Voter Fraud is Acceptable… and Necessary

Here in North Carolina, our resident VETO machine, Governor Beverly Perdue (yes those Perdue’s), has been on a bit of tear lately. It seems that since the North Carolina legislature took a decidedly GOP turn in the last election, the staunchly Democratic Perdue has found that her only recourse against laws that the Democrat party deems unacceptable is to VETO them and then pray the Republicans don’t have the votes to overturn. There were a couple more Perdue VETO’s last week, but one in particular caught my eye and, in my opinion, show that the Democratic machine prefers that the election system remains open to fraud and illegal voting. It is apparent that the success of the Chicago machine had a dramatic effect on the party of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and of course, Perdue.

The history of voter fraud is extensive in the United States. As long as there have been elections to be won, each side has been willing to take whatever steps necessary to ensure that their side was victorious. From an outside perspective, the lines appear to be drawn at the Republicans fight dirty (Swiftboat for example) while the Democrats excel at rallying people to the polls, both by legal and illegal means. Since the days of the Chicago machine, voter fraud has been synonymous with the Democrats. I know that our resident lefties will have their panties in a wad over that statement. From Kennedy’s election with help from Chicago through massive amounts of voter fraud by ACORN on behalf of our current President, voter fraud goes with Democrats just Mickey Mouse goes with Minnie (who both vote Democrat, for the record).

Gray States Have No Voter ID Laws.. Weird Isn't It?

And let’s be honest, we can see the difference in core principle around voting in the base stance of the Democrats in nearly every contested election in America. Democrats demand that every single vote get counted, regardless of what would be disallowed according to the law. To do otherwise would be disenfranchisement of voters according to Dems. Republicans want every vote counted so long as the law is followed. The fact that Democrats are more concerned with winning than obeying the law in the most open arena of a contested election says a ton about their view of the election process.

Which leads me to my point: Democrats have consistently opposed any legislation that would require voters to show some form of state issued identification when voting. It is a core Democratic platform principle. I think that it is Commandment IX: Thou shalt not support positive identification of voter’s legal voting status. It could be Commandment VIII, as my access to the Democratic platform website was suspended for breaking Commandment I: The first rule of the true Democratic platform is that you don’t talk about the true Democratic platform. And why do you think that Democrats are so opposed to legally identifying which voters are or aren’t voting legally?

The claim from Democrats is that enacting voter identification laws will disenfranchise the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those who are newly married. Before I go into debating their position I will go on record and say that I have never heard a bigger crock of bullshit as “reasoning” in my life. On second thought, I take that back. I write about politics. I have seen plenty of whoppers offered as reasoning from both parties that is worse than this. But I don’t think that there are many that have been as transparently dishonest as this claim of “disenfranchisement.”

First and foremost, the claim that it will take away anyone’s ability to vote is blatantly false. Unless, of course, you are talking about the ability for illegal voters. Let’s look at the recently vetoed NC bill as an example of what would happen. In the North Carolina bill, the requirement would be that you show one of 8 approved NC issued identifications in order to vote. One of those was a new Voter ID card that would be free to anyone who desired one (is free cheap enough that we aren’t disenfranchising the poor? ). So much for the “disenfranchisement of the poor” claims.

Not good enough say those pesky Voter ID opponents. After all, this is just a move to ensure that people are involved in a “gotcha” moment when they show up to vote. Unaware that they are required to have an ID, people will show up and miss the chance to vote because the ID’s can’t be issued that day. Not so fast… The North Carolina bill also made sure that if you showed up to the polls without an ID, you can still cast your vote as a provisional vote, and you can then provide your ID later so that your vote is counted. So much for the “gotcha” claims.

Reading many of the anti-voter ID websites and blogs out there I was struck at how the issues were framed as racial in nature. I understand, though, as the race care is to the Democrat party as drinking in excess is to the College experience. The most quoted statistic from NC: “According to a NC board of elections study, of the one million voters in NC who do not have a state issued ID, 26.8% of them are African-Americans.” Clearly the Voter ID bill is aimed at keeping African American voters from the polls when you look at such a high number, right? Wrong. What not a single of those websites or blogs mentioned was that blacks make up 25.7% of the population in North Carolina. So the percentage of voters without ID that are black is nearly identical to the actual demographics of the state. So much for the “disenfranchisement of minorities” claims.

There are also claims about the elderly, disabled, and infirm. Surely we can see that this is a move designed by Republicans to ensure that the old folks don’t get to cast their ballot. However, it is widely understood that as a general rule, older people tend to vote Republican. While the numbers aren’t as overwhelming as they once were, the reality still holds true. So why would the Republicans want to thwart the population where they have the advantage? As for the disabled, my belief is that if they can arrange to get themselves to the polls in order to vote, they can arrange to get themselves to the equally available state identification offices. And by the way, how is it that they are able to use Medicare, Medicaid, and do all the other things to get their medication without an ID? Exactly, this is another trumped up claim. So much for the “disenfranchisement of the elderly and disabled” claims.

Finally, there are the claims that since America’s young people vote for Democrats, this is an attempt by Republicans to silence the vote of America’s youth, hence strengthening the GOP positions. While I certainly agree that far too many young people vote based on emotion and too little facts (for that matter too many Americans period do this), we certainly don’t want to see young people stripped of their right to vote! But this is another BS argument. The vast majority of teenagers cannot wait to attain that holy grail of teenage desires, the driver’s license. They get it as quickly as possible. The number of teens who don’t have their license at 18 is microscopic at best. And for those who don’t have it, is it really asking too much of our teens to go through the steps to get a Voter ID card that is free? After all we are talking about giving them the right to determine political fortunes and economic futures! So much for the “disenfranchisement of young people” claims.

So there you go. Nearly every one of the false “reasons” offered on the left for why we should not allow those nasty Republicans to pass something as oppressive and disenfranchising as a piece of legislation that requires that you show an ID to prove that you are really the person who’s vote you are casting.

