Voter Cheating

By James Brody on Tea Party Nation

You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. (Boris Bazhanov‘s Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary ,1992, only available in Russian.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin is accused of voter fraud and failure to solve problems with health care availability, immigration control, and unsustainable pensions. Sound familiar? Absolutely. Will he lie? Absolutely. But unlike Obama’s ACORN, he will probably admit it.


Deception is everywhere in nature as biology’s Bob Trivers observes in his latest book, The Folly of Fools:

Novelty is valuable if it generates deceptive tricks. It also seeds a long contest between deceiver and deceived: each player changes in response to its partner. Deception, for example, fares well when it is less frequent and poorly when it is not. The relationship, thus, between deceiver and deceived cycles and neither partner will be driven to extinction. (A similar relationship occurs between men and women, hares and foxes, moths and birds!) Humans frequently put up warnings about deception when deception increases and are less worried when deception is rare, fun (lipstick or “the Devil made me do it,” or extraneous to survival. And failure to put up or to respond to warnings suggests there are payoffs either for playing dumb or being dumb.

Trivers, however, does not consider when the deceived also benefits from the deception by an adversary. This is common in human interactions. The ovulating woman believes the playboy’s story wealthy, strong, and loving, both enjoy an unprotected hour, and she takes her growing baby home for boring but predictable Homer to raise. This kind of lie is also apt to occur in politics.

There are several lines of independent evidence that predict deception in the 2012 election:

a)     12/30/11, Voter ID: PA House Bill 934

Eric Holder has ordered his staff not to meddle with cases of voter fraud that involve minorities (J. Christian Adams has written widely about such cases), Salina Zito (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) predicted that PA in November ‘12 will go according to the Philadelphia suburbs, ACORN has both a record for voter scams and new sites in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, our State Attorney General is stepping aside, and there is little public information about Mayor Nutter’s views on this matter. Meanwhile, there is an early February deadline from our Governor as Republicans in the PA legislature attempt to define a list of acceptable IDs and Democrats cry that minorities and old people can’t handle this demand.

 I smell more fraud from a bunch- ACORN – already known nationally for fraud and a February deadline invites some deliberate lapse by the D’sAnd intrusion by Eric Holder would stall our ID program until after ACORN has done their job for BO

b)     Jeffrey Kuhner, Washington Times: BO & Voter ID

“…South Carolina’s legislation provides for free ID cards to be given to anyone who needs it. Not one person – white, black or brown – is discriminated against or discouraged from casting a vote at the ballot box. Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

“It isn’t. And the reason is simple: The administration is trying to whip up minority frenzy, propagating the myth of widespread ballot suppression…”

c)      Daryl Metcalf, Morning Call: Electoral Integrity (June 18, 2011)

Metcalf is a Republican from Butler County (north of Pittsburgh)

“Pennsylvania has a long and ongoing history of documented voter fraud — pre-dating even the frequently forged signature of Mickey Mouse to at least the election of 1918.

“Of course, no statewide analysis of voter fraud would be complete without briefly documenting the deeply rooted influence of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

d)     Christopher Freind, PA Water Cooler:  No ID, No Vote,… Comprende? (June 21, 2011)

“I am not wealthy, but have recently acquired twenty two domiciles throughout Philadelphia. My real estate prowess has afforded me a unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our citizens.

“I can vote twenty-two times.

“You see, I have staked out prime locations, from a cardboard box under the Walt Whitman Bridge to a culvert on Cobbs Creek Parkway to a burnt out shell at 7th and Diamond. Yes, technically, habitating at these locations makes me ‘homeless,’ but I much prefer the term ‘voter-enfranchised.’ When you have such a love of democracy, how can anyone have a problem with people who want to vote multiple times, especially the homeless? (Although, in fairness, dead people should only be able to vote once).

e)     11/7/2011, PA ACORN

“Pennsylvania. ACORN PA has become Pennsylvania Communities Organizing for Change (PCOC) and Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice (PNSJ). Both were incorporated on January 8, 2010. On July 26, 2010, PCOC filed for another name — Action United — and the organizations now operate under this name. Current board members and staff of these organizations with former ACORN affiliations include:

