Category Archives: 2012 Election

Watchdog group sues State of Maryland for non-citizens voter fraud

Have you wondered why, with all the rampant vote fraud in the 2012 election (as well as the fraud already evident in the 2014 mid-term election), the Republican Party never did anything about it? (See “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election”)

The reason goes back to a legal agreement called the Consent Decree that the Republican National Committee (RNC) made with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 1982. (See Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud)

The GOP’s hands are tied, but that doesn’t mean We the People must just watch with frustration and do nothing.

Now, an election integrity watchdog group, Virginia Voters Alliance, is doing something about election fraud committed by non-U.S. citizens in the state of Maryland.

Bryan Preston reports for PJMedia, Oct. 29, 2014:

An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

Pat McDonough“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.

In a statement, Del. McDonough says:

There are frequent allegations in America and Maryland about the existence of voter fraud. In the case I am presenting today, there is documentation and a track record. The numbers and facts from the records in Frederick County are the tip of the iceberg. When these numbers are multiplied by including the other subdivisions in Maryland, the potential number is alarming and could change the outcome of a close statewide election.

Even more dangerous is the probability of many local elections that are decided by a few votes could be affected. All 188 members of the Maryland General Assembly are standing for re-election as well as many local office holders.

The important election that we have coming up demands that citizens’ votes are not diluted or cancelled by non-citizens who are not legally permitted to vote. The sanctity of the ballot box, because of the flawed system we are pointing out, has already been violated in previous elections.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to mandate those responsible for the administration of the election process will remove the non-citizens from the final voting count.

The purpose of the investigation by the special prosecutor is to penetrate more deeply statewide and determine why this fraud or any other related violation was allowed to occur.

The purpose of the legislation is to plug the massive loophole in current law which permitted these fraudulent practices to take place.

Larry Hogan

Larry Hogan

Maryland is a Democratic stronghold especially around its larger cities, but the governor’s race there is tightening as Republican Larry Hogan gains ground. Illegal votes could tip the balance if the legal vote is close enough on election day. “What if Hogan loses by 500 votes or 1000 votes?” McDonough asked.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Del. McDonough noted that the fraud uncovered by VVA occurred on O’Malley’s watch.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and the POS

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and the POS

See also:

~Eowyn

Non-citizen voters gave Obama the edge in 2008 and 2012 — and will in 2014 if we don’t do something about it

I read this article 2 days ago, but found it so depressing that I can bring myself to post it only today.

Ask yourself this question:

When you registered to vote, did anyone ask you to produce proof of your U.S. citizenship?

No? Instead, at best you were asked to produce a photo I.D., like a driver’s license to prove who you say you are. However, a driver’s license doesn’t and can’t prove you are a U.S. citizen.

It turns out ILLEGAL aliens in the United States have been voting in our elections, even though they are not eligible and are not supposed to vote. And they are getting away with this travesty precisely because voter registration doesn’t require proof of U.S. citizenship. That is why Democrats are so intent on allowing illegal aliens obtain a driver’s license.

In an article for The Washington Post on October 24, 2014, “Could Non-Citizens Decide the November Election?,” political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest report on their stunning research finding that non-U.S. citizens had voted in both the 2008 and 2010 elections, and they did so in sufficient numbers that they likely changed the outcome, that is, the election and reelection of Barack Obama to the presidency, as well as the election of a Democratic majority to the U.S. Senate.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.

Their research findings will be published in a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies.

This was Richman and Earnest’s research methodology. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), the two political scientists:

  • Assembled a sample of 32,800 for the 2008 election, 339 of whom were non-citizens.
  • Assembled a sample of 55,400 for the 2010 election, 489 of whom were non-citizens.
  • Matched respondents to voter files so as to verify whether they’d actually voted.

Here are the political scientists’ research findings:

  • Although most non-U.S. citizens do not register to vote, let alone vote, however –
  • More than 14% of non-U.S. citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they had registered to vote.
  • 6.4% of non-citizens voted in 2008.
  • 2.2% of non-citizens voted in 2010.
  • Richman and Earnest concluded that enough non-citizens had voted in 2008 and 2012 so that their votes changed the outcome of those elections.
Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

In the words of Richman and Earnest:

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

Richman and Earnest also found that photo I.D., a policy advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud, “appears strikingly ineffective.” As many as three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

The political scientists propose that public information may be a better method to reduce voting by non-citizens because the more educated non-citizens were less likely to violate the law by voting. As an example, in 2008, no non-citizens with a college degree or higher voted, whereas non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to have voted. This suggests that non-citizen voting may be due to a lack of awareness about the illegality of their voting.

Based on the 2008 and 2012 precedents, Richman and Earnest justly ask if control of the Senate in 2014 will be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens.

If early voting in North Carolina is any indication, the answer is “Yes.”

Kenric Ward reports for Watchdog that early voting began last Thursday, Oct. 24, in North Carolina, and already the state’s election board had found 154 ineligible non-citizen voters on its poll lists.

Those 154 illegal immigrants are on NC’s voter rolls, courtesy of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA designees can be up to 31 years old. When  illegal immigrants are certified under DACA, deportation proceedings are frozen. That opens a window for those illegals to obtain driver’s licenses in North Carolina, said James Johnson, president of North Carolinians For Immigration Reform and Enforcement.

And with driver’s license in hand, unscrupulous and dishonest illegal aliens can and do register to vote.

NC’s State Board of Elections are examining more than 9,000 additional voters’ names for their questionable legal status. But they do not expect to finish checking before early voting had begun. Special counsel Brian LiVecchi told Watchdog.org that “We don’t know what we don’t know.”

“We want to know how such a large number of non-U.S. citizens were ever registered to vote in the first place,” said Jay DeLancy, executive director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina. “There is clearly a system failure here and we need the Board of Elections and the DMV to help the Legislature and the public understand where the problem lies.”

NC State Rep. Christopher Mills (R-Hampstead) wrote a letter to the Board of Elections citing “an extremely large number of non-citizens” on North Carolina’s voter rolls. Mills asked that election officials explain the “likely procedure in which these non-citizens were allowed to register to vote … and the board’s actions for immediate removal.”

So what do we do about this outrageous travesty?

I suggest the following:

  1. Contact your Congress critters and DEMAND that they look into this. Click here.
  2. Contact your state’s attorney general, who is supposed to oversee elections, and DEMAND that they inspect the voters’ registrations to spot and eliminate non-U.S. citizens. Click here to find out the name, address, and phone no. of your attorney general.
  3. Publicize by disseminating this post to your family, friends, and contacts via e-mail and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)!!!

See also:

~Eowyn

Mainly black crowd walks out on Obama at Democratic campaign rally

The bloom is really off the POS’s stinking rose.

Anthony G. Brown

Anthony G. Brown

Yesterday, Oct. 19, 2014, Obama spoke at a campaign rally in Upper Marlboro in eastern Maryland for Anthony G. Brown, the state’s Obama-lookalike lieutenant governor who’s running for governor.

In the midst of President Ebola’s 25-minute speech, while he was still speaking, members of his audience left in droves.

Politico reports that although “the crowd was energetic in waiting for the president and in welcoming him to the stage, but once the president started speaking, the crowd began streaming out, a few at first, but then by the dozen once Obama was about 10 minutes into his talk.”

That means they didn’t even make it through the halfway point of his speech.

crowd walks out on Obama speech

What is significant is that:

1. The crowd at the rally was overwhelmingly black.

2. Eastern Maryland is Obama country:

  • The Barack Obama Elementary School is just down the road from the campaign rally.
  • Close to 90% of votes cast here in the 2012 presidential election were for Obama, the best he did in any county in the state.

3. The subject of Obama’s speech was encouraging heavy black turnout for the impending midterm elections.

HA HA HA HA HA!

~Eowyn

Something’s rotten in Vermont: People not on voter rolls allowed to vote in 2012

More evidence of voter fraud in the 2012 presidential election that returned President Ebola to a second term so he can finish his job of destroying America.

my work here is done

Bruce Parker reports for Watchdog.org, Oct. 8, 2014, that in the 2012 presidential election, 17,383 votes were cast in Burlington, Vermont, according to city-published data. However, 639 of those votes or 3.7%, came from election day walk-in voters whose names were not on the voter rolls and whose registration status was unknown. 

That startling fact is derived from data not published by the city, obtained by Vermont Watchdog from printed checklists updated by poll workers and maintained by the Board for Registration of Voters.

In the 2012 general election, voters whose names were not on the checklist, but were handwritten-in and permitted to vote in Burlington, were as follows:

  • 181 names in Wards One and Two.
  • 114 in Ward Three.
  • 50 in Ward Four.
  • 128 in Ward Five.
  • 112 in Ward Six.
  • 54 in Ward Seven.

In big elections in Burlington, hundreds of people absent from voter rolls show up to vote. Instead of being turned away or given provisional ballots, the individuals fill out voter affirmation forms, get added to the statewide checklist and vote on the spot — whether or not the voters can be verified as having registered with the state. Critics say the process is rife with abuse and amounts to same-day registration, which is unlawful.

When Watchdog contacted the clerk/treasurer’s office to find out how many individuals voted in recent elections despite not appearing on the statewide checklist, Scott Schrader, Burlington’s elections chief, said affirmation forms from the 2012 presidential election were discarded. Forms from this year’s Town Meeting Day also went missing with a clerk who no longer works for the city.

The unpublished data sheds light on elections in Burlington after citizen poll watchers exposed a need for greater scrutiny in the Queen City, and after city officials on Monday halted early voting when Republican candidates for Justice of the Peace were found missing from the ballot. Reprinted ballots will cost the city $10,000.

Burlington isn’t the only city in Vermont that experiences unusually high numbers of unverified voters in big elections. Montpelier also saw a spike in 2012.

John Odum, city clerk for Montpelier, said his office kept a record of voter affirmation forms filled out during the 2012 general election. Of 4,558 votes cast in Montpelier, 98 votes, or 2.2%, came from individuals whose names were not on the statewide checklist.

Odum told Vermont Watchdog, “(The numbers) were quite high for the last general. It was a little jaw-dropping, actually. You find a lot more of them in the general (election). That’s when the parties and candidates make the big push to go out and get people registered.”

According to Odum, Vermont allows such voting because delays exist in the voter registration process. He confirmed that individuals whose names don’t appear on the statewide checklist cast standard ballots, not provisional ballots, after signing an affirmation form: “The affirmation is an affidavit you’re signing under penalty of perjury. You’re basically saying, ‘I did my part in good faith; in good faith, I registered or thought I was registering … and yet I did not show up on your checklist.’”

Will Senning, elections director at the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office, said in email not only do such individuals vote on election day, but they also become registered voters right there at the polling place: “By statute, the Board of Civil Authority is directed to add to the checklist, at the polling place, the names of persons who sign the affirmation form and are otherwise qualified to be on the checklist … There is no further verification required.”

When asked what would happen if such voters didn’t, in fact, register through the DMV, a clerk’s office or a third-party group, Senning replied:

“Because the affirmation form is a legal document signed by the voter under pains of perjury, and because statute directs that persons who sign that form be added to the checklist at the polling place, their vote is counted the same as all other registered voters.”

Officials in Burlington and Montpelier said they weren’t worried about fraud since voters face the threat of perjury. But when asked if the state ever prosecuted anyone for falsifying voter affirmation forms, Odum replied, “I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.” When the question was put to Schrader, he said, “I have no idea.”

Nevertheless, both affirmed the public needn’t worry about the surge of people showing up to vote in big elections despite not being on the voter rolls. Odum said, “When they get that affidavit, that is the process by which they affirmatively state, ‘I did do my job as a citizen, I did register to vote, and I’m not on your list. And I should have the right to vote anyway.’ And then you given them a ballot.”

Another sign that the once great United States of America is becoming a third world country by the day . . . .

The City of Burlington’s website grandly declares that “The mission of the Office of the City Clerk/Treasurer is to maintain and strengthen five basic structures of local democracy: elections, public records, City Council proceedings, licensing, and the dissemination of public information.”

As the city’s elections chief, Scott Schrader, Asst. Chief Administrative Officer at the city’s Clerk/Treasurer’s Office, sure isn’t living up to those grand words. Here’s his contact info:

Phone: (802)865-7140
Email: sschrader@burlingtonvt.gov

I searched the Internet for a pic of Shrader, but was not successful. The only image of him is from a WCAX news video, from which I took this screenshot of the scumbag:

Scott Shrader, elections chief, Burlington, VT

Scott Shrader, elections chief, Burlington, VT

See also:

~Eowyn

Why Are Californian Republicans Such Sniveling Cowards?

image

There were two excellent candidates for governor in California’s June primary: Tim Donnely, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution, liberty-loving Tea Party Republican, and Robert Newman, a pro-family, pro-life, pro-Constitution independent.

So who did Californian Republicans vote for? Neel Kashkari, a Republican-in-name-only who supports Obamacare and admits he voted for aka-Obama, who once worked as a junior banker for Goldman Sachs, and who, in 2008, was given control of $700 billion of tax-payer money which he handed out to the banking industry, including his former employer, Goldman Sachs.

Ask Republicans why they voted for a such a candidate and their immediate response is, “We have to win in November.” And yet they keep losing.

Ever been to a Californian Republican meeting? I have, several times. Half the time is spent arguing over procedural matters, and the other half consists of members, who just happen to work for companies like Nation Builder, pitching their services, which just happen to be extremely expensive.

If someone has the temerity to suggest that the party embrace their conservative roots by coming out in strong support of the Constitution, the pro-life movement, traditional marriage, etc., they are applauded by most in attendance, but then told by the “leaders” that they are being “unrealistic.” “We have to win in November,” they say, and yet they keep losing.

Ever volunteered to work for the Republican Party? I have, several times. No one returned any of my phone calls or emails.

California Republicans loathe the Tea Party. They see the Tea Party as a threat to their established ways. They claim the Tea Party does not represent their members. And yet they keep losing.

In California there are numerous races in which the Republican Party does not even bother to run a candidate. “No chance to win,” they say. “We have to be realistic.” And yet they keep losing.

image

Orly Taitz ran for Attorney General as an independent in the June primary. Possessed with infinite courage and wisdom, Taitz would have done everything she could to clean house and expose political corruption. Did Republicans vote for her? No, they didn’t have the guts.

If you voted for Neel Kashkari in California’s primary, I’m calling you out. Why did you betray your state, your country, your family, and yourself by voting for such a man? Why are you such a damn, sniveling coward?

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/07/02/the-gop-went-over-to-the-dark-side/

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/

57 Cops Murdered by “Unarmed” Criminals: From Stephen Frank

From Stephen Frank:

We are told a lot about Ferguson—how an unarmed man was shot by a police officer. The media called him “unarmed”. Since 2000 57 cops nationwide were shot to death by “unarmed” criminals. This happens when the criminal takes a gun from the cop and uses it to kill. Yet, the Times of any variety, the Post, etc. talk about a cop in Ferguson killing an “unarmed” man—without ANY facts.

The aftermath of police encounters with “unarmed” individuals — 57 murders

“While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI and http://www.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless.”

0811-riot

57 Cops Killed by “UNARMED” Criminals

By LA Police Protective League, Board of Directors 08/26/2014

Repeated descriptions of a suspect as “unarmed” when shot by a police officer does not, contrary to the belief of the New York Times and others who use the term without further describing the facts of the encounter, determine if the force used by an officer was lawful or reasonable. Labeling the suspect as “unarmed” does not begin to answer the question of the danger they posed in each instance where deadly force was used.

According to the FBI’s online database of officers feloniously killed, as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page, since 2000, there have been at least 57 occurrences where the suspects have taken officers’ weapons and murdered the police officer with it. Fifty-seven times, loved ones of those officers heard the awful knock on their front door, notifying them that their husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter would never be coming home again. Fifty-seven times, the threat that some loudly continue to claim does not exist, ended with fatal results.

While statistics for officers killed with their own weapons are hard to find, we know from the FBI andwww.odmp.org that between 2000-10, at least 51 officers were killed by suspects who used the officer’s own gun. Four officers were killed in 2011, one officer in 2013. While the data for 2014 is not final, we know that Johnson City (New York) Police Officer David Smith was murdered this past March with his own weapon.

Thus asking, “What justification do the police have for killing an unarmed suspect?” and answering “none” as former Police Chief Joseph McNamara did in this blog is pointless. Twenty-five years ago, in the case ofGraham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for evaluating a use of force. The U.S. Supreme Court wrote an officer’s action is judged in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. Crucially, the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the “calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”

The reality is that police officers need and wear guns. Those firearms can be taken by “unarmed” suspects and turned against the officer. Many armchair experts across the country sit around their air-conditioned conference rooms, pondering their views on how police officers could kill an “unarmed suspect” and the non-existent threat they pose to officers. We must ask, what did they use to as the factual basis for their conclusions? Is it from fictional police dramas on TV? Gut instinct?

We won’t be so crass as to suggest that we give a gun to the columnists and editorial writers who equate “unarmed” with “not dangerous,” and then tell them that although we are unarmed, we are going to try to take that gun from them. If successful, we will use the gun to shoot them. While we are confident this scenario might slightly affect their mindset on “unarmed” suspects, the tragic reality is that scenario has happened at least 57 times in 14 years.

Until all of the facts surrounding the use of force by any officer are known, the urge to decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable and lawful is simply a “rush to judgment”—no matter how many times the suspect is referred to as “unarmed.”

The Worst RACISTS in America! (They HATE Black People!)

Do you know who was the biggest supporter and promoter of slavery in America?

Do you know who was so outraged by the abolition of slavery in this country that they formed the Ku Klux Klan and participated in countless murders, beatings, and lynchings?

Do you know who is responsible for undermining the black father and removing him from the home, thus creating an endless cycle of crime and poverty within the black community?

Do you know who is most responsible for promoting abortion among black mothers?

Do you know who has the most to gain by maintaining an underclass of black Americans and preventing them from attaining financial independence?

Do you know who is most adamant about judging people by their skin color rather than their character?

Do you know who is the biggest promoter of division among the races today?

The answer to all of these questions is… the Democratic Party.