But let’s just think about the reality of the situation instead of trying to have some partisan debate. The reality is that I have to go through testing and pay a fee every four years in order to get a license to drive my car. I have to show identification if I want to buy cigarettes or alcohol to prove my age. I have to show ID to use my credit card to make a purchase at a local store. I can’t drive my car, board a plane, or make a purchase without a government issued identification card that I had to pay to get. It is really so much to ask that we require people to take the steps to obtain a FREE voter ID (and only if they don’t already have one of the other 7 types of ID) before they cast a vote that has the potential to cause so much chaos and damage? I mean look at the results of the last two Presidential elections. The results can be pretty powerful. Is it too much to ask that we make sure we are taking every precaution to limit voter fraud?

And amid all of this discussion, we have the prevalent statement from Democrats out there that Voter fraud is a trumped up issue anyway. They claim that the minimal amount of voter fraud doesn’t begin to warrant any attention being given to the issue. We don’t need to change a thing according to them, because the system is working exactly as its supposed to work. Funny, I seem to recall them having a bit of a different perspective back when a certain election was a hot issue in 2000. Democrats sure thought that voter fraud and faulty electoral processes were a problem then.

At a time when ACORN and other Democrat 527 groups like them are spending ten to fifteen times as much per election as similar GOP groups, it has become clear that we have to do something to stem the tide of gaming the voting process. We all know the game is rigged. And it’s time to do something about it. We cannot continue to hold elections without voter ID cards. No longer should dead people be voting or cartoon characters be casting ballots. No longer should the 100% crooked politics of Chicago be the mainstay of national electoral processes.

This is How the Ultra-Liberal Doonesbury Cartoonist Attempts to Portray the Issue. Typical.



  1. Very interesting, USW….

    It is amazing the fraud out there and the number of people that want it to continue. I have seen it in all my years of voting but it is much more rampant on the democratic side than the republican side, in my experience.

    There is no cohesive argument that ID’s disenfranchise. None…..but, I am sure that our resident anarchist, who is against voting anyway, will say the vote disenfranchises everyone…our resident lefties will, as you pointed out, will say the poor and elderly are disenfranchised….blah blah blah……

    Prove it. I can prove ACORN voter fraud…..prove that the poor are disenfranchised or the young or the elderly or the Hispanics or the Blacks…..or even raptors. Hell even DPM can vote.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    THis is a great example of the stupidity of politics. At this point in time, elections seem to do more to divide the populace than it does to elect a quality representative. It has become so perverted, that many people are just walking away from it, it’s just more of the same, regardless of which shirt is in charge. While this may not always be true in local elections, it surely is at the national level.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      After experiencing the discomfort and embarrassment of a prostate test on
      the National Health Service, a guy decided to have his next test carried out
      while visiting in San Francisco where the beautiful nurses are more gentle
      and accommodating.

      He lay naked on his side on the table, and the nurse began the examination.

      “Don’t worry, at this stage of the procedure it’s quite normal to get an erection,
      ” said the nurse.

      “I haven’t got an erection,” said the man.

      “No, but I have.” replied the nurse.

      Moral: don’t have this procedure done in San Francisco !

  3. Murphy's Law says:

    Great article, USW, as usual.

    I remember when LBJ was JFK’s running mate in ’60 how incensed my father was about the fact that LBJ had originally won his senate seat thanks to an astonishing number of dead people who made it to the polls in Texas…..I remember him waving a copy of a book called A Texan Looks at Lyndon Johnson and gagging at who could be “a heartbeat away from the presidency”. It was the first time I was aware that there was any such thing as voter fraud. I got my conservative values from him and am forever grateful for it…..

    I don’t consider myself either Repub or Dem, just conservative politically…..and I have seen all my life that while neither party has kept their skirts clean, there is far greater evidence that the Democratic Party is hell-bent on winning and damn the legality of it.

    It’s for the greater good, right?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Guess you never heard of the Southern Strategy eh Murph?

      • Would you mind explaining your understanding of this Southern Strategy-all I’ve ever gotten out of it was that Republicans supporting state rights is somehow racist.

        • @VH – Wiki has a decent write-up which explains the different ways “States Rights” was interpreted in the South from around 1970-forward. The Lee Atwater quote captures some of this essence:

          “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

          And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger”

          As you’re well aware, Lee Atwater was a key architect of much of the political gamesmanship and downright mean & ignorant behavior seen nowadays.

          I do give some credence to the economic theory behind whites leaving the Democratic party at the time – but that is tempered by the experiences of my own family. Many were earning a better living by doing the long drive to the Delta plant and associated industries just North of Atlanta – many of these whites were not fans of the Civil Rights movement nor the Federal laws around this. Not all my relatives fled the Democrats in the early/mid 1970s but many did.

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Am I the only one scratching his head saying….”USW is advocating for MORE Government?” Huh? Let me get this straight – we want/need/desire a Government that is overwhelmingly criticized as incompetent/fraudulent/stupid/wasteful/,,,,, to implement yet another program that is ripe for fraud, waste and abuse?

    I do not agree that requiring identification in order to vote will disenfranchise anyone.

    I also do not agree in creating/issuing yet another piece of identification to prove I am legal to vote. We all have enough IDs to prove citizenship.

    For the record, not one party runs a monopoly on alleged voter fraud.

    And btw USW – perhaps the lefties here all run commando – we have no panties to get into a bunch. 😉

    • ”USW is advocating for MORE Government?”

      My take is he is wanting to reform the existing government. In my state, voter registration is automatic with Drv’s license renewal. You can elect to not register, but it’s part of the process, so does not “add” any government.

      I agree both parties do it, but after 2000 & 2004, isn’t it time we fixed our voting system where it cannot be rigged? We are the leader of the “free world”, but every election is as corrupt as any despot nation’s. Why would anyone value what we say until we set our own house in order?

    • USWeapon says:

      Am I the only one scratching his head saying….”USW is advocating for MORE Government?” Huh? Let me get this straight – we want/need/desire a Government that is overwhelmingly criticized as incompetent/fraudulent/stupid/wasteful/,,,,, to implement yet another program that is ripe for fraud, waste and abuse?

      I have advocated no such thing. What I am advocating is that we require some sort of proof that voters are who they say they are. That is far from a cry for more/bigger government.

      I do not agree that requiring identification in order to vote will disenfranchise anyone.

      Good, at least we agree here.

      I also do not agree in creating/issuing yet another piece of identification to prove I am legal to vote. We all have enough IDs to prove citizenship.

      And for anyone who has all those ID’s already, they don’t need to do a thing. The requirement in NC would have been one of 8 different state issued ID’s. The only people who would have needed to get the free voter ID card are those who don’t have a Driver’s License, Passport, State ID, or one of the other 4 accepted documents.

      For the record, not one party runs a monopoly on alleged voter fraud.

      I absolutely agree. But only one party runs a monopoly on on steadfastly opposing any type of reform that would make voter fraud more difficult.

      And btw USW – perhaps the lefties here all run commando – we have no panties to get into a bunch.

      I didn’t figure you would anyway. But some are a little sensitive when I alledge that Democrats are “xxx”, despite the fact that it may be true. I don’t think all dems are crooked but I do see that this particular issue is more prevalent for Dems than the other side.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        @USW – I have a real hard time believing someone would not have at least one form of identification that would be acceptable.

        Anyone who advocates a law that creates a government issued voter ID is advocating more government. The IDs don’t produce themselves. My apologies if I interpreted your article as supporting the law requiring such.

        • “@USW – I have a real hard time believing someone would not have at least one form of identification that would be acceptable.”

          I have a hard time believing this also Ray. But that is the standard Democratic waaa point. So Republicans have tried to come up with this voter card ID that is FREE! But I guess the Liberal whiny asses had to come up with at least SOME reason to be against it. So disenfranchisment was decided upon.

          And besides, how could they commit voter fraud if the disenfranchised had to show an ID?

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            @Esom – the card really isn’t *free* – I can only imagine the amount of bureaucratic bullshit that will have to be developed and maintained ($$$$$) over time to support it.

            • But that is the whole point. A lot of the laws do create more beauracracy, but what the hell can be done? Just allow the fraud to take place? ACORN was PROVEN to be commiting vast voter fraud.

              • @Esom – I’m not suggesting fraud be allowed to take place. I strongly advocate requiring ID – and it should be ID already in existence. The key is tightening it up. Fraud exists now because the voting process is completely de-centralized and the 300 year old woman at my precinct does not have the foggiest chance in hell of telling if my DL is real or not.

        • USWeapon says:

          You didn’t misinterpret my position, obviously. I just don’t think that that microscopic number of people who don’t already have one of the 7 other forms of acceptable ID is much of a growth in government.

          But we are not talking about growth of government here, even though you are painting it in that light. We are talking about finding a way to secure the voting process.

          • “Secure the voting process”

            I’d suggest you should have expanded on that more….

            The process now is completely de-centralized. Require a NC State DL? How are you going to verify they are not fakes? SSN? Those cards can be replicated by a five year old on a standard printer via templates you download from the Internet. The Hazard Counties of the US don’t have the resources to ensure better integrity of the system. So where do the resources come from? The incompetent Federal Government? The State Government? Someone wants an election bad enough will they go to greater lengths and (key here) spend the money to do so? Does fraud exist now because its just too damn easy to commit?

            When 4 out 5 of your posts are critical of an inept incompetent Government – then am I supposed to believe the same is capable of “finding a way to secure the process”? If not them then who? How? Giving out free ID cards to the handful of folks who somehow grew old enough to not be able to prove to anyone who the hell they are? Not buying it. Too incomplete.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I like my idea, eliminate all of the corrupt bastards and bitches and put in a system that won’t allow corruption.

    • Ray-Liberals also argue that most identifications cost money -so to require one to vote is the same as a pole tax(I think that’s the correct name), so it is necessary to give out free ID’s to those who don’t have any identification to beat that argument-is that more government-I suppose-but necessary if the aim is fair elections. I suspect what would happen is that it would become real obvious that most people have ID and those who don’t- simply don’t care enough to get one.

      • Hahahaha! I am NOT a grammar police, but more got a kick out of the pole (poll?). Yes, that pole dancing should be taxed every time you try it!

  5. I thought it would be hard to find anything in the “news” to contribute to this, but the 2nd article this AM….. Also feeling guilty, I voted for your singer friend, so have helped you rig an election.

    JOHN STOSSEL, HOST: Speaking of the mainstream media, I am a little bit ashamed of this one, but I am revealing now for the first time publicly that when I worked at 20/20, you, who I didn’t know at that time, pitched me with this story about ACORN and the sting. And I didn’t cover it. And you remember that I assume?

    ANDREW BREITBART: Oh, do I ever? I mean, I’ve referenced it in speeches that I went to ABC to a producer because I realized you can’t just break a story on a blog. You have to get the mainstream media to cover it as well and so I thought what the hey.

    I’ll call up John Stossel. Seems like an honest guy. Seems like he’d think that the president’s vaunted community organizing group — treating a fake prostitute and a fake pimp with service with a smile in every office except for one, I thought maybe there is a story here.

    STOSSEL: What did I tell you?

    BREITBART: You said that it is a story and that you would probably commit a month to a story like this because it is so blatant, but you said that the politics within ABC were just, you know, that you couldn’t do it.

    STOSSEL: And that’s true. I had all kinds of good stories I couldn’t get on, but, well, I didn’t. I could have had that scoop and I blew it. I’m so annoyed

    Just imagine how much news organizations like ABC don’t disclose to the public because the story’s don’t fit their liberal agenda.

    Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

    Read more:

  6. When I started voting back in the ’60s in IL, we had voter registration cards. It served as ID plus if you moved districts, you turned in the card for a new one and the old one was mailed back to your previous precinct so you name could be removed from the records. It was a simple system that worked.

  7. WI just passed voter ID and predictably the Dems here had those same arguments. Amazing!

    • Of course, the Dems are one step ahead, realizing if most states now have voter ID, they need to come up with something else to win. Thus Soros’ Secy of State program.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I dunno Kathy – if you consider likely battle States in 2012 and the party affiliation then you actually see more of a GOP bend. (Colorado (R), Florida (R), Iowa (R), Nevada (D), New Hampshire (D), New Mexico (R), North Carolina (D), Ohio (R), Virginia (R) and Wisconsin (D).)

  8. And, then, one day you will wake up with an epiphany.

    Politic votes don’t matter other than providing your agreement to be ruled by corrupt and evil men.

    Then you will have a real choice to make – continue to be ruled by others, or …. not

  9. Just in case some haven’t noticed-there is a poll at the top on the right-if you want to vote on having an open mic day.

  10. I’m back! And aren’t all of you glad.

    Hey, when I last left, even Kathy agreed with me!

    Okay, so here’s the one that sticks in my craw:

    Republicans want every vote counted so long as the law is followed. The fact that Democrats are more concerned with winning than obeying the law in the most open arena of a contested election says a ton about their view of the election process.

    Two words … RICHARD NIXON.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Really? Because I had two very different words come to mind: OHIO 2004

      Glad to have ya back ya crazy commie! SUFA hasn’t been the same…

      • Glad to be back, you crazy on the right …:)

        Now don’t get me wrong … JFK was voted in by the many dead and double voters in Illinois … and I doubt either party has the one-side version USW presented on voter fraud. The real issue (and here I agree with USW) is why do we all put up with it?

        Answer: We’re too busy trying to survive the pressures of being have nots (most of us) … finding/keeping work and ignoring an incredible fact I learned from a friend’s blog just this morning (that in Michigan, we spend $30-40K per person to incarcerate and just $7K per pupil to educate them. And then we give thieves like Weiner/Foley, et al lifetime healthcare and pensions.

        Crazy stuff …

    • Controversies

      Many Republicans (including Nixon and Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, of which Lyndon Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley’s powerful Chicago political machine.[20] These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the electoral college. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election,[19] and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both these states at the time—as well as in nine other states.[24] Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy’s victory in Illinois.[24]

      Nixon’s campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of Kennedy’s victory in several states, especially in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election.[19] However, Nixon gave a speech three days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.[19] The Republican National Chairman, Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, visited Key Biscayne, Florida, where Nixon had taken his family for a vacation, and pushed for a recount.[19] Morton did challenge the results in 11 states,[20] keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961. However, the only result of these challenges was the loss of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.

      Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[20] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state’s 101 counties, and Kennedy’s victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago’s vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago’s 1960 population of 3.55 million,[25] although Cook County also included many suburbs outside of Chicago’s borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.[20]

      In Texas, Kennedy defeated Nixon by a narrow 51% to 49% margin, or 46,000 votes.[20] Some Republicans argued that Johnson’s formidable political machine had stolen enough votes in counties along the Mexican border to give Kennedy the victory. Kennedy’s defenders, such as his speechwriter and special assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy’s margin in Texas (46,000 votes) was simply too large for vote fraud to have been a decisive factor, although cases of voter fraud were discovered there. For example, Fannin County had only 4,895 registered voters, yet 6,138 votes were cast in that county, three-quarters for Kennedy.[19] In an Angelina County precinct, Kennedy received a higher number of votes than the total number of registered voters in the precinct.[19] When Republicans demanded a statewide recount, they learned that the state Board of Elections, whose members were all Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the official winner in Texas.[19]

      In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon’s 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state’s attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precincts—40% in Nixon’s case—showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either candidate. While a Daley-connected circuit judge, Thomas Kluczynski, (who would later be appointed a federal judge by Kennedy, at Daley’s recommendation) threw out a federal lawsuit filed to contend the voting totals,[19] the Republican-dominated State Board of Elections unanimously rejected the challenge to the results. Furthermore, there were signs of possible irregularities in downstate areas controlled by Republicans, which Democrats never seriously pressed, since the Republican challenges went nowhere.[26] More than a month after the election, the Republican National Committee abandoned its Illinois voter fraud claims.[20]

      However, a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought charges against 650 people, which did not result in convictions.[19] Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.[19] Mazo, the Herald-Tribune reporter, later said that he found names of the dead who had voted in Chicago, along with 56 people from one house.[19] He found cases of Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois, but said the totals didn’t match the Chicago fraud he found.[19] After Mazo had published four parts of an intended 12-part voter fraud series documenting his findings which was re-published nationally, he says Nixon requested his publisher stop the rest of the series so as to prevent a constitutional crisis.[19] Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune wrote that “the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory.”[19] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote.,_1960

  11. I think everyone agrees that there is and had been voter fraud ever since there have been elections. On both sides.

    The only thing I don’t understand is why anyone would NOT want to fix it? Maybe because it benefits your side?

    And “makes government bigger” is a pretty pathetic excuse for not fixing it. Disenfranchisement is an even MORE pathetic one.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      As I’ve argued in the past — re ID cards for voting — providing FREE ID cards is ok by me. Forcing residents to purchase ID cards does cross the line and can lead to disenfranchisement.

  12. CHICAGO — A jury has convicted Rod Blagojevich of nearly all the corruption charges against him, including trying to sell or trade President Obama’s old Senate seat.

    Jurors delivered their verdicts Monday after deliberating nine days.

    Blagojevich had faced 20 charges, including the Senate seat allegation and that he schemed to shake down executives for campaign donations. He was convicted on all charges regarding the Senate seat.

    He testified for seven days, denying wrongdoing. Prosecutors said he lied and the proof was on FBI wiretaps. Those included a widely parodied clip in which Blagojevich calls the Senate opportunity “f—— golden.”

    Jurors in his first trial deadlocked on all but one charge, convicting Blagojevich of lying to the FBI.

    Blagojevich already faces up to five years for the lying conviction.

    Read more:

  13. @ Buck, the Wallaman……you got me to thinking with your comment about disenfranchisement and the use of the term. You even said apples and oranges when I used the term in your context. Interesting. So, I have decided to look at the term very closely and apply it to Liberal and Conservative philosophy and the legal trickery in the use of the term.


    1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship
    2. to deprive (a place) of the right to send representatives to an elected body
    3. to deprive (a business concern, etc) of some privilege or right
    4. to deprive (a person, place, etc) of any franchise or right

    Stay tuned….there is an argument here by the definition of the word. I can sense an article on the term disenfranchisement and how it is used.

    So, if Obama care is FORCED upon a business, when the business (1) does not want it, (2) elects not to have it, (3) is charged a penalty for not having it………is this not, as definition number three says, to deprive a business concern of a privilege or right? If, as a businessman , I decide to not offer health insurance of any kind, as is my right, and you force it….did you not just fall into the same conservative bashing category as disenfranchisement?

    Interesting…….disenfranchisement. Time for research and see who does the most…liberal or conservative.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Yes, disenfranchisement has different definitions and applies to different issues in different ways. That said, I still maintain voter disenfranchisement is very different from your use of the term as it relates to mandatory health insurance and businesses.

      Apples and Oranges.

      • I have always liked fruit salad….but I am going to research the issue. Interesting use of the term and how it is applied. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored at the time. I am already finding sound bites from both sides on the use of the term but the use of it looks absolute to me…however….have a wonderful say, counselor. Looks like the right to work issue will make it into our state Constitution this year. That would solidify it pretty well and make it a non issue in the future.

        • wups…….say=day. Still don’t have a literate key board. You would think with all of our technology, they would invent a mind reading keyboard. Perhaps area 51 has one…..will have to ask.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good Morning Colonel,

          You to Buck. Having caught up on everything, I have come to the conclusion that voter disenfranchisment is nothing but a left wimg conspiracy theory that only exists in their minds. The only thing that prevents people from voting is choice, not some made up theary that is rediculous in it’s entire subject.

          So it is disenfrachisement to require a voter ID card, but it is not when requiring a health insurance card, LOL. I know alot about conspiracy theories, but this is a good one.

  14. Biggest Tax Avoiders Would Win on U.S. Tax Break
    By Jesse Drucker – Jun 27, 2011 11:01 PM CT

    Biggest Tax Avoiders Win Most Gaming $1 Trillion Tax Break

    Cisco Systems has cut its income taxes by $7 billion since 2004 by booking roughly half its worldwide profits at a subsidiary at the foot of the Swiss Alps that employs about 100 people. Photo: Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg

    Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) has cut its income taxes by $7 billion since 2005 by booking roughly half its worldwide profits at a subsidiary at the foot of the Swiss Alps that employs about 100 people.

    Now Cisco, the largest maker of networking equipment, wants to save even more — by asking Congress to waive most federal taxes due when multinationals bring such offshore earnings home. Chief Executive Officer John T. Chambers has led the charge for the tax holiday, which would be the second since 2004. He says it would encourage companies to “repatriate” as much as $1 trillion held abroad, spur domestic investment and create jobs.

    Cisco’s techniques cut the effective tax rate on its reported international income to about 5 percent since 2008 by moving profits from roughly $20 billion in annual global sales through the Netherlands, Switzerland and Bermuda, according to its records in four countries. The maneuvers, permitted by tax law, show how companies that use such strategies most aggressively would get the biggest benefit from the holiday, said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

    “Why should we reward firms for successfully gaming the tax system when we in turn are called on to make up the missing tax revenues?” said Kleinbard, a former corporate tax attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. “Much of these earnings overseas are reaped from an enormous shell game: Firms move their taxable income from the U.S. and other major economies — where their customers and key employees are in reality located — to tax havens.”
    Complying With Laws

    “Cisco complies with all global tax laws,” said John Earnhardt, a spokesman for the San Jose, California-based company, which makes switches, routers and other products, in an e-mailed statement. “In the past three years alone, Cisco (which has over 35,000 U.S. employees) has paid approximately $4.4 billion in U.S. federal corporate income taxes.” The company reported an effective tax rate last year of 17.5 percent, half the U.S. statutory rate.

    Companies including Google Inc. (GOOG), Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Pfizer Inc. (PFE) are also pushing the proposed tax holiday, which would allow profits to return to the U.S. at a discounted 5.25 percent rate. Under current law, American companies can defer federal income taxes on most overseas earnings indefinitely. When they do return to the U.S., they’re taxed at the corporate rate of 35 percent — with credits for foreign income taxes paid. Thus, companies paying little overseas face higher U.S. tax bills upon repatriation, and would get more benefit from the discount.
    Competitors’ Rates

    “Cisco would like to bring its after-tax foreign earnings back to spend in the U.S., but cannot with the U.S. corporate tax rate at 35 percent,” Earnhardt said. “Our foreign competitors are allowed to repatriate foreign earnings at rates of 0 to 2 percent.” The tax-holiday push comes as the company faces shareholder pressure to add to its cash outlays by paying higher dividends to boost its stock price. It closed at $15.05 yesterday, down 25.6 percent this year.

    One way multinationals avoid taxes is through “transfer pricing,” transactions among subsidiaries that allow for allocating expenses to high-tax countries and profits to tax havens.

    As governments worldwide grapple with budget deficits — $1.4 trillion projected for the U.S. and 597 billion euros for the European Union — such income-shifting by multinationals cost the U.S. Treasury about $90 billion in revenue in 2008 alone, according to a March article by Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

    • Okay-I have numerous questions. 🙂 This sounds so unfair on first reading-But why should companies pay 35% in the first place? Why would anyone expect a company to purposely lose money? And if we tried to stop these loop holes are whatever you call them-what would companies do then?

      • Agree – 35%? That’s nuts! How the hell did we end up this way?

        • This is what all the debate over corporate taxes comes to, make them pay their “fair share” and they leave, relocating in a low tax country. Switzerland is smart. How much revenue will they gain just by having very low taxes? I’ve read that several US companies say they would come back to the US if our rate was close to 20%. Makes you wonder why every large American company isn’t doing this.

      • I think the so-called elite made everything so complicated on purpose, so they could hide their bogus actions. There isn’t any need for all this crap.

      • Boy Howdy!!! Somebody put a lot of thought into that, didn’t they? But in their defense, you have to hide your money from the thieves in the Federal Government somehow.

        Either that or some asshole claims you should have to give it all to the trash who refuse to work for their own living. Or the poor who don’t make a lot.

        I bet there are even some on here who think their money SHOULD be taken and their wealth ‘redistributed’. 😉

    • SAN JOSE, Calif. (TheStreet) – Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has launched an attack on Cisco(CSCO_) and its CEO John Chambers, calling on the under -pressure networking giant to beef up its dividend.

      Appearing on CNBC on Monday, Nader explained that he wants to see Cisco pay a one-time dividend of $1 a share, as well as increase its annual dividend from 24 cents to as much as 50 cents a share.
      Cisco and its CEO John Chambers have been slammed by Ralph Nader.

      “Cisco is sitting on $43.5 billion in cash, they are not about to make more acquisitions — they have said that they are going to go back to their core business,” he explained.

      Nader, who is himself a Cisco shareholder, even drew an analogy with conservative attitudes towards government tax dollars. “Shareholders who often call themselves conservatives say to government ‘it’s not government’s money, it’s our money’,” he said. “It’s time for those shareholders to say to corporate bosses ‘it’s not your money, it’s our money as owner/shareholders’.”

      Cisco recently reported underwhelming third-quarter numbers, delivering a weak outlook for the third consecutive quarter. Buffeted by weak public sector and consumer sales in recent quarters, Cisco’s shares have plunged more than 25% this year, prompting Chambers to announce a major restructuring effort.

      In a letter to Chambers dated June 13, however, Nader said that Cisco’s management is oblivious to building or maintaining shareholder value. “Virtually 99% of Cisco’s life there hasn’t been a dividend,” Nader told CNBC. “It’s long overdue.”

      Cisco paid its first-ever dividend, a quarterly payment of 6 cents a share, earlier this year, although Nader is also keen to see a one-time $1 payment. “They have 5.5 billion shares, so if they give a dollar dividend back for these long-patient shareholders – that would leave them with $38 billion that they are sitting on,” he added. “This will also produce more consumer demand.”

      The switchmaker sought to reassure shareholders following Nader’s comments, explaining that the company is “moving aggressively” with its plan to deliver profitable growth. “We just instituted our first ever dividend and our continued focus on increasing value for our shareholders certainly includes consideration of capital allocation and returns to our shareholders,” added a spokeswoman in an email to TheStreet.

  15. Canine Weapon says:
    • Are you being attacked by Zombies? Or are you being subtle about something?

      • Canine Weapon says:

        Well, it seems to me that we can define a “zombie” as a dead person who is doing something other than lying still and being dead. That is, a dead person who is walking around or performing other activities can reasonably be called a zombie. Since voting is something other than lying still and being dead, non-living individuals who engage in this activity must be zombies.

        If we are to believe this mathematical model, then all plausible zombie scenarios where we do not immediately and aggressively fight back end with the eradication of all non-zombie humans. The only question in the model seems to be how long this will take.

        Since US Weapon clarified that almost all dead-voters tend to vote Democratic, and since there is apparently no aggressive campaign to eradicate the zombies menace, the zombies will eventually take over – it is mathematically inevitable – and then they will vote in tides of Democrats.

        The only question to me is whether the Democrats are passively benefiting from this undead-bias at the expense of their living constituents, or whether they are actively facilitating the zombie-apocalypse in order to improve their political futures.

    • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

      Canadian researchers are hysterical aren’t they?
      This is what happens when you give French researchers waaaaay too much grant money!

  16. Good Grief-under the influence or a literal driving zombie!!

    Police: Man keeps driving on I-45 with pedestrian in windshield
    Copyright 2011 HOUSTON CHRONICLE
    June 28, 2011, 11:14AM

    A driver who hit a pedestrian along Interstate 45 in southeast Houston early this morning didn’t stop even though the victim smashed through his windshield and landed in the front passenger seat, officials said.

    The driver, identified as 45-year-old James John Onak, was charged with felony failure to stop and render aid and misdemeanor of tampering with evidence.

    The collision occurred in the 12200 block of the southbound Gulf Freeway near Fuqua about 12:30 a.m. Tuesday, according to the Houston Police Department.

    Police said the 32-year-old victim, whose name has not been released, died at the scene.

    No other injuries were reported.

    Police said a man was driving his Ford Explorer on the freeway when it broke down. He pulled to the shoulder and got out and began trying to cross the freeway.

    The man was hit by a black Mazda, driven by Onak, police said. Police said the collision forced the victim’s body through the windshield, and he landed in the front passenger seat inside the car.

    Onak did not stop after the collision, police said. Police said he allegedly got off the freeway and drove a few blocks before a Precinct 8 Harris County Constable pulled him over at 11600 Kirkvalley near Beamer, and the deputy noticed the car’s front was damaged. Then the deputy saw the victim in the car, police added.

    Police said Onak told the deputy he had hit something on the freeway and that he didn’t know the victim was in the passenger seat beside him.

    Onak was believed to be under the influence and a mandatory blood draw was taken.

    Police are still investigating the case.

    Read more:

  17. Voter ID in Missouri vetoed by D Governor due to……. “disenfranchment”. Surprise!

    • As a legal voter-I don’t know if allowing the not qualified to vote technically disenfranchises me but it sure as heck cancels out my legal vote-what’s the technical word and justification for that.

    • “disenfranchment”

      What’s that? 🙂

      • It’s when WI brings in a big time QB and the other lowly Big Ten schools won’t have a chance!

        • USWeapon says:

          We’ll see about that Kathy. I watched Wilson closely during his three years here in Raleigh at NC State. He is beatable. But I don’t want to take away from his talent. He is loaded with it and will definitely make Wisconsin a better team. But I think Penn State, Ohio State, and Nebraska will have something to say about not having a chance…

          • Ohio State? Do they still play football there? I think they will be disqualified from everything for quite a few years.

            • Hmmm! 5’11”, 20-18 in the ACC with him as QB, and boy oh by, who does this article say to watch out for?…No, Not Penn State……..

              Looking at UW’s schedule, the three biggest challenges should come from Nebraska, Michigan State and Ohio State – the latter two of which come late enough in the season to make any stumble a deadly one.

              DEADLY, he said 🙂

    • I’m curious-democrats keep saying they don’t want voter fraud but have any of the democrats in power, ever, even once that anyone knows about-come up with a plan to stop voter fraud??

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Clearly the Dems don’t want voter fraud, but the difference between the Dems and the GOP on this is the Dems don’t see voter fraud as a real issue. They see the real issue as voter suppression efforts.

        • It isn’t clear Buck-it most definitely isn’t clear. If the republicans aren’t trying to stop the crap in the huffpo article, which I’m sure the dems are also doing-then it isn’t clear they either party really wants to stop suppression. Any type of REAL suppression should be prosecuted. And some type of identification should be necessary to stop illegal voting-that there is no evidence that it is a big problem just doesn’t sell 🙂 As far as one not being able to get a birth certificate-just how does that happen? I had a boy who lived with my family-who didn’t have a birth certificate-turned out his mother, a drug addict, gave him to a friend-and this friend because she was scared that the authorities would take him away her-somehow got him a fake certificate which got him into school and a SS #. But it wouldn’t work to get him a drivers license. We got him a certificate-it took talking and researching but they found his original birth certificate-even though it was under a different last name.

          • Sorry-it got him a BC not a SS#.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “…to stop illegal voting-that there is no evidence that it is a big problem just doesn’t sell ”

            So you believe we should put money and resources into solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

            I agree with you on one thing — any type of real suppression should be prosecuted.

            • What I think Buck is that “there is no evidence” is a BS argument. That the problem isn’t big enough to warrant some type of identification process to stop ANY illegal voting is also a BS argument. As far as the money involved-one may argue that one shouldn’t have to pay to vote-but one should damn well be able to prove their citizenship before they can vote. How one fixes that and how much it will cost-should be something the dems and reps. should be working out together. Instead the dems. just block every idea that is put up. I’ll even give you that some of the republicans ideas may have some suppression tactics in small print-but those would go away if the dems were interested at all-in stopping voter fraud.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “…some of the republicans ideas may have some suppression tactics in small print-but those would go away if the dems were interested at all-in stopping voter fraud.”

                If the GOP ideas have suppression tactics in small print, shouldn’t the Dems be vetoing the use of such tactics? Or are you ok with the GOP using ‘voter fraud’ to advance voter suppression tactics that inordinately affect likely democratic voters?

              • What away to avoid the issue-it is obvious to all us voters out here that neither party is above doing underhanded crap-but denying a problem exists in order to do nothing takes a special kind of gall-But no-the problem needs to be fixed and it isn’t having to show an ID-that causes suppression of votes and the dems. should be stopping the tactics(if there are any) not vetoing the whole idea.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                USW, you did not such thing.

                Here are your three ‘facts’ to debunk the claim:
                1) The ID is free and, even without one, you can still vote and then subsequently show your ID.
                2) The elderly and disabled generally vote for the GOP so the GOP wouldn’t try to disenfranchise their own electorate.
                3) The young electorate can’t wait to get their drivers license so clearly they already have an ID.

                Lets take a closer look at these:

                1) The particular bill at issue in NC (only one state) calls for a free voter ID card. That is definitely a step in the right direction, and overall I can agree with an attempt to mandate voter ID cards so long as they are free. However, what about the rest of the states calling for ID cards? For NC, I would also need more info as to the procedure to obtain the ID card and the time to show up subsequent to voting to prove you are who you say you are.

                2) The elderly — while it may be that the elderly in general tend to vote Republican, you also need to look at the areas most effected and the areas where these requirements are being pushed.

                3) The young with their desire for a drivers license — again, look at the localities affected the most. I grew up in NYC. Many, many of my friends did not go running out for a drivers license because they had no intent on driving. Many of my friends STILL do not have a drivers license years later. Besides, this is anecdotal evidence at best and does nothing to debunk any claim.

                But none of this goes to the point the Democrats are making — that voter fraud just isn’t the problem the GOP is making it out to be. If there is ANY suppressive effect of the GOP proposals, the Democrats should continue to block and veto these proposals from becoming the law, especially if the Dems are right that this isn’t a real problem to begin with.

              • Terry Evans says:

                For me, when a particular political group…this time the Democrats…start saying that there is nothing to see here, move along. It makes me think that there actually is something…but then, I have kind of a suspicious nature about me…

  18. ” found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots.”

    Wisconsin and the Voter Fraud Agenda
    Democrats are pushing to weaken ballot security at the state and national level. Have they forgotten the 2000 election?


    An attempt to hijack the state’s election laws and open the door for voter fraud failed at the last minute this week in Wisconsin’s legislature. But threats to ballot integrity continue in other states, and Congress may rush to pass ill-conceived legislation this year that would only sow confusion and increase the potential for chaos on a national level.

    Wisconsin’s story shows how high the stakes are. Late in March, a 72-page bill was suddenly introduced and rushed forward with only abbreviated hearings. The bill would have given “nationally recognized” community organizing groups access to the state driver’s license database to encourage voter turnout. After the infamous registration scandals involving Acorn in 2008, this was clearly a strange priority. Requests for an absentee ballot in a single election would also become permanent (without requiring a legitimate reason, such as infirmity), and the ballots would be automatically mailed out in future elections.

    Coercion and chicanery are made much easier by the excessive use of absentee ballots. Most of the elections thrown out by courts—Miami, Florida’s mayoral election in 1998, the East Chicago, Indiana’s mayor’s race in 2005—involved fraudulent absentee votes.

    Three decades ago absentee and early ballots were only 5% of all votes cast nationwide. In 2008, they exceeded 25%. Wisconsin’s bill would also have allowed voters to register on the Internet without supplying a signature—thus removing a valuable protection against identity theft and election fraud.

    Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, blasted the bill, saying it would “make election fraud more likely” and “jeopardize the orderly administration of election laws.” In the end, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker admitted the bill was being rushed through too quickly and adjourned the session without brining it up for a vote.

    Democratic leaders also worried that a popular amendment to require photo ID at the polls would have been attached to their measure. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle has vetoed three previous photo ID laws, even though Democrats such as state Sen. Tim Carpenter of Milwaukee supported them saying he’s seen “eye opening” public support for the idea.

    That backing is based on real evidence. In 2004, John Kerry won Wisconsin over George W. Bush by 11,380 votes out of 2.5 million cast. After allegations of fraud surfaced, the Milwaukee police department’s Special Investigative Unit conducted a probe. Its February 2008 report found that from 4,600 to 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Absentee ballots were cast by people living elsewhere; ineligible felons not only voted but worked at the polls; transient college students cast improper votes; and homeless voters possibly voted more than once.

    Much of the problem resulted from Wisconsin’s same-day voter law, which allows anyone to show up at the polls, register and then cast a ballot. ID requirements are minimal. The report found that in 2004 a total of 1,305 “same day” voters were invalid.

    The report was largely ignored, and just before the 2008 election the police department’s Special Investigative Unit was ordered by superiors not to send anyone to polling places on Election Day.

    By Michelle Malkin • January 17, 2005 08:05 PM

    I’ve been hearing from several citizen watchdogs about allegations of massive Democratic election fraud in Wisconsin. Reader Ron LaCanne sent me this summary:

    A state representative has been asking the Milwaukee Election Commission for information on the number of votes cast by voters who voted and registered on the same day (Wisconsin Law allows voters to register at the polls the day of the election). By law all same day registers are to be validated by mail immediately after the election (Their votes get counted regardless of their status).

    Rep. [Jeff] Stone finally received an answer Monday of [last] week. He was told that there were 8,300 same day votes and approximately 900 were unable to be delivered. Assuming about one third of the same day votes will not be verified because there is no such address, etc., that would mean approximately 2400 illegal votes were cast. Sounds bad! Well…..

    Rep. Stone today received a call from the Election Commission. They were a little bit off. They actually had 73,000 same day votes cast. 10,000 voter registration cards could not be sent because they have no addresses or incomplete or inadequate information. Using the same one third return rate that means in Milwaukee alone more than 25,000 illegal votes were cast. You can expect that the cities of Racine, Kenosha and Madison to have similar results.

    By the way George Bush lost Wisconsin by 12,000 votes and Milwaukee votes 80% or more Democrat. Please use your contacts in that wonderful blogger world to helps us. We won’t get any help from that lousy socialist rag the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

    Dirty Harry, who blogs at Stranded on Blue Islands, elaborates:

    It’s only after your vote is counted verification begins, with a follow-up mailing to verify you do live at the address and that the address is valid. Well, as of today, and in Milwaukee alone, 10,000 votes cannot be verified.

    Bush lost the entire state by a mere 11,384 votes.

    Here’s where things get even stranger:

    Milwaukee’s population is around 600,000. Of voting age: 430,000. According to election officials 83,000 people same-day-registered to vote. That’s 20% of eligible voters. I can’t find statistics to compare that number to prior elections but it sounds high. (If someone has the numbers, please forward.)

    In 2000 Al Gore won Milwaukee by 22 points. Kerry won by 35! That contradicts a lot of trends — even Wisconsin ones. But bottom line, 6500 votes counted in Milwaukee for Kerry cannot be verified. This whittles his state-wide lead down to 5,000, and makes one wonder what happened in other state Democrat strongholds like Madison and Racine…

  20. More WI under (or not) reported are the students who vote in multiple locations using past years names/info/mail as their same day registration.

    ie Commy I. Am lives in Apt at 123 Socialist Drive on UW Campus for school year. He moves to new location for next school year but mail still arrives in his name at Socialist Drive address. New resident of said address, Saul Alinsky, votes under his own name, then goes back in the afternoon with some mail that shows he is now Commy, and votes again.

    During the recent Supreme Court race here, several incidence of this were brought up, including an email from a (probably Soros backed) group telling students to watch for mail and use in this way. Reported on by MSM? Of course not.

  21. 😐

  22. There’s quite the pattern isn’t there? Union domination, socialist policies, unsustainable public employee pensions.

%d bloggers like this: