GLENN BECK SHOW 7.29.10

The show today focuses on  "You Don't Have To Be A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows" (Weather Underground Communist Manifesto from 1969) and the events happening today that mirror the radical ideology of Bill Ayers from the late 60's.

PART 1


PART 2


PART 3


PART 4


PART 5


Related Links:
Discover the Networks~Bill Ayers
Glenn Beck VS The Weather Underground
PBS~The Weather Underground
The Names Have Changed but The Philosophy Stay The Same
Bill Ayers~Prairie Fire~The Forgotten Communist Manifesto

Don't pay for health care reform on the backs of our seniors

Seniors have sacrificed, but Congress wants to cut a half trillion from Medicare to pay for "health care reform, which will hurt older Americans. Worse, Congress doesn't even want to apply this new plan to themselves.

60 Plus Organization Website
60 Plus Association Youtube Channel

URGENT CALL TO ACTION~STAND UP FOR FOX NEWS

In just a few days, the White House Correspondents Association will decide which news organization will be awarded the seat recently vacated by Helen Thomas. The news organizations most actively vying for the seat are FOX, NPR and Bloomberg News. (Note: We just found out that this action is even more urgent as the meeting has been moved up from Monday to Sunday, August 1st)

The Progressives have launched another smear campaign against FOX News in an effort to persuade the WH Correspondents Association to award the vacated front row seat to NPR instead of FOX News.

Check out the website launched to ask Progressives to sign a petition in support of NPR: 
CREDO Campaign~Fox or NPR
Check out who this organization raises money for: $65 million in change. Since 1985, members have generated more than $65 million for nonprofit groups simply by using our services

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In an effort to counter this assault by the Progressives, please copy and paste the following comments to the White House Correspondents Association contact form on their website and email them this message:

COPY AND PASTE:




Award the seat vacated by Helen Thomas to FOX News. FOX News continues to be the number 1 source of cable news.  NPR is a left-wing propaganda operation, not a legitimate news organization and does not deserve the coveted front row seat.

In a recent article from the Huffington Post dated 7/28/10, "Cable News Ratings July 2010: Fox News Dominates, MSNBC Tops CNN," the ratings show FOX News had almost 3 times more viewers than the closest competitor in cable news.

"Fox News continued its domination of cable news ratings in July. The network averaged 1.85 million viewers in primetime for the month--more than CNN, MSNBC and HLN combined. Fox News also drew 461,000 viewers in the coveted A25-54 demo.

While far behind Fox News, MSNBC still beat CNN in primetime for the sixth straight month. MSNBC averaged 679,000 total viewers and 229,000 in the A25-54 demo.

CNN averaged 530,000 total viewers and 146,000 in the A25-54 demo, while sister network HLN 452,000 total viewers and 145,000 in the A25-54 demo."

Source: Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/cable-news-ratings-july-2_n_661286.html?ref=twitter

The viewers have spoken. FOX News is the MOST deserving of this prestigious seat. They have proven their reporting is what this country wants to hear.

FOX News deserves to be on the front row!

Sincerely,

OUR COUNTRY IS IN PERIL~TODAY MASSACHUSETTS ANNOUNCED THEY WILL BYPASS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROCESS

Massachusetts Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College

July 27, 2010 05:09 PM

By Martin Finucane, Globe Staff

The Massachusetts Legislature has approved a new law intended to bypass the Electoral College system and ensure that the winner of the presidential election is determined by the national popular vote.

• Poll: Do you think the Electoral College system should stay?

"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.

Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."

But Senate minority leader Richard Tisei said the state was meddling with a system that was "tried and true" since the founding of the country.

"We've had a lot of bad ideas come through this chamber over the years, but this is going to be one of the worst ideas that has surfaced and actually garnered some support," said Tisei, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor.

The bill, which passed on a 28-to-9 vote, now heads to Democratic Governor Deval Patrick's desk. The governor has said in the past that he supports the bill, said his spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Supporters are campaigning, state by state, to get such bills enacted. Once states accounting for a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 of 538) have enacted the laws, the candidate winning the most votes nationally would be assured a majority of Electoral College votes. That would hold true no matter how the other states vote and how their electoral votes are distributed.

Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already approved the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website. The new system would only go into effect once a sufficient number of states have passed laws that would make it work.

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now "ignore wide swaths of the country" they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

"That's really what we're talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they're being reached out to," he said.

Opponents say the current system works. They are concerned about a possible scenario where Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Tisei also criticized the proponents for not following the normal procedures to seek a constitutional amendment.

"The thing about this that bothers me the most is it's so sneaky. This is the way that liberals do things a lot of times, very sneaky," he said. "This is sort of an end run around the Constitution."
The measure passed both branches of the Legislature in 2008 but did not make it all the way through the process.

Mark Levin spoke about this in 2008.

Here's Mark's show from today. In it he addresses the Electoral College issue as well as the DISCLOSE ACT that BARELY failed today in the Senate.
Mark Levin Show July 27, 2010

DEMOCRATS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT JOBS~THEIR OWN! So Much So They Want To Silence You~

Washington, D.C. –  U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following statement Tuesday, 7/27/10, regarding the DISCLOSE Act:

“Eight years ago, Congress passed and the President signed a bill known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. This bill was the culmination of a long and protracted battle, in which I played a major part, as many of my friends on both sides of the aisle will recall. It garnered bi-partisan support and bi-partisan opposition. Many hearings were held, studies were conducted. And a lengthy record on both sides of the issue was developed. 

“I strongly opposed that bill. But I commend its authors for one thing: in drafting and passing BCRA, they made every effort to ensure that everybody would have to play by the same rules — rules, moreover, that would not take effect in the middle of an election year. They wanted to make sure there was no appearance of giving one party a partisan advantage. And in that, they succeeded.

“Now fast forward to today. Late last week, Democrat leaders decided to take us off the Small Business bill to move to the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that is the mirror opposite of BCRA in the partisan way it was drafted and in the partisan way it’s being pushed ahead of an election.

“Let’s be perfectly clear: this bill is not what its supporters say it is. It is not an effort to promote transparency. It is not a response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United — which has now been the law of the land for seven months and which, contrary to the breathless warnings of some, has not caused the world to stop turning on its axis.

“This bill is a partisan effort, pure and simple, drafted behind closed doors by current and former Democrat campaign committee leaders, and it’s aimed at one thing and one thing only: this bill is about protecting incumbent Democrats from criticism ahead of November.

“The supporters of this bill say it’s about transparency. To that, I say it’s transparent alright. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections. And they’re so intent on their goal that they’re willing to launch an all-out assault on the First Amendment in order to get there.

“Democrats achieved something truly remarkable in drafting this bill. They united the ACLU and the Chamber of Commerce — both in opposition. Why? Because it’s as obvious to these groups as it is to me that the DISCLOSE Act is a clear violation of the right to free speech. 

“And as usual with Democrats in this Congress, the process hasn’t been any better than the substance. Over in the House, the Democrats’ campaign committee chairman sprung a rewrite of substantial portions that Republicans and even Democrats hadn’t seen shortly before this bill was voted on. Not to be outdone, Democrats here in the Senate introduced a version last week that had been substantially rewritten since it was first introduced in April. In other words, the original Senate version was replaced under a veil of secrecy late last week, and that’s the one Democrat leaders want us to vote on today.

“A massive rewrite of the laws that govern elections and Democrats want to give six full days between introduction and a vote. A massive re-write of the nation’s campaign finance laws without hearings, without testimony, without studies, without a markup. Another bill produced without a single hearing and placed directly on the calendar to bypass even the Rules Committee, which is supposed to have jurisdiction over this issue. A bill written behind closed doors with the help of lobbyists and special interests.  All of this — in the name of transparency! Forget the DISCLOSE Act, Mr. President. What we really need is a “Transparency in Legislating about Elections Act.”

“This approach to this bill couldn’t be more different than BCRA. However much I disagreed with that bill, it treated all groups, corporations, unions, parties and individuals the same. From the ban on party non-federal dollars to advertisement limitations within proximity of an election, BCRA’s restrictions and prohibitions were applied evenly. The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite: 117 pages of stealth negotiations in which Democrats pick winners and losers, either through outright prohibitions or restrictions so complex that they end up achieving the same result. 

“The unions don’t need a carve-out because they got exemptions. The new law applies to government contractors, but not their unions or unions with government contracts. It doesn’t apply to government unions. It applies to domestic subsidiaries, but not to their unions or international unions. Through threshold and transfer exemptions, unions are the ultimate victors under this bill. 

"I would note that numerous attempts were made to provide parity in the House Administration Committee mark-up — all were defeated on a partisan basis with no credible explanation. And this is what they’re calling transparency.

“In their efforts to pass this partisan bill ahead of the election, Democrats have been forced to do the same kind of horse-trading we saw in the health care debate. Some of the deals they struck were aimed at attracting special interest support, while others were aimed at quelling special interest opposition. In the end, they came up with a bizarre carve-out construct that grants full First Amendment freedoms to the chosen ones. And the results aren’t any prettier than the health care bill.

“Follow this logic: The exemption applies to 501c4s, with 500,000 members in all 50 states plus Puerto Rico and DC, in existence for 10 years who receive less than 15% of their money from corporations or labor unions. In case you don’t know who this provision is aimed at, it’s a carve-out for the NRA — as well as the AARP and the Humane Society, among unknown others, but not to groups like AIPAC or groups formed to advocate for victims of the oil spill or Hurricane Katrina.  So if you have 400,000 members, sit down and shut up. If you were founded in 2002, nice try, sit down. If you don’t have the ability to recruit members in every state, zip it. These are the contortions the authors of this bill had to go through to get it this far.

“Worse still, the DISCLOSE Act mandates that its provisions shall take effect without regard to whether or not the Federal Election Commission has promulgated regulations to carry out such amendments.  This, of course, will have the practical effect of paralyzing those who want to participate in the political process. If they don’t know what the rules are, they’ll take themselves out of the game, which is clearly what the authors of this bill want.

“Let me ask a question. All these new reporting obligations, filing requirements, certification mandates and transfer burdens are to occur, how?  Are there magic forms out there we don’t know about?  Do folks write emails to the FEC, FCC or SEC?  Maybe we bring back telegrams or use a Harry Potter Owl or the Pony Express?  Under threat of criminal sanctions, this provision is a clear message from the Justice Department to anyone covered by the new restrictions in this bill: go ahead and speak, make my day.

“Lastly, Mr. President, recognizing the important constitutional questions at issue with BCRA, an expedited judicial review provision was included in that bill.  Not so with this one.  In order to make sure this bill isn’t held up by something as inconvenient as a challenge on first amendment grounds, its authors have made sure no court action interferes with their new restrictions this election cycle and maybe next.  They add multiple layers of review.

“No provision addressing an appeal to the Supreme Court.  No time limits for filing, and no Congressional direction to the courts to expedite.  Again the goal of the proponents of this speech rights reduction act is clear: slow the process and secure new rules that help incumbent Democrats for the upcoming elections, and for the foreseeable future.

“Their one goal here is to get people who would criticize them to stop talking about what Democrats have been doing here in Washington over the past year and a half.

“The authors of the bill labored behind closed doors to decide who would retain the right to speak; In direct defiance of what the Supreme Court made clear this past January, when Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, `[W]e find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.’

“That is precisely what the Disclose Act does. It imposes restrictions on speech. And I would note that the one category of speakers upon whom the so-called reformers have bestowed the greatest speech rights in this bill are corporations that own media outlets.  So a company that owns a TV network, newspaper or blog can say what they want, when they want, as often as they want. 

“BCRA was debated over the course of many years.  Its authors also recognized the importance of not changing the rules on the eve of an election, which is why the legislation went into effect the day after the 2002 midterm elections.  The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite. Seeking to achieve exactly what BCRA avoided, this legislation has an effective date of 30 days after enactment. If it weren’t already obvious that this bill is a partisan exercise, the effective date should be proof positive.

“And those, Mr. President, are the facts.

“Now, I must admit it’s been a few years since I was in law school. So after I learned about all these special deals, I went back to the First Amendment to look for an asterisk or something indicating that only large entrenched and wealthy special interests get the `freedom of speech’. 

“I didn’t see it. So I pulled out this Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution thinking maybe it could be found there. I looked and looked, again to no avail.

“Then it occurred to me. Perhaps on that winter day in 1791 when the First Amendment became effective, these rights were meant to apply to all. Perhaps it is true the First Amendment was adopted to protect the people from Congress, to protect them from laws like this.

“To protect them from a government that picks winners and losers.  To protect them from an overreaching government that’s supposed to derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

“The Disclose Act is not about reform. It is nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors with special interest lobbyists choosing which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections — all in an attempt to protect themselves from criticism of their government takeovers, record deficits and massive, unpaid-for expansions of the federal government into the lives of the American people.

“In other words, a bill to shield themselves from average Americans exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.

“Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by taking us off the small business bill and moving to this one, Democrats are proving the jobs they care about most are their own.

“Think about it. Here we are in the middle of the worst recession in memory, and Democrat leaders decided to pull us off a bill that’s meant to create jobs in an effort to pass this election-year ploy to hold onto their own.

“What could be more cynical than that?

“A yes vote on this bill will send a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren’t as important as the jobs of embattled Democrat politicians.

“In closing, let me just note that hundreds of ideologically diverse organizations oppose this bill and have provided us with valuable information on its various absurdities. But I think the ultimate test of this bill’s legitimacy is pretty simple. If the Founding Fathers were here, they’d remind us. They’d hold up the Constitution and remind us of the oath we took to support and defend it.

“As members cast this vote today, they’ll come to the well and look at the desk to see what the well description says — the sheet of paper that sums up what this vote is about. On the Democrat side I’m sure it will include words like transparency and disclosure and talk about the threats to Democracy if this bill isn’t passed. 

“On our side Mr. President, it will be simpler. This copy of the Constitution will serve as our well description, and, more importantly, it will remind us of why we’re all here.  We’re here to protect the Constitution, not our own hides.

“I yield the floor.”

Important Message from the White House on Racism

This is sooooo true.  I'm sure there's a few more things that could be added to the list....Thug in chief has been the most divisive President in my lifetime. That is really sad as it would have been great if the first Black (mixed) president was someone like Martin Luther King as opposed to Lucifer.

Eight Stages of Social Movement Success

PART 1


PART 2


PART 3


PART 4


PART 5


Take it from a leftist and lifelong activist who has actually studied 'movements' carefully - the Tea Party is at a critical stage. This 'Movement Action Plan' put together by Bill Moyer in 1987 demonstrates that the Tea Party may be in stage 5 of this plan - the toughest part to get through before any movement succeeds.

Glenn Beck Clips

Gulf Oil Spill - Obama Failed Leadership Timeline

This time-line depicts the slow response and failed leadership of the Obama Administration. This depiction is through Day 70. Stay tuned for update through Day 82.

Right Change Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/RightChange

Herman Cain At Tea Party in Georgia Inspiring the Movement

Herman Cain is fed up with the accusations from the Left that the Tea Party are gatherings of racists.

http://secularstupidest.com
http://www.hermancain.org/
http://www.thegeorgiateaparty.com/
Herman Cain called out white supremacy members in the audience at a local Tea Party. No one was surprised at what happened next...

We The People

SEE FULL TRANSCRIPT http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/Nospopulus
Please help support the production of the next NosPopulus videos by downloading "We The People" at cdbaby.com or iTunes.
Here's the link: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/Nospopulus
Thank You!

Runaway Slave ~ The Documentary trailer

Runaway Slave - The Documentary, with Pastor C.L. Bryant. An honest discussion about black conservatives in America. "Run away from the slavery of tyranny towards the blessings of liberty!" The film is now in production and is a non-profit project. Look for newsletter sign up and more details coming soon at http://www.runawayslavemovie.com.
FACEBOOK:
http://tinyurl.com/RunawaySlaveOnFace...
TWITTER: @arunawayslave

Will Herman Cain Run For President 2012?

SRLC 2010


Herman Cain in his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference 2010.  His speech was powerful and inspirational.

Herman touches on 3 things we need to do to to ‘defend the American Dream’ while we work to change the balance of power in Washington DC in 2010.

1) We must stay connected. Conservatives that is. Divide and conquer is what the Libs and Dems are doing, i.e Tea Party vs. the GOP, etc.
2)We must stay informed. If we don’t stay informed on the issues we just might drink some liberal Kool-Aid by accident. The strategy by the Dems is to take advantage of the misinformed, the under-informed, and those who don’t have a clue.
3) We must stay inspired. They want us to believe that we can’t take back control of Congress. We must believe that we can and act accordingly.

At the end of his speech, he insinuates that there may be a "dark horse" that runs for President in 2012.

Become a fan of Herman Cain on Facebook at  Herman Cain Official Facebook Page
Draft Herman Cain for President 2012
Herman's website

Rhema Marvanne~Amazing Grace by an Amazing 7yr old

Amazing Grace 04/01/2010 - To download Rhema's Music MP3's please visit http://www.RhemaMarvanne.com

Who Are Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

Knowledge is Power!  

Knowing who the Progressives are is important.  The following is a list of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Please make sure you know who is on the list.  Please make sure to pass this information on to your friends and family.  

Based on the position of the Progressive movement, it is my opinion that we do NOT want these people in Washington.  The progressive movement is likened to a cancer that has infiltrated our country and needs to be voted out of office.

Please make your voice heard at the polling places across this country. They do not stand for the founding principles of our country.  

~~~~VOTE THEM OUT 2010 AND BEYOND~~~~

About CPC

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) consists of 83 members and is the largest caucus within the Democratic Caucus.  Established in 1991, the CPC reflects the diversity and strength of the American people and seeks to give voice to the needs and aspirations of all Americans and to build a more just and humane society.


The Co-Chairs of the CPC--U.S. Representatives Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) and Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)—welcome your interest in the caucus. 


Our Caucus members promote a strong, progressive agenda, what we call “The Progressive Promise--Fairness for All”.  The Progressive Promise is rooted in four core principles that embody national priorities and are consistent with the values, needs and aspirations of all the American people, not just the powerful and the privileged.  They reflect a fundamental belief in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.


The four, core principles of the Progressive Promise:


1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all;
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties;
3. Promoting global peace and security; and
4. Advancing environmental protection and energy independence


The CPC is committed to helping progressives, both inside and outside of Congress, to work together more effectively, in order to bring all of us closer to making good on The Progressive Promise.


Again, we appreciate your interest in the CPC and we look forward to working together to build a strong progressive network throughout America and beyond.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Caucus Member List

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)


Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)


Senate Members

Hon. Roland Burris (IL)

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

Hon. Tom Udall (NM)

House Members

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)

Hon. André Carson (IN-07)

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)

Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32)

Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)

Hon. John Hall (NY-19)

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23)

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)

Hon. George Miller (CA-07)

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)

Hon. John Olver (MA-01)

Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06)

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)

Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02)

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39)

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional Links:
Congressional Progressive Caucus Links
Bold Progressives 

Spiritual Progressives

 

Congresspersons Who Are Members of the Democrat Socialists of America

According to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, 70 members of the U. S. Congress belong to the Democrat Socialists of America. Perhaps more importantly, 11 of them are on the Judiciary Committee. This is the Judiciary Committee that will never vote to impeach Pres. Barack Hussein Obama.

The listing follows below. You may wish to consider sharing the list with friends. I would point out they have the right to belong to any organization that they wish to. And We the People have the right to vote them in or out accordingly.

However, as Congresspersons, they have no right to push or vote against any legislation that would affect any part of my or your civil rights or liberties. Amendment XIV, Section 1 of The Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State derive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Keep your eyes and ears open, as Progressive Socialists will surely attempt to craft legislation to their way of belief. NOVEMBER 2, 2010 -- just 3 months and 14 days until election day. Vote your conscience, BUT PLEASE VOTE!

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy!

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of Congress?
A: THEY ARE:

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus

Dear Mr. Attorney General~We Need To Talk

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

One of the most concerning issues facing our country today is voter fraud. I have been

researching this for the last year and am deeply disturbed at the magnitude of voter fraud cases throughout our country and, more particularly here in Texas.
How The Left Plans On Stealing The Elections

Texas Watchdog, an internet based investigative organization, has reported rampant voter fraud throughout this state. In a recent article dated 7/13/10, they write about an event, the annual state election law seminar presented by the Texas Secretary of State, that will be taking place in August to discuss the issue.

In the article it states that legislators "have shown little interest in looking at voter fraud issues in South Texas"

It goes on to say, "Case in point: The state Senate Committee on State Affairs meets Wednesday to discuss voting issues. But like its House counterpart, mail-in ballot voter fraud, the most prevalent form of election malfeasance, will not be discussed.

Instead, the nine-member panel will study ways to improve the efficiency and accuracy of voter rolls and discuss the military absentee voting process.

The House elections committee, which has noted in its annual pre-session report that mail-in ballot fraud needs to be addressed by lawmakers, met last month and announced that it would continue to pursue a bill requiring all voters to produce valid government identification before casting a ballot in person.

In preparation for the upcoming session, the committee has not asked for a study of anything related to mail-in voter fraud, a committee clerk said.

Voters and officials discouraged by the free reign held by vote harvesters, or politiqueras, have mostly given up asking Austin for help."
Mail-in voter fraud subject of election administrators
Mail-in ballot measures haven't topped lawmakers list of priorities for voting legislation

How can this be? How can our elected officials allow this to be tolerated? Why isn't there more OUTRAGE? The only explanation as to why they might turn a blind eye is that they are benefiting from these tainted elections.

Case in point from the same article:
“I know that my party, the Democratic Party, is not interested in fixing this,” said Ruben Peña, who lost a race for a Cameron County commission spot in an April primary. He blames mail-in ballot fraud and the work of vote harvesters, and points to the fact that while he won the early voting and Election Day balloting, he lost the mail-in contest.

He also lost a subsequent legal appeal, and the election was handed to his foe, Ernie L. Hernandez Jr.

“This use of mail-in ballots is how Democrats in this area mobilize votes,” Peña said. “I would never approach a legislator from here on this. I would be wasting my time. I would have better luck approaching a Republican from the north or the east part of the state without ties to this area.”

Vote harvesters are individuals who shepherd mail-in ballots, which are used mostly by elderly voters who cannot get to the polls. In some cases, the politiqueras, paid by a group of like-minded candidates, come to the home of the voter, encouraging the voter to cast a ballot for particular candidates, and then take the ballot to the mailbox.

Influencing a vote and possessing the ballot of another person are both misdemeanors."

A similar situation to Mr. Pena’s took place this past May in Dallas and Fort Worth:

A local election for JP in Ft Worth in May was won by a candidate that lost at the polls (44% vs 56%) but won because of mail-in ballots (66% vs 33%). She won the election by 181 votes. Many of the "mail in" ballots from the race didn't have stamps or had stamps but no marking that showed it was processed by the postal service.
Trial focuses on murky mail-in ballots

The case in Dallas mirrors the scenario in Fort Worth. One candidate wins the election at the polls but loses the election because of an inordinate amount of mail in ballots for the opponent that pushes them over the edge to win.
Dallas County JP accuses victorious rival of mail-in ballot fraud
Dallas County judge offers $500 to those who help root out election cheats

Another case getting national attention is the election of Al Franken in Minnesota. A watchdog group, Minnesota Majority has investigated the election between Al Franken (D) and Sen. Norm Coleman (R). This election had so many red flags that it was not surprising when many reports were questioning the final vote count. After an 18-month investigation, The Minnesota Majority found that Franken’s win may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota's Twin Cities.

What I find amazing about the possibility that Mr. Franken won the election because of fraud, is that he gets to keep his seat even if it is determined that he's not the legitimate winner of the election.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What kind of message does that send? How can this be legal? We MUST change the laws that allow this! Any elected official that has been deemed to have won because of fraud MUST be required to vacate their position!
As disturbing as all of this is, what is even more disturbing is that the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime.

In the Texas Watchdog article, it goes on to address the criminal aspect of mail in voter fraud.

"The law provides a misdemeanor penalty for most crimes related to mail-in balloting, but the majority of convictions result in plea bargains with no jail time.

In another article from the Texas Watchdog, it goes on to say, "The current penalties for committing the fraud -- in the same penalty class as first-offense shoplifting -- are doing little to discourage the practice. Despite cautionary reports from elected leaders in Austin, lawmakers have failed to address the issue of a tainted mail-in ballot process."

SERIOUSLY? Comparing the compromising of our election process to shoplifting? How in the world can we allow this? This is OUTRAGEOUS!

We must make voter fraud carry much stiffer penalties! My goodness, if our election process is compromised, nothing else really matters!

“Stiffer penalties for this type of behavior would be a deterrent,” said Mauricio Julian Cuellar Jr., a reporter at the Alice Echo-News Journal, who covers voting issues in Jim Wells County. “As it is now, they know that it’s a slap on the wrist. And they make enough money to make it worth the risk.”

Julian Cuellar's newspaper is the one that investigated voting problems in 2008.

One individual admitted to the paper to voting violations while working for a man who was eventually elected as the district attorney in Jim Wells and Brooks County.

“A canvasser who apparently worked exclusively for 79th District Attorney candidate Armando Barerra admits she filled out mail-in applications incorrectly, marked ballots in support of Barrera and handled about 50 ballots.

Cindy Villarreal said she worked for $150 a week to assist in Barrera’s campaign. According to the campaign reports submitted by Barrera, Villarreal was paid a total of $750 for work during the March 4 Primary.

“I made sure that (Barrera) was marked on the ballot because I was helping him,” Villarreal said. “... I went to the mailbox (Post Office) and I threw (the ballots) in there.”

She said she also marked votes for Justice of the Peace Pct. 1 candidate Guadalupe Martinez, District Judge Richard Terrell and Sheriff Oscar Lopez, just to help them out even though she wasn’t getting paid by those candidates.”

In the course of its reporting, the newspaper discovered that eight individuals had mail-in ballot applications submitted in their name without their knowing of it.

In another case, a voter told of a politiquero coming by the home of his parents repeatedly, asking for their mail-in ballots.

And in yet another case, nine employees of a single county commissioner had requested mail-in ballots and cited disability as the reason, even though they were not disabled.

I have found cases of citizens that have gone to the polls to vote and are told they already had voted absentee. The problem is that they never voted absentee.

In January, while researching voter fraud, I happened upon a riveting documentary, "We Will Not Be Silenced". Those videos are just now going viral because of the NBPP/DOJ scandal. In this documentary, Election officials in Texas accuse the Obama campaign workers of fraud and intimidation against Hilary Clinton's Campaign during the 2008 election.

This documentary should send chills up everyone's spine.

Another vehicle for this planned hijacking of democracy is a below-the-radar non-federal "527" group, The Secretary of State Project. The group was co-founded in July 2006 by James Rucker, formerly director of grassroots mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action. Rucker is also a co-founder of Color of Change, a race-baiting left-wing hate group.

This group is going state by state to try to undermine the right to a legitimate election. They have targeted the position of Secretary of State to get their left-wing Progressive candidates elected into office. This will be devastating to our country. In my opinion, the sole purpose of this mission, is to have someone in power that can protect their illegitimate elections.

The following is taken from their website:
"To Our SoS Project Supporters -

Since we launched in the fall of 2005, we have engaged in eleven races and have backed the winning candidate in nine states, including: Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia and Missouri. We lost only in Michigan and Colorado (and there by a tiny margin).

In 2008, we ran a sophisticated, highly targeted campaign in Montana which made the difference in a major upset – ousting the incumbent Republican Secretary of State. Most analysts anticipate a tough 2010 Senate race in Montana, and it is critical to have a fair Secretary of State in place. In Oregon last year we helped beat back a late unexpected surge to capture a critical open seat.

We are proud of our 2006 victory in Minnesota, where long time reformer Mark Ritchie pulled off a major upset, with our support. He was under fierce media and legal scrutiny as he oversaw the recount of the Franken/Coleman senatorial race, and operated with transparency and integrity, such that the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled to uphold the extremely close election results, finally sending Franken to the Senate, where his vote is much needed.

With your support, we have made a major difference. We can be sure that the Republicans and the opponents of honest elections will try triply hard to regain lost seats and capture seats held by reformers.

~Secretary of State Project~

In many states where they have elected a Progressive Secretary of State, they have made the election process so lax it is obvious it is being done intentionally in order to overwhelm the system to win elections.

Ironically the website says it is to protect the vote when in fact it's to protect the fraudulent vote. They want to accuse those that want to make sure that our election process is not compromised as racists that hate the poor and disenfranchised. That's their answer to everything. To marginalize and try to silence anyone that may shine the light on the fraud and deceit within their party.

In an article from 11/7/08, The American Spectator best describes the Secretary of State Project as: “The secretary of state candidates the group endorses sing the same familiar song about electoral integrity issues: Voter fraud is largely a myth, vote suppression is used widely by Republicans, cleansing the dead and fictional characters from voter rolls should be avoided until embarrassing media reports emerge, and anyone who demands that a voter produce photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy-hating Fascist.

In another article dated 12/4/09, they go on to reiterate my feelings by saying: "A group backed by Soros is gearing up to steal the 2012 election for President Obama and congressional Democrats by installing left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. From such posts, secretaries of state can help tilt the electoral playing field.

To understand the magnitude of this, citizens throughout this country need to understand the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. It is my belief that most people are unaware of this subtle infiltration from the left into one of the most important positions of power within their state. Since the Governor of Texas is the one that appoints our Secretary of State, this upcoming election for Governor is critical. We must ensure our elections are legitimate.

The state Secretary of State is responsible for a wide range of government activities:

*ELECTION RELATED: The Secretary of State is often the state's MAIN election official and operates the office that REGISTERS CANDIDATES. Citizens can usually get voter registration and poll location information on websites of the Secretary of State.

* BUSINESS RELATED: The Secretary of State's office usually registers businesses and NONPROFIT organizations.

* OTHER DUTIES: In some instances, the Secretary of State oversees the state's archives or library, the department of administration that handles the state's operations, and issues automobile registration.

It is no secret that Texas has a huge bull’s eye on it. The Progressives would love to take over Texas. I feel quite confident saying that they will stop at NOTHING to win the State Capitol and all other seats possible.

They have been refining the ways to perpetrate voter fraud through the last elections. Mark my word, if we are complacent, they will take over this state. The sad thing is that, in the event they do win this upcoming election, it will be through fraud and deceit. Texans will lose much more than the election.

I beg of you to take a serious look at what is happening in our state. I can't think of another thing that could impact our future more profoundly. If we can't be sure that our votes really do count, our destiny will be determined not by us, but by those that don't play by the rules and will win at any cost. They will do whatever they need to do to win because, in their minds, the end justifies the means.

*What is being done to strengthen the laws protecting our votes?
*What is being done to ensure that someone found guilty of voter fraud will face harsh punishment to include a lengthy jail term as well as a hefty fine?
*What can be done to eliminate these harvesters from being able to canvas apartments and neighborhoods and control/influence these people’s votes?
*What is being done to scrub dead people and ineligible voters from the rolls?

The Minnesota Majority has offered up these suggestions to reform election laws in their state. I concur with their reform ideas.

“OUR CALL FOR REFORM IN OUR ELECTION LAWS:
Minnesota Majority is also calling for specific reforms in Minnesota’s election laws. Specifically, these reforms include:
a. Require voters to present a government-issued photographic identification in order to vote in an election;
b. Require the Secretary of State to employ specific data verification and validation techniques to ensure the accuracy and integrity of Minnesota's voter rolls;
c. Require the Secretary of State to flag voter registration records that fail to meet a specific standard for accuracy and completeness so that these voters can be "challenged" and corrected by county election officials at the polls before allowing an improperly registered individual to vote;
d. Require a periodic independent audit of the voter registration system;
e. Require voters to register at least 30 days prior to an election so that all voters can be certified as being legally qualified to vote prior to casting a ballot on Election Day;
f. Eliminate manual recounts and limit recounts to machine-only resubmissions.”

At the end of my letter I have copied the full investigation of theirs regarding the 2008 election in their state. I would encourage you to review their findings as many of their findings and suggestions could also benefit our state.

I know that you take voter fraud seriously. I know you understand the gravity of a compromised election process. As our Attorney General, I ask that you take ALL steps necessary to protect our votes. Anything short of that will lead to the slow decay of our democracy.

I feel that we are living in perilous times. I see this country on the brink of self destruction. There is an attempt by a minority of the population to undermine our founding principles. We must stand up to the political correctness that will ultimately lead to end of this great country as we have known it.

As Joseph Stalin said: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

Thank you for all you do for our state.

God Bless you, your staff and your family,

Michele Austin




Related Links:
Election Law Center

American Thinker

The Heritage Foundation

The Pew Center

The Texas Tribune

AEI Brookings Institute~Election Administration Profiles all 50 states

Election Neutrality Now

MacIver Institute

Become a Poll Worker

The Wall Street Journal

World Net Daily~Stealing the Next Election

Washington Examiner

JS Online

The Center for Public Integrity

The Blog Prof

U.S. Electoral College

State and Local Government Offices



The Case for Investigation and Reform By the Minnesota Majority:

BACKGROUND

Prior to the 2008 general election, Minnesota Majority conducted a review of Minnesota’s voter records and discovered a number of apparent irregularities, including double voting, vacant and non-deliverable addresses used in voter registrations, deceased people remaining on voter registration lists, felons newly registered to vote, duplicate voter registration records, deficient voter registration records and other inconsistencies.

Minnesota Majority communicated a number of these concerns in a letter to letter to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie on October 16, 2008. On October 17, the Secretary of State responded by calling a press conference assuring Minnesotans that Minnesota had the best election system in the country. His subsequent formal response letter, received by our office on October 23, was largely dismissive of our discoveries. The Secretary of State failed to respond to our request for a plan on how his office would investigate these issues prior to the election. Minnesota Majority decided to begin its own investigation and recruited a volunteer who contacted approximately 25 voters in an effort to confirm their addresses. On October 29, the Secretary of State responded by calling a press conference in which he falsely accused Minnesota Majority of "voter intimidation." Secretary Ritchie went on to allege that Minnesota Majority’s volunteer falsely represented herself as working for his office, an allegation contradicted by the sworn statements of both the volunteer, and the voter Ritchie alleged she intimidated.

On October 31st, 2008, Minnesota Majority forwarded such evidence as it has found to date to 30 county attorneys and 30 county auditors. We requested investigation of these irregularities. According to Minnesota law, a county attorney who is notified of such issues shall promptly investigate. Several failed to reply at all, and two outright refused to initiate investigations, even though they are required by law to do so. Failure to investigate allegations of election problems received as an affidavit is a misdemeanor offense and any county attorney found guilty must also forfeit their office under Minnesota statute.

POST-ELECTION FINDINGS

Since we were not confident in the assurances from the secretary of state’s office, we examined the voter records following the 2008 general election. Although updates to the statewide voter registration system are required to be complete within 6 weeks following an election, the secretary of state’s office did not report compete updates until late April of 2009, at which point we obtained the latest voter history records, which were the basis for our post-election analysis. First and foremost, we discovered that the number of voters accounted for having cast a ballot in the secretary of state’s voter files did not match the number of ballots certified by the election canvassing board. There were approximately 40,000 more ballots counted than voter histories to account for them. In addition, we discovered:

DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATIONS: We discovered thousands of voter records that have an exact match on the criteria of first name, middle name, last name and birth year. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires duplicate registrations to be removed from SVRS.

DOUBLE VOTING: Using the SVRS list provided by the Minnesota Secretary of state, we found evidence of nearly 100 cases in which voter registration and voter history records strongly indicate that a single voter may have voted more than once in a single election. We’ve identified thousands of additional voter records that merit additional investigation.

VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has flagged the addresses recorded for nearly 100,000 voters as being either "vacant" or "undeliverable". We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.

RETURNED POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS: In addition, the state’s primary registration verification tool is the Postal Verification Card (PVC). These post cards are mailed to newly registered voters. If the PVC is successfully delivered to the stated address, the voter is assumed to be legitimate. If the card is returned as undeliverable mail, the voter’s identity is in question and they are supposed to be challenged for proof of identity and residence at the polls in the next election. Over 46,000 of these postal verification cards have been returned to the secretary of state’s office as non-deliverable since 2004. About 30,000 of them were from 2008 and when that number was generated, mailing of PVCs to 2008’s Election Day registrants was not yet complete.

DECEASED VOTERS: Using a standard deceased matching service commonly utilized by mailing houses, we discovered thousands of individuals flagged as deceased who are still on the active voter rolls. Following the 2008 election, we were able to check the SVRS voter history against a list of dead voters and found thousands of potential matches. Further investigation into a small sampling turned up (high confidence match) death records for several voters indicating that they had died before voting in the 2008 election.

FELONS REGISTERING: Just prior to the 2008 election, an investigation by Fox 9 News discovered nearly 100 convicted felons who had newly registered to vote in 2008. Some were registered while in prison, suggesting someone else may have registered in their name. When these findings were brought to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, he said he wasn’t aware these felons had registered, but assured the reporter that felons would be checked for and appropriately challenged for the election. See the TV news report by KMSP Fox 9.

FELONS VOTING: Following the 2008 general election, we obtained a disk containing a list of all convicted felons “on book” in Minnesota from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Comparing that list to the Voter Histories in the Statewide Voter Registration System revealed 2,803 exact matches on name (first, middle and last) and year of birth. Checking court records against the BCA and SVRS data, we have so far been able to positively confirm approximately 50% of the felons identities and match them to SVRS voter histories indicating fraudulent votes. We followed up by checking polling place rosters for signatures of ineligible felon voters and made copies of some examples. In no polling place roster, was the required notice, “Challenge: Felon” affixed to felon voter’s signature line. We have forwarded the names of approximately 1,400 suspected felon voters to the Ramsey and Hennepin County attorneys for investigation. As of February 2010, Ramsey County reports having charged 26 felons with fraudulent voter registrations and 12 with fraudulent voting. They've reported 20 convictions. See our full Report on Fraudulent Votes Cast by Ineligible Felons in Minnesota’s 2008 General Election. See TV news coverage by KSTP Channel 5 here.

VOTE TOTAL MISMATCHES: Hundreds of precincts have reported different vote and registered voter totals in the SVRS system than were reported on election night 2008.

SVRS / CANVASS MISMATCH: A comparison of the SVRS voter histories and the State Canvassing Board certified election results revealed a mismatch of 40,000 unaccounted for ballots in Late April, 2009. As of September 2009, the discrepancy still had not been reconciled.

CANVASS / VOTER SIGNATURES MISMATCH: Examining the original polling place precinct rosters and absentee ballot envelopes in 5 Ramsey County precincts revealed that more ballots were tallied in the official election results than there were signatures of voters in those precincts. In 4 of the 5 precincts, the voting machines tabulated more ballots than there were signatures of voters who signed in to vote.

NON-CITIZEN VOTERS: Prior to the 2008 election, state Representative Laura Brod discovered that several non-citizens had become registered to vote. The non-citizens were identified by Department of Public Safety “Status Check” data. “Status Check” is an indicator in drivers license records attached to visitors in the United States on a visa. It is designed to alert law enforcement to check the individual’s visa expiration date. Only a non-citizen would have the “Status Check” indicator in their drivers license record. Rep. Brod brought a list of voters who had DPS records flagged “Status Check” to the secretary of state before the 2008 election. Secretary Ritchie indicated that he wasn’t aware that he could check for that, despite the fact that his office had been receiving weekly updates from DPS for nearly two years. Ritchie gave his assurances that the non-citizens would be cleaned from the voter rolls and checks would be made regularly going forward. A check of SVRS voter histories after the election showed that not only were some of the same non-citizens still registered, some had cast ballots.

POST-ELECTION REGISTRATIONS: The April 25th 2009 SVRS data provided by the Secretary of State’s Office indicates many voters were registered to vote the day after voting in the 2008 general election. We are attempting to ascertain the explanation for this discovery.

UNLAWFUL DESTRUCTION OF ELECTION-RELATED DOCUMENTS: Through correspondence with county auditors and county attorneys, we discovered that at least two counties have been destroying returned voter postal verification cards (PVCs) before the required 22 month retention period has expired.

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH HAVA AND STATE STATUTES REQUIRING TIMELY RECORD UPDATES: Several county election departments including Hennepin and Ramsey are consistently failing to update voter records within the state and federally defined deadlines. HAVA stipulates that the records must be immediately updated and state statute specifies 6 weeks from the election. Some counties are taking 6 months or longer to update these records.

DEFICIENT VOTER REGISTRATIONS: Minnesota Statute 201.071 requires voter registrations recorded after August 1, 1983 to include the voter's name, address, date of birth and signature. We discovered thousands of voter registrations that would be considered "deficient" under Minnesota law due to missing or invalid information. Minnesota law requires these deficient registrations to be corrected before an individual is allowed to vote. Records show that many of these voters have voted in recent elections without updating or verifying this required information.

OTHER INCONSISTENCIES: We have discovered several thousand voters registered after August 1, 1983 that had birth years suggesting these individuals are 108 years of age or older. We also found nearly 2,000 individuals who appear to have registered and voted before the age of 18.
THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT

The 2002 Federal Help America Vote Act prescribes certain voter registration record verifications that are to be performed by the Secretary of State on a regular basis. Based upon the apparent irregularities found on the voter registration file, statements from the Secretary of State’s office and reports from news agencies, we contend that the Secretary of State has failed to perform these required verifications.

OUR CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION

We have called for a special independent investigation similar to that which was recently conducted in the state of Wisconsin. There, a joint task force comprised of the US Attorney, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Milwaukee County Attorney and the Milwaukee Police Department revealed election system issues strikingly similar to issues we have discovered in Minnesota voter registration records. An 18-month investigation found widespread record keeping failures, suspected double voting, fraudulent voter registrations, felons voting or registering to vote, vote counts in excess of the number of registered voters and other problems. Minnesota and Wisconsin have very similar election laws.

OUR CALL FOR REFORM IN OUR ELECTION LAWS

Minnesota Majority is also calling for specific reforms in Minnesota’s election laws. Specifically, these reforms include:

a. Require voters to present a government-issued photographic identification in order to vote in an election;

b. Require the Secretary of State to employ specific data verification and validation techniques to ensure the accuracy and integrity of Minnesota's voter rolls;

c. Require the Secretary of State to flag voter registration records that fail to meet a specific standard for accuracy and completeness so that these voters can be "challenged" and corrected by county election officials at the polls before allowing an improperly registered individual to vote;

d. Require a periodic independent audit of the voter registration system;

e. Require voters to register at least 30 days prior to an election so that all voters can be certified as being legally qualified to vote prior to casting a ballot on Election Day;

f. Eliminate manual recounts and limit recounts to machine-only resubmissions.

COUNTERING MISINFORMATION

There are three common myths that arise in the debate of election integrity issues.

There is no evidence of voter fraud – This is simply not true. While it is exceedingly difficult to discover and prove who the perpetrators of fraud are, there is a mountain of evidence that indicates illegal voting is occurring. Prosecutions and convictions of voter fraud are rare because our system makes it nearly impossible to ascertain the identity of fraudulent voters. Minnesota Majority has compiled evidence including thousands of instances that indicate errors or abuse. This evidence has been provided to law enforcement officials for investigation.

Voter registration fraud isn’t voter fraud – It is if an improper voter registration is used to cast a ballot. Information in the publicly available voter registration rolls suggests that this has been occurring. Voter registration fraud can also be employed to generate thousands of bogus registrations that are used to obscure inconsistencies between vote totals and legitimate registered voters.

Requiring confirmation of a voter's identity will disenfranchise voters – There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the opposite is true. Legitimate voters are being disenfranchised now by a failure to verify the integrity of the system. When improper ballots are comingled with legitimate ballots, there is no way to retract illegitimate ballots from the system. Defending a system that doesn’t take meaningful steps to prevent illegitimate ballots from being introduced into an election undermines the votes of legitimate voters. It has been estimated that there are only approximately 40,000 Minnesota citizens that currently don't have a government-issued photo ID. Voter ID bills introduced in the past have included funding to provide free state-issued identification cards to these individuals. These ID cards would actually benefit low-income people by helping them better integrate into society. It’s difficult to function in society, let alone get ahead without proper identification. Indiana recently enacted a voter ID requirement and enjoyed record-breaking voter participation in the 2008 election.
Most Minnesotans have faith in their fellow citizens, but they also recognize the gaps in our current electoral process. A statewide opinion poll conducted by Minnesota Law and Politics in 2001 found that 85% of Minnesotans favor requiring photo ID to vote. This is a simple, common-sense measure that would instill greater confidence in our elections.

ELECTION PRINCIPLES

Minnesota Majority believes that four key principles should be followed when it comes to our elections:
* Everyone who is legally eligible to vote should do so – it’s a civic responsibility.

* No one should be allowed to vote until his or her eligibility has been verified - the lack of a photo ID requirement makes verifying eligibility nearly impossible.

* All voters should have equal protection under the law – today’s law is socially unjust as it holds same-day registrants to a different verification standard than those who register in advance of an election.

* Accurate record keeping and adequate controls are critical to ensuring the integrity of our election system – Minnesota citizens can’t have trust in our elections if there are widespread record keeping failures or inconsistently applied policies.

Minnesotans deserve to know their election system is of the highest level of integrity and will not be undermined by shortcomings in record keeping practices, lack of controls or inconsistently applied procedures, which create the possibility for errors and abuse.

THE RECOUNT

Our calls for investigation and reform are not related to the Franken/Coleman recount. Our requests for an investigation began before the election. The US Senate recount simply underscores the importance of the reforms for which we are advocating. The security around the recount effort looked like Fort Knox. It begs the question why we fail to have a similar level of security around the front-end of our election process in voter registration. The lack of controls and verifications, especially in regards to same-day registrations, make the voter registration process ripe for error and abuse.

CONCLUSION

Research suggests there are widespread problems in Minnesota’s voter registration system. We are requesting an investigation into these irregularities and the enactment of common sense election law reforms to ensure that our election system is secure, accurate and transparent. Minnesota voters deserve to know their election system is of the highest level of integrity and will not be undermined by shortcomings in record keeping practices, the lack of controls or inconsistently applied procedures.