• Lucille Prater Holliday, chair (ACORN member and Democratic state house candidate)

• Pat Worrell, co-chair (Chester County, PA ACORN chairman)

• Rosa Chacon, secretary/treasurer (ACORN leader in Harrisburg, PA, profiled in

ACORN’s 2005 annual report)

• Fabrico Rodriguez, board member (executive director of Philadelphia Jobs with


• Craig Robbins, executive director (ACORN regional director in Philadelphia, PA)

• Maryellen Deckard, southwest regional director (head organizer for ACORN PA)

• Jennifer England, communications director (Pittsburg ACORN spokesperson)

Action United is located  at 846 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130 and 5907 Penn Avenue, Pittsburg(h), PA 15206. The Action United website is…

There is even a Secretary of State project in which leftist groups attempt to bias state elections so that “liberal” Secretaries of State are elected.;

There must be some benefit to Republicans if they ignore voter fraud. For example, my acquaintance publishes lists of Republicans who take contributions from unions and refusing to vote against union interests. And conservative Lowman Henry has spoken about the legislative impasse, particularly in the State Senate, produced by about twenty-five who get their money from organized labor.

Thus, Nicole Marrone’s conclusion is still valid as is Christopher Freind’s:

“The city of Philadelphia is known for many things: The Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks, water ice, and Santa Claus-booing Eagles fans. But if research that I conducted in 2006 is still accurate today, Philadelphia should also be known for all-inclusive voting — that is, voting regardless of whether one has a pulse or is otherwise eligible to cast a vote…”…

There is a bright light on our horizon even though Salena Zito asserted that Pennsylvania electoral votes will depend on turn out in the Philadelphia suburbs:

“Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter didn’t mince words after four kids were shot and three killed in Philadelphia Tuesday night.

“The first way to stop this kind of stuff is for young people to be home when they’re supposed to be home, and for adults not to act like idiots and a******s out in the streets of our city shooting at kids in a car,” Nutter told FOX 29…

A spokesperson for the mayor told the Philadelphia Inquirer that Nutter stood by his statement.

“He said what he said. He was clear about it, and he meant it. He said what everybody else was thinking,” said spokesman Mark McDonald…”…

What are Mayor Mike’s reactions to fraud? Does he value “value” above “deals”?

Meanwhile, many Pennsylvanians look to Harrisburg to pass a “Voter ID” law that requires each of us to carry a card with our photo and address on it. Our Governor also says that he needs the law in place by the first week of February if it is to be used this coming November.

On the other hand, I recall my son’s friends in college fattening their wallets by selling bogus photo ID to students who wanted to buy liquor. I’m sure ACORN knows how to do such things.

The ID cards will make cheating a bit more difficult and more expensive for organizers and possibly, but not necessarily, less frequent. And the rest of us will pay the bills for cheaters…


Adams, J. Christian (12/29/2011) Selective Outrage over Voting Rights at the Philadelphia Inquirer.…  More at

Freind, Christopher (6/21/2011) No ID, No Vote,… Comprende?

Guzzardi, Robert (1/9/2012) Buying Republicans.

Henry, Lowman 1/6/2012:, Archives, Program #12-01. Summarized at

Kuhner, Jeffrey (12/30/2011) Voter ID Terrifies the Democrats.…

Marrone, Nicole (9/20/2010) Small Sample of Philly Voter Rolls Reveals Hundreds of Ineligible N…

Pajamas Media.…

Metcalf, Daryl (6/18/2011) Electoral Integrity. Morning Call.…

Trivers, Robert (2012) Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. NY: Basic Books.

US Attorney General Says Black People Less Capable to Get Photo ID


Monday for Martin Luther King Jr Day, US Attorney General Eric Holder spoke  with NAACP leaders on the steps of the statehouse in South Carolina.   Holder took the opportunity to tell the audience that he intends to fight  against any and all attempts by states to pass laws requiring some form of photo  ID.

South Carolina is one of those states in the voter ID fray and Holder told  residents,

“After a thorough and fair review, we concluded that the state had failed to  meet its burden of proving that the voting change would not have a racially  discriminatory affect.”

How is this a racial issue?  Is the Attorney General of the United  States saying that blacks, Hispanics or American Indians are less capable of  obtaining a photo ID than are whites?

In earlier reports, Holder seemed to indicate that the voter ID laws  discriminate against poor people.  If that is so are there no poor whites  in South Carolina or any other state?

The statement Holder used is the type of racial rhetoric that helps to fuel  the racial issues still raging through American society.

What would have happened if a white official made the same type of  statement?  In all likelihood, that white official would be publically  chastised for making such a racist comment.  If a white official said the  same thing, I would not be surprised to see Holder and his Department of Justice  going after them for racial profiling.

Take the case of what Holder is doing to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe  Arpaio.  The DOJ has filed racial profiling charges against Arpaio for his  efforts to fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking in his Arizona  county.  The vast majority of illegals and drug runners are Hispanic, so  yes, he and his department have to focus their attention more on that ethnic  group than any other.  What’s the difference between racial profiling and  efficient police work?

But Holder turns around and using the same racial profiling tactic as Arpaio  uses for his law enforcement activities, trys to justify his personal fight to  block voter ID laws.  The hypocrisy of the actions screams injustice in  both instances.

If that poor black or Hispanic person needed to buy any over the counter  allergy medication that contains pseudoephedrine, they would have to show a  driver’s license or some form of ID in order to purchase it.  If they have  a car, they have to have a state driver’s license AND proof of insurance.   If they are that poor and need to receive state or government aid, they have to  have some form of ID in order to request and receive that aid.  Some form  of ID, often a photo ID is required for anyone to fly on a commercial airline,  to open a bank account, buy a house, cash a check and the list goes on and on  and on.

If Mr. Holder does not believe that any of these other ID requirements are  racially discriminatory, then on what grounds does he believe requiring a photo  ID to vote is a form of racial discrimination?

My question to Eric Holder would be, ‘what makes a poor black or Hispanic  person less capable of obtaining a photo ID than a poor white person or a poor  Asian person?

Clearly this cannot be the real reason that Holder and the DOJ are fighting  against voter ID laws.  In light of the revelation of what happened with dead  people voting in the New Hampshire primary, the only possible explanation  for Holder’s opposition to voter ID has to involve the possibility of widespread  voter fraud in the November election.  If the Democrats can’t win back the  House and keep the Senate and presidency through legal voting methods, that only  leaves them desperate measures which could very well include voter fraud.

Could there be any other reason for his Hypocritic actions?

Asking For I.D. Before Voting Is ‘Racist’, But You Need A Govt. I.D. To Buy Drain Cleaner?

By Mike Opelka via The Blaze

Got a clogged drain? Before you can buy that liquid drain cleaner, I need to see some ID.

Does that sound like a joke?

It’s not a joke. It‘s the reality in President Obama’s home state.

Illinois has a new law that took effect on January 1 requiring all people who purchase drain cleaners or any caustic substances to provide a government issued photo ID. And retailers now must ask for identification from those buying drain cleaners and maintain extensive records of which caustic products have been purchased, in what amounts, and by whom.

The law came about after two Illinois women were burned by acid attacks back in 2008. One of the women later admitted to burning herself with acid, but the law was still pushed through the system.

And so, because of one random crime where acid was used to burn a victim, thousands of people will be forced to show identification when they purchase drain cleaners, and countless hours of business time will be spent filling out, maintaining and monitoring the government mandated forms associated with each purchase. Additionally, any person carrying caustic chemicals can be charged with a Class 4 felony in Illinois. (Class 4 felonies can carry fines up to $25,000 and 1-3 years in jail.)

The Illinois drain cleaner law is just one of the 40,000 new laws that took effect in the new year. For the record, the 40,000 new laws are a 29% increase over the previous year.

Among the mass of new laws are a few that are intended to strengthen election security and protect the integrity of each vote in the upcoming elections by demanding that all voters show a photo ID before entering the voting booth. The Wall Street Journal covered this story as 2011 came to a close…

Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, bringing the total number of states that require some form of voter identification to 30…

MSNBC has covered the topic of the new laws and specifically the voter ID laws, starting in July of 2011.

The voter suppression issue was also part of MSNBC’s review of the 40,000 new laws of 2012.

If it is considered “racist” or “discrimination” to ask a voter for a photo ID before they are allowed to cast a ballot, why is it not racist to ask for a government issued ID card when you want to buy drain cleaner or pay for your gasoline with cash?

Feel free to take our poll on this subject and submit your own question on the topic.

Morning Bell: Voter ID Prevents Election Fraud

By Mike Brownfield


Last night’s nail-biter in Iowa marked the beginning of election year 2012. And with Americans heading to the polls — next in New Hampshire, then South Carolina and beyond — they will hope to rely on the integrity of the election system to ensure that every legitimate vote counts and that fraud is not the deciding factor on the local, state or national level.

Unfortunately, despite all the technological advances in our modern democracy, voter fraud still occurs, and yet there is still resistance to one very simple tool that could help eradicate it — voter ID. Some, like The New York Times, say that voting fraud is a myth, that “there is almost no voting fraud in America.” But as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky explains, voter fraud is all too common in America today:

The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss. — a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee — who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased.

And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia even though she was a Maryland resident. Perhaps they would like a copy of an order from a federal immigration court in Florida on a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. in April 2004 and promptly registered and voted in the November election.

Even former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Given the incidence of voter fraud — and the simplicity of requiring voters to present a valid ID in order to be able to vote — it’s not surprising that 70 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that voters “should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot,” according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of Americans are opposed to the requirement.

Despite the fraud — and the support for voter ID measures — Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias. Von Spakovsky writes that the allegations of bias are baseless, and there is evidence to prove it. In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

On top of all that, the number of people who don’t already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don’t have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one.”

The American people value the integrity of their elections, and they overwhelmingly support voter ID requirements to make sure that Election Day is as fair, honest, and legal as possible. Still, though, there is resistance and predictions of massive  disenfranchisement if voter ID laws continue to be implemented. The  evidence, however, proves otherwise.


The Push for Voter ID Laws

By Tierra Warren

Von Spakovsky

Image via Wikipedia

According to a new Rasmussen report, 70 percent of Americans believe voter identification, such as a driver’s license, should be required in order to vote.

Nonetheless, Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state laws that require photo ID before voting for potential racial bias.

Heritage Foundation legal scholar Hans Von Spakovsky explains there is no evidence to support claims of racial bias:

Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points. Continue reading

The party of voter fraud strikes again

By Judson Phillips

The efforts of the Obama regime to steal the 2012 election have kicked into full swing.  Many states have passed laws to require ID to vote.  Of course, the Obama regime needs voter fraud in order to win, so they are fighting voter ID laws tooth and nail.

From Fox News:

The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the Obama administration.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Perez said tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina’s law because they don’t have the right photo ID.

South Carolina’s new voter ID law requires people casting ballots to show poll workers a state-issued driver’s license or ID card; a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport.

South Carolina is among five states that passed laws this year requiring some form of ID at the polls, while such laws were already on the books in Indiana and Georgia, whose law received approval from President George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Indiana’s law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

Those new laws also allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count.

You cannot board an airplane, open a bank account, receive government benefits, even enter some government building, or buy alcohol without a proper ID.

Funny, the Obama regime and the party of voter fraud does not have a problem with any of those issues.  It is only when the party of voter fraud needs to steal elections is this idea that ID is required becomes suddenly onerous.

If the Obama regime thinks it is discriminatory for people to be required to show ID’s to vote, how about we all go to the airport and claim discrimination when the TSA wants to see an ID before boarding an airplane.

(Note by Kasey:  Dr. Caroline Heldman of Occidental University claimed on Bill O’Reilly’s Factor show that showing a water bill should be sufficient proof to vote – think I could buy a bottle of Bailey’s Irish Cream with my water bill?)

Eric Holder Announces Opposition to Election Integrity Laws

By J. Christian Adams

English: Official portrait of United States At...
Image via Wikipedia

On Tuesday night, I spoke in Austin, Texas, at a rally organized by True the Vote.  It took place on the grounds of the LBJ Library on the campus of the University of Texas.  The rally was in response to Eric Holder’s announcement at the same place two hours later of a concerted Justice Department effort to oppose virtually every electoral integrity measure promoted by Constitutional conservatives and Republicans.

Holder’s announcement will have profound partisan results in the 2012 election because of his professed unwillingness to enforce laws to prevent voter fraud.  Indeed, tonight he made clear his opposition to these laws, such as voter ID and even the requirement to register to vote in advance of an election.

Holder announced broad opposition to voter identification requirements and a ramped up effort to enforce voting registration laws in welfare agencies.  He didn’t make any announcements about enforcing Section 8 of Motor Voter to ensure dead people don’t populate the roles.  He also said that voter fraud “isn’t a huge problem,” perhaps marking the first time the nation’s chief law enforcement downplayed criminal behavior.  Of course that is in vogue in this administration, starting with the New Black Panther dismissal and now with Fast and Furious.

In opposition to Holder, I spoke, as did a group of inspiring patriots starting with Catherine Englebrecht of True the Vote.  Anita Moncrief, Reverend C. L. Bryan, George Rodriguez (head of the San Antonio Tea Party) and Adryana Boyne, national director of VOCES Action followed.  Boyne’s speech defending Texas voter ID may be the first time I heard the policy defended in Spanish.  Moncrief, though, had the line of the night — that “Al Sharpton has a platinum race card.”

Holder laid down markers which will excite his base and disturb law abiding citizens.  He supported restrictions on political speech which will criminalize campaign falsehoods.  He vowed hyper-scrutiny of voter integrity laws such as voter ID and vowed to run states like Texas through a nasty gauntlet on redistricting.  If this doesn’t send a signal to Texas and South Carolina to pull their voter ID laws out of Justice and go to court, nothing else will.  Also in attendance was Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, a starring character in my book Injustice.

Holder brought along his puppy, Charlie Savage of the New York Times, from whom we can expect glowing sycophantic coverage of Holder’s announcement at any minute at the New York Times website.  Savage is the same reporter who covered purported politicization at the Bush Justice Department.  For this he won a Pulitzer Prize.

PJ Media’s Every Single One series reported on the same story Savage did, except this time on the 113 attorney hires by the Obama Civil Rights Division.  Savage only covered a handful of Bush hires — he had to, otherwise his story wouldn’t work because the Bush DOJ hired scores of liberal activist lawyers.  But the Obama Justice Department gives no quarter to the enemy in hiring, and hired 113 leftists out of 113 openings.  I described in my book Injustice how PJ Media had to sue Eric Holder to extract this information:

During the Bush era, DOJ leaders quickly fulfilled FOIA requests. For instance, in 2006 Charlie Savage, then at the Boston Globe, requested all the resumes of the recently hired attorneys in the Bush Civil Rights Division. The DOJ leadership produced the materials within days, well ahead of the legal deadline—they acted so fast, in fact, that some colleagues and I complained they were rushing. Suspecting we were being set up for a leftwing smear campaign, we urged DOJ officials to protect our privacy while fully complying with the requests. But our concerns were ignored and the information was rushed out anyway, resulting in a slew of slanderous media stories, some attacking us in extremely personal ways, followed by curious questions from our family members about why we were in the news. There was a particularly merciless leftist blogosphere attack on a pair of attorneys who happened to be two of the hardest working and most dedicated lawyers in the entire Voting Section.

After PJ Media obtained the Obama hiring information, Savage, ever the cuddly puppy, wrote a puff piece about the Obama hiring practices.  Gone was his outrage over politicized hiring that he exhibited at the Boston Globe for the Bush DOJ.  That’s what PJ Media is for – reporting on stories the dying dead trees media won’t. Given the scope of the Every Single One series, perhaps PJ Media deserves a Pulitzer too.  If Charlie got one, PJ Media certainly should.  Stay tuned.