presence of machine-gun-toting soldiers inside and outside the polling stations reinforced this concern."

Restraints included the fact that observers were not to be allowed independently to audit the entire vote, and both the number of observers and their freedom of movement was to be restricted.

Yet in a letter to the Journal last week, Carter claimed that his center "observed the entire voting process without limitation or restraint."

Súmate, Venezuela's most important non-governmental election watchdog, also strongly contradicted many of Carter's claims. Carter insists that "international machines were tested in advance" and that "extra care was taken to ensure secrecy and accuracy," the Journal reported, while Súmate says that the original recall rules called for manual voting.

Chávez insisted on importing an electronic system and chose Smartmatic voting machines without a transparent bidding process. One ostensible reason for going with Smartmatic was that its machines also create paper ballots, which could be used to audit the vote. But as it turned out, an impartial audit of those ballots was not allowed.

Súmate also revealed that there was a "severe limitation to participation in the auditing required by any automated voting system: Auditing the software used by the machines was never permitted, the source code was never released, and finally, access was never allowed into the Totalization Room of CNE [National Electoral Council]."

But Carter keeps repeating in the press that Súmate had the same "quick count" as he did. This only creates confusion, because "quick count" totals are merely the sum of totals coming from Chávez-controlled voting software. The Journal says that the only way to have checked the accuracy of the government's claim of "victory" was to count ballots.

But Chávez blocked that process: "When the authorities decided against counting the ballots, the CNE agreed to a very limited audit with the other actors of the process, to count the ballots of only 1% of the ballot boxes, in other words, 192 ballot boxes," Súmate says.

"Only 76 of the 192 ballot boxes were audited, concentrated in 20 of the 336 municipalities around the country. Promoters of 'SI' [Chávez's opposition] were present at only 27 of these audits while international observers were present at only 10 tables. Inexplicably, this did not represent a cause for concern or alarm to the international observers who endorsed the partial results issued by the CNE without that fundamental piece of information."

Súmate contradicted Carter's claims, saying it never agreed to a second audit because "Once again, inexplicably, the international observers designed an audit together with the CNE without taking into account the petitions of the group requesting the audit, transgressing the universal standard in electoral processes."

Finally, Súmate reminds us of Mr. Chávez's painstaking review of petition signatures calling for the recall vote, "an exhaustive verification" in which "every signature was checked not by one, but by three different committees of the CNE. Now, this same CNE, inexplicably, prevents a count for transparency's sake of the ballots that represent definitive proof of the elector's will." Concludes the Journal, "Mr. Carter's complicity in the prevention of a reliable vote count was a betrayal of Venezuelan democracy."

Thor Halvorssen, First Amendment scholar at The Commonwealth Foundation and a Venezuelan citizen, spelled out the election's shocking irregularities, including the facts that:

Thousands of voters, including Halvorssen, were mysteriously removed from the voting rolls.

Citizenship was granted to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme.

Citizens were "migrated" away from their local polling places. One opposition leader was moved to a voting center in a city seven hours away. Another man, Miguel Romero, had for years voted in his neighborhood school in a Caracas suburb, but the Electoral Council computer indicated that he was to vote at the Venezuelan Embassy in Stockholm.

Venezuelan diplomatic posts around the world "inexplicably ran out of passports. Many Venezuelan expatriates were thus prevented from returning to their country to vote."

Electronic voting machines were supplied by two U.S. companies with ties to Chávez. Wrote Halvorssen: "Many in the opposition are baffled by the inverse relationship between the projected numbers and those reported by the Chávez regime. One possible clue to this remarkable phenomenon lies with the companies hired to supply the voting machines and the software."

As for Jimmy Carter, Halvorssen wrote that the former president ignored demands that the recall results be investigated, and claimed that he was shown the computer vote tally by supporters of Chávez's regime and that everything seemed in order. He then skipped town, heading back to the U.S to celebrate his wife's birthday and leaving in the lurch the opposition groups that had naively relied on him to make sure the election was on the up-and-up.


four:
Scholar Points Out Violence and Corruption in Venezuela's Election

In the face of exit polls that showed 58 percent of voters favored ousting Venezuelan president and Fidel Castro stooge Hugo Chavez while only 41 percent wanted him retained, election officials blandly reported that 58 percent of the voters wanted him retained and only 41 percent wanted him out.

The most widely heralded outside observer of the election, former president Jimmy Carter, ignoring demands that the recall results be investigated, said that he was shown the computer vote tally by supporters of Chavez's regime and that everything seemed in order. He then skipped town, heading back to the U.S to celebrate his wife's birthday and leaving in the lurch the opposition groups that had naively relied on him to make sure the election was on the up and up.

In a shocking report in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, Thor Halvorssen, First Amendment scholar at The Commonwealth Foundation in New York and a courageous Venezuelan citizen, gave an account of the massive irregularities that occurred during and after the voting.

His report "The Price of Dissent in Venezuela - Hugo Chavez's thugs celebrate their 'victory' by shooting my mother," described the reaction of bands of Chavez's thugs to citizens peacefully protesting the rigged election results in a Caracas public square. They were brutally assaulted by more than 100 of Chavez's supporters, who, after chanting "We own this country now," threw bottles and rocks at the crowd and then began shooting indiscriminately into the multitude.

Recalls Halvorssen: "A 61-year-old grandmother was shot in the back as she ran for cover. The bullet ripped through her aorta, kidney and stomach. She later bled to death in the emergency room. An opposition congressman was shot in the shoulder and remains in critical care. Eight others suffered severe gunshot wounds. Hilda Mendoza Denham, a British subject visiting Caracas for her mother's 80th birthday, was shot at close range with hollow-point bullets from a high-caliber pistol. She now lies sedated in a hospital bed after a long and complicated operation. She is my mother."

Halvorssen described the ruses used to rig the election in Chavez's favor:

Thousands of voters, including Halvorssen, were mysteriously removed from the voting rolls.

Citizenship was granted to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme.

Citizens were "migrated" away from their local polling places. One opposition leader was moved to a voting center in a city seven hours away. Another man, Miguel Romero, had for years voted in his neighborhood school in a Caracas suburb, but the Electoral Council computer indicated that he was to vote at the Venezuelan Embassy in Stockholm.

Venezuelan diplomatic posts around the world "inexplicably ran out of passports. Many Venezuelan expatriates were thus prevented from returning to their country to vote."

Electronic voting machines were supplied by two U.S. companies with ties to Chavez. Wrote Halvorssen: "Many in the opposition are baffled by the inverse relationship between the projected numbers and those reported by the Chávez regime. One possible clue to this remarkable phenomenon lies with the companies hired to supply the voting machines and the software."

Those companies, Smartmatic Corp., a Florida company that has never before supplied election machinery, is owned by two Venezuelans. The software came from Bizta Software, owned by the same two people. According to the Miami Herald, Chavez's regime spent $200,000 last year to buy 28 percent of Bizta and put a government official and longtime Chavez ally on the board.

After the Herald's story broke, Bizta bought back the government-held shares and the official resigned from the board. But, said Halvorssen, it was not until after the two companies got a healthy chunk of the $91 million contract for the referendum. Executives at Smartmatic and Bizta have denied any political allegiance to Chavez's regime and have issued public statements saying the contract was awarded on merit.

The results of all of this skulduggery: "In the early hours of Monday, the Electoral Council's president (who had imposed a gag order on all exit polls until a full audit of the vote had been completed) issued a statement declaring that the computer votes had been tallied and that the government had won the referendum with 58% of the vote. The announcement came in a vacuum, without an audit, with no verification whatsoever from the international observers, and over the indignant protest of two of the five council members, who publicly questioned the result's transparency."

Chavez now brags that the referendum results are irreversible and permanent and pledges that Venezuela's communist revolution, which is bankrupting his nation and reducing its citizenry to poverty, will now intensify.

"He is firmly in control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; the armed forces; electoral bodies and two-thirds of the country's economy," Halvorssen wrote.

And he's firmly under the thumb of Fidel Castro.






I could go on and on and on, but I doubt you're open to a change of opinion.

 

[Sean]

Without attribution, your c+p's are not worth a tinkers damn.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The RW, with the full support of the Bush Admin and the Justice Department, has been struggling to find some solid proof of "voter fraud" as a real, election-outcome-changing problem for years now and consistently come up dry. See here. (And here for the original draft of the altered EAC report (pdf file)). See also here and here. And here. This is also most curious.

"Voter fraud" is a fraud. Republican vote-suppression tactics (and worse) are a real problem. See here, here, here, here and here. If anyone steals this election, it won't be the Dems.

 

[cjh]

voter fraud was a huge issue for ashcroft and gonzales. got rid of some united states attorneys over it.

remind me how many convictions they got so i can get a better feel for whether the fabric of democracy is being ripped asunder.

there must be hundreds if not thousands, right, given the seriousness of the problem?

 

[The Mutt]

there must be hundreds if not thousands, right, given the seriousness of the problem?

The only people worried about Acorn voter fraud are people who think Mickey Mouse will actually show up to vote.

 

[cjh]

The only people worried about Acorn voter fraud are people who think Mickey Mouse will actually show up to vote.

hey mutt, i've been in your neck of the woods a good bit.

meet for a beer or a 'cue?

 

[busybody..]

hey mutt, i've been in your neck of the woods a good bit.

meet for a beer or a 'cue?

depends

do you have alota hair under your arms?

 

[The Mutt]

hey mutt, i've been in your neck of the woods a good bit.

meet for a beer or a 'cue?

Sure thing!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

there must be hundreds if not thousands, right, given the seriousness of the problem?

So far I know of only one person being arrested for voter registration fraud. A GOP operative that was registering people as Republicans without their knowledge or approval.

All of the accusations of which I am aware being levied against ACORN are because of registration forms that ACORN itself reported as possibly or definitely fraudulent. Any fraud was perpetrated against them, not by them.

 

[Sean]

three:

Even EU Wouldn't Accept Venezuela's Election

Venezuela's recent recall election, monitored by former President Jimmy Carter, was so rigged in advance in favor of President Hugo Chavez that the European Union (EU) refused to play an observer's role.

I'm particularly interested in this one. Because this seems to contradict it:
http://aceproject.org/ero-en/region..._Election_2006_Preliminary_Statement.pdf/view

 

[MeeMie]

THE CLEANEST STATE MEETS THE PUSHIEST PERSON

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER

Until now, Minnesota was always famous for its clean elections. Indeed, Democratic consultant Bob Beckel recently attested to the honesty of Minnesota's elections, joking: "Believe me. I've tried. I've tried every way around the system out there, and it doesn't work."

But that was before Minnesota encountered the pushiest, most aggressive, most unscrupulous person who has ever sought public office, Al Franken.

On Election Day, Franken lost the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota to the Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman by 725 votes. But over the next week, Democratic counties kept discovering new votes for Franken and subtracting votes from Coleman, claiming to be correcting "typos."

In all, Franken picked up 459 votes and Coleman lost 60 votes from these alleged "corrections."

As the inestimable economist John Lott pointed out, the "corrections" in the Senate race generated more new votes for Franken than all the votes added by corrections in every race in the entire state -- presidential, congressional, state house, sanitation commissioner and dogcatcher -- combined.

And yet the left-wing, George Soros-backed Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, stoutly defended the statistically impossible "corrected" votes. There's something fishy going on in Minnesota besides the annual bigmouth bass tournament.

Fortunately, the very outrageousness of the "corrections" scam brought national attention to the Minnesota recount, at which point it became more difficult to keep "finding" votes for Franken. Under the glare of the national media, the steady accretion of post-election ballots for Franken came to a screeching halt, rather like a child who, after being caught red-handed, tactfully removes his hand from the cookie jar.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. (Although, having met Franken, I would add that actual disinfectant might not be a bad idea either.)

Since then, the state has been conducting a meticulous hand recount and, despite a suspicious delay from liberal Hennepin County and a suspicious late-vote discovery from liberal Ramsey County, Coleman has consistently held a lead of 200 to 300 votes. (That's not including the 519 votes that were stolen -- or "corrected" -- from Coleman immediately after the election when no one was paying attention.)

As of Wednesday, with 93 percent of the votes recounted, Coleman holds a 295-vote lead. At no point since the first count after the election has Franken been ahead.

The famously honest people of Minnesota probably think this means the recount is almost over. But like a bad Al Franken sketch on "Saturday Night Live," I predict this recount will keep going on and on and on for no apparent reason.

To understand what is happening in Minnesota, one must turn to the Washington state gubernatorial election of 2004.

As in Minnesota this year, the Republican candidate kept winning and winning, but the Democrats refused to concede, instead demanding endless recounts. Meanwhile, Democratic precincts kept "discovering" new ballots for the Democrat, Chris Gregoire.

Six days after the election on Nov. 10, 2004, Republican Dino Rossi was ahead by 3,492 votes. But five days later, heavily Democratic King County election officials actually claimed to "find" 10,000 uncounted ballots! And they favored Gregoire!

Nonetheless, after a full recount, Rossi was still ahead, but this time by only 42 votes.

So the Democrats demanded a third recount -- and King County continued its miraculous ballot-"finding" trick, which continued to favor Gregoire.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Democrat election officials were "finding" new votes as much as they needed to find new votes. Here are 10,000 new votes. You need more? OK, back to work!

Eventually, King County found enough provisional and absentee ballots to put Democrat Gregoire in the lead -- and this result was immediately certified by the weenie Republican secretary of state.

Republicans are always accused of being sharks; I wish they'd rise to the level of minnows.

According to Michael Barone, an examination of King County records showed that nearly 2,000 more mail-in ballots had been "cast" in King County than had been requested.

But Gregoire got to be governor -- having done unusually well among the imaginary voters of King County.

The head of the Washington State Democratic Party orchestrating this ballot theft was Paul Berendt. Guess who is advising Al Franken on the Minnesota recount right now? That's right: Paul Berendt.

Get ready, good people of Minnesota: You have no idea what is about to hit you. And, per usual, the Republicans clearly haven't the vaguest notion what is about to hit them.

Just this week, liberal Ramsey County "discovered" 171 new votes from a single voting machine in a single precinct. An analysis by John Lott shows that these newly "discovered" votes represent yet another statistical improbability that favors Franken: Despite the fact that Maplewood precinct No. 6 gave Franken only 45.4 percent of the original, untampered-with vote, the newly "discovered" votes gave Franken 53.2 percent of the vote.

Also, you will notice that Franken is obsessively fixated on the absentee ballots, a specialty of the vote fraud experts at ACORN. Inasmuch as only 5 percent of absentee ballots were rejected in Minnesota, Franken already has fraud baked into the cake. But he needs more.

He is demanding to be given the names of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected. Why would he need the names of the voters? Unless ... he plans to track them down, determine how they voted and then ferociously fight to qualify the absentee ballots only of known Franken voters.

Franken can pretend to be generous -- by not demanding that all rejected absentee ballots be counted -- while in fact being manipulative -- by requesting that only the ballots with votes for him be counted. That's exactly what the Democrats -- led by Franken adviser Berendt -- did to steal the 2004 election in Washington state.

But first, Franken will need the names. Then he can check voter registration lists, ask around or, in a really aggressive move, call the rejected voters directly and bully them into admitting who they voted for. If they say "Coleman," I promise you they won't get a call back to ensure that "every vote is counted."

There is absolutely no other reason to get the names of those whose ballots were rejected.

We'll find out in the next few weeks if Barack Obama's "new politics of hope and change" includes turning the cleanest state in the union into one of the dirtiest.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Oh, c'mon, MeeMie, I can't believe even you take Ann Coulter seriously!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Say, didn't somebody cite John Fund's book in this thread?

The Buffalo Beast nailed it:

23. John Fund

Charges: Membership on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board requires that one be a cynical sophist, but the dog-faced Fund actually appears to be in love with lying. Fund has devoted himself lately to muddying up the election fraud issue by selectively promoting mostly spurious tales of ground-level Democratic voter fraud in an effort to obscure more credible stories about the GOP’s top-down machinations. Fund’s book, Stealing Elections, is replete with phony numbers and discredited stories—he even sources a well-refuted tale to a WSJ editorial he probably wrote. Fund delivers his lies with a sneering smugness that would merit facial pummeling even if he were truthful, but whipping conservatives into a creative frenzy of demonic fabrication against ACORN, creating the lamest conspiracy theory of the year (which even McCain hyperbolized absurdly) based on false registrations that ACORN themselves flagged a suspicious, and none of which could conceivably have led to actual voter fraud, reveals Fund to be against not fraud, but the simple act of registering voters. The endgame here is to pass Voter ID laws that will prevent 20 million legal voters in this country who don’t have the required ID from voting.

Exhibit A: “Republicans focus more on the rule of law.”

Sentence: Malfunctioning Diebold central tabulator flips public referendum on whether Fund should be fed to sharks.

 

[RightField]

I like this thread.

You guys keep talking about convictions. How are you going to convict someone where you know there's a crime, but no evidence of who committed it. The fact that so many documented dead people have voted democratic is clearly a crime, but the fact that you can't find out exactly who did it to make an arrest and get a conviction doesn't mean that a massive crime wasn't committed.

 

[Comshaw]

Surely, this is an issue that BOTH parties should be interested in stopping.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R-l1iejogZw/SOd9jEM5H9I/AAAAAAAABBQ/wd2a_wjM0dk/s1600-h/Voter+Fraud.jpg

Post articles with links, by state. With hope that it will make people aware of what is happening, in order to get involved.

Washington
July 26, 2007,Seattle Times

Felony charges filed against 7 in state's biggest case of voter-registration fraud. The defendants, who were paid employees and supervisors of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

It sounds like the perps in this case were caught and will be punished (which they were and will be). Or did you want them drawn and quartered instead? A little perp blood in the streets perhaps to dissuade the rest of the populace from such heinous acts? Nothing like a Chicken Little approach to get that ball rolling.

There's a huge difference between it happening and action being taken to stop it, or it happens and those who benefit turn a blind eye to it.

I'll listen to the latter, it should be addressed and shouldn't be allowed happen or continue. I won't listen to the former, it's alarmist and detracts for the ongoing problem. But then we also need hard evidence it is happening, before I'll start yelling that the sky is falling.

Comshaw

 

[KingOrfeo]

The fact that so many documented dead people have voted democratic . . .

Jeez, how many decades are you going back for that?!

 

[RightField]

Jeez, how many decades are you going back for that?!

2 months