Eyeblast tv uncovered this disturbing video from a closed door meeting shortly after 9/11/2001, where New Black Pather Party leader Malik Shabazz praised Osama bin Laden. Shabazz states that he doesn’t know whether to believe the government that bin Laden was behind the attacks, but if “if the enemy hates him, he’s your friend.”
Shabazz stated he has to “give his respect” because “he’s bringing reform to the world”. He also believes that the attacks were an inside job, saying he doesn’t know if he can trust that bin Laden was the mastermind, because the government “knows how to fix up the videos.” He has a long and storied history of blaming everything on Jewish people–claiming there was Jewish involvement in the attacks.
At one point, Shabazz told the audience to “give him a hand” and those in attendance began to clap and cheer. He also tells the other panthers that mathematically, bin Laden is their friend because he got Bush and Rumsfeld, “shakin and quakin.” He finishes by saying his name will go down in history because he won’t die a “punk” or a “sissy.”
Today, America Live’s Megyn Kelly sat down with New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz to discuss the voter intimidation allegations against his organization.
In the interview, Shabazz stated that the actions of King Samir Shabazz were outside of the organizational policy of how to conduct themselves. However, in the video we posted earlier today, you can clearly tell that King Samir Shabazz’s actions were accepted behavior of the group. In that video, Chairman Shabazz even joked about the New Black Panthers carrying nightsticks while speaking to supporters. However, while speaking with Kelly, Shabazz stated that the acts at the polling place were just the actions of a single individual and not the policy of the New Black Panther Party. Shabazz also denies sending members to the poll, however that claim is somewhat disputed by what he said to supporters as well. In the end, Chairman Shabazz says that he will not be sending members to the polls in 2010 or 2012 for “obvious reasons.”
PART 1
PART 2
UPDATE:
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTARY
"INSIDE THE NEW BLACK PANTHERS"
Similar to hate factions like the KKK and neo-Nazis, the New Black Panther Party is a militant hate group, headquartered in Washington, D.C. that seeks to redefine the black struggle for equality and demand liberation from what it sees as white supremacy.
The New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP) is a militant hate group. Learn more about this new era for the black struggle and the original Black Panther Party.
* The roots of the NBPP can be traced to Michael McGee, a former member of the original Panthers, who was elected to the Milwaukee City Council in Wisconsin in 1984.
* In 2002, original members of the Panthers sued the NBPP and founder Aaron Michaels for using their name and emblem.
* The NBPP has made appearances and organized rallies at the scene of many recent racial incidents, such as the Sean Bell shooting in New York, the Megan Williams rape case, and spearheaded aid to Hurricane Katrina victims.
* Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale founded the original Black Panther Party in Oakland, California on October 15, 1966.
* The original Black Panther Party for Self Defense was created to promote civil rights, self-defense, and racial justice.
* In October 1967, Oakland police officer John Frey was shot to death in an altercation with Huey P. Newton during a traffic stop. Newton served three years in prison for the crime, a conviction that was reversed in appeal.
* In 1968, membership in the Black Panther Party reached 5,000, their newspaper had a circulation of 250,000, and they had chapters established in many cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver, and New York.
* From fall 1967 through the end of 1969, nine police officers were killed and 56 were wounded in confrontations with the Panthers. In 1969 alone, 348 Panthers were arrested for a variety of crimes.
* In September 1968, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the Black Panthers as, "The greatest threat to the internal security of the country."
* At the 1968 Summer Olympics, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, two American medalists gave the Black Power salute during the playing of the national anthem.
* The main initiatives of the Black Panther Party were free services and survival programs such as clothing distribution, free medical clinics, first aid, and a breakfast program.
Learn more about the original Black Panther Party and why they're not like the New Black Panther Party.
UPDATE 7/11/10
I'm not sure when this video was created, but it appears it was recent as it addresses the DOJ dropping the charges against the NBPP in the voter intimidation case.
Malik Shabazz incriminates himself in black panther case
Admits he knows NBPP members carry batons and that there was an organized effort
A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration's handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.
J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.
"I mean we were told, 'Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'" Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.
Asked about the Justice Department's claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said "obviously, that's false."
"Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity," he said. "This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It's one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process."
Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, "that' not going to de done out of the civil rights division."
Adams also accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.
The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."
But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal."There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases," Adams told Fox News' Megyn Kelly~
PART 1 6/30/10
PART 2 7/1/10
PART 3 7/1/10
PART 4 7/7/10
Megyn Kelly interviews Ashley Taylor, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. They explore the racist guidelines that have been handed down regarding the DOJ's refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers' Philadelphia Voter Intimidation case that was dismissed by the DOJ. Their argument was the facts and law don't support the Black Panther case. According to The Washington Times, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, the No. 3 official in the department, was responsible for the decision. J. Christian Adams resigned his position as a result of the improper handling of the case by Eric Holder and the Obama Administration. Mr Adams told FOX News that Thomas Perez, assistant Attorney General, provided false testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
UPDATE 7.8.10 BOMBSHELL~J CHRISTIAN ADAMS TESTIFIES BEFORE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION AND EXPOSES MORE CORRUPTION WITHIN THE DOJ.
Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls
PART 1
PART 2~Julie Fernandes, Senior Policy Analyst and Special Counsel, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, discusses implications of proposed voter photo-ID laws.
On October 23, 2007, ACS hosted a panel at the National Press Club, where leading experts discussed how voter photo-ID laws impact our democracy.
Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration's reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.
"In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there's no doubt about it," he said.
In an opinion article published in the Washington Times last week, Adams said the dismissal "raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election."
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler dismissed Adams' accusations as a "good faith disagreement" with ulterior motives.
"It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda," she said in a written statement.
In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers -- Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson -- were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station -- with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.
The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn't appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully.
The department "is committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of federal law that prohibit voter intimidation. We continue to work with voters, communities, and local law enforcement to ensure that every American can vote free from intimidation, coercion or threats," Schmaler said Wednesday.
But the Justice Department's explanation has failed to appease the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is probing the department's decision, or Republican lawmakers who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.
The commission held a hearing in April in which Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who has led the charge for answers from the Justice Department, was among those testifying. The Justice Department did not provide witnesses at that hearing. Instead, Perez testified before the commission in May.
"At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged 'approval' or 'endorsement' of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed," he told the commission.
The commission has repeatedly sought information from the Justice Department, going as far as filing subpoenas. Schmaler said the department has provided 2,000 pages of information in response.
But Adams said in the Times article that the department ordered the attorneys "to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptably legal limbo."
Adams also says that after the dismissal, Justice Department attorneys were instructed not to bring any more cases against racial minorities under the Voting Section.
Adams told Fox News that the New Black Panther case was the "easiest I ever had at the Justice Department.
"It doesn't get any easier than this," he said. "If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."
Source: FOXNews.com
UPDATE 7/10/10
Gaziano of the civil rights commission: Obama Appointee, 'Never bring another lawsuit against a black'
Top Union Official Caught on Tape Discussing Voter Fraud
www.theprojectveritas.com Top Official at NJEA (New Jersey Education Association) discussing what he describes as a rigged election in Hudson County, NJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
June 26, 2010
"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."~ Joseph Stalin
That quote says it all! The following articles are about voter fraud currently happening in our elections. Voter fraud is becoming the most important aspect of our elections yet little attention seems to be paid towards it. If you think about it, it really won't matter how much money is thrown after a candidate or how qualified a candidate is. What will matter is if the candidate that is declared the winner of an election is the true victor or won because of fraud and intimidation. The left has figured this out (remember ACORN and Project Vote and all the fraud associated with them?) and is in the process of dismantling the election process on a number of fronts.
Why aren't we standing up and demanding that our elected officials and law enforcement prosecute those that are perpetrating fraud and intimidation. In the majority of cases of those convicted, the penalties are so insignificant that it really isn't sending a strong message. We need to demand that our laws be changed and that ANYONE found guilty of voter fraud faces years of prison time as well as a large fine. We must not allow our vote to be silenced by the left!
I will be focusing on several of the manners in which they are setting up elections to be able to win through fraud and intimidation.
Before I get to the ways they intend to steal the elections, let me share a letter with you. This letter is from Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams (official blog HERE) who recently resigned because of this administrations refusal to allow the prosecution of armed Black Panthers who openly intimidated voters during the 2008 Election.
Here is a statement from his resignation letter:
"The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney."
1. VOTER FRAUD AND INTIMIDATION: One of the ways of compromising the system is through intimidation. There were a number of charges of voter intimidation at the polls during the 2008 election. Some of the most striking aren't intimidation of voters for John McCain, but intimidating voters for Hillary Clinton.
Source: Washington Times by J. Christian Adams
Inside the Black Panther Case ~ Anger, Ignorance and Lies
"Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum- did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina."
letter of resignation from a former DOJ Voting Rights Section trial attorney, citing concerns about the lack of prosecution against the New Black Panther Party. J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW BY MEGYN KELLY WITH FORMER DOJ ATTORNEY TURNED WHISTLEBLOWER, J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS 6/30/10
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
UPDATE: 7.8.10 BOMBSHELL!!! J CHRISTIAN ADAMS TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION AND EXPOSED MORE CORRUPTION WITHIN THE DOJ.
Lawlessness at the DOJ: Voting Section Told Not To Enforce Purging the Dead or Ineligible from Voting Rolls
UPDATE: 7.8.10~ Julie Fernandes is the person mentioned in the interview that gave the directive to the DOJ to aid and abet voter fraud by not enforcing the laws. Here she is at a conference 10/23/07.
Julie Fernandes, Senior Policy Analyst and Special Counsel, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, discusses implications of proposed voter photo-ID laws
Here's another example of allegations of fraud and intimidation by the Obama camp against the Clinton campaign aids and voters during the 2008 Presidential election in Texas and other states. This documentary, "We Will Not Be Silenced" was made to shine the light on the election fraud and intimidation they witnessed during the election. For some reason "We will not be silenced" has, in fact been silenced. Have you heard of this before? I just happened upon these videos one night when I was searching voter fraud...as of yet, I still don't recall ever seeing anything about this.
2. SECRETARY OF STATE PROJECT Another very important way in which the left plans on stealing elections is through their campaign known as the Secretary of State Project which is funded by George Soros and others. They tout they they have won 11 of 13 elections in key 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).
Read more about the SOS PROJECT at the following sites: Source:Red State
"Some of the most overlooked and ultra important positions in any state are those who run the elections. Those are the County Clerk, Township/City Clerk, and the Secretary of State’s office. It takes the work of these offices and their staffs to run the elections and make sure the process is above board, competent,and with integrity."
"There project is called the Secretary of State Project. It’s goal is to get their type of democrats in charge, and then look the other way when ACORN and PIRG to commit voter fraud rigging the election for the democrats."
The Secretary of State is the chief elections official in each state, so he/she is responsible for the conduct of elections and establishment of election day rules. A position and role mostly unknown by the majority of citizens in this country before the 2000 election.
Someone of great wealth recognized the power of the Secretaries of State. The power to ultimately decide, perhaps by manipulating and interpreting state election law partisanly, to place their chosen candidate into office.
And the name of the person I am referring to is George Soros.
Most everyone has heard his name. Most don’t know his background and don’t care. He stays behind the scenes and pulls the strings. And he didn’t like it much that Katherine Harris put GWB into office. Not his candidate. “I wanted Gore to win, and this will never happen again!
So what can I do about it?”I can create the Secretary of State Project. I can back monetarily and help propel Democratic Secretaries of States into office in the states where I feel they can help my candidate into office."
It has become increasingly clear that Al Franken's win in Minnesota was due to voter fraud. The SOS of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, is one that was hand picked by the Secretary of State Project. You will find that in states that have elected the SOS Project candidate, charges of voter fraud and irregularities have increased and are sure to increase even more as they gear up to try to steal elections in 2010 and 2012.
Minnesota Majority, a grassroots organization has launched an investigation into the 2008 win of Al Franken. Here's what they have to say regarding election integrity in their state:
"Minnesota Majority is calling for an investigation into evidence of irregularities within Minnesota’s voter rolls. We believe that poor data management practices together with lax and inconsistent verification procedures, has resulted in a voter file rife with errors, making the detection of inaccuracies and abuse very difficult. Despite hurdles that are the result of poor data management, Minnesota Majority has uncovered compelling evidence of suspected problems not being adequately addressed by election officials or law enforcement. Thousands of voter records showing errors, suspected fraudulent votes, inaccuracies, invalid addresses, duplicate entries and possible duplicate votes were forwarded to law enforcement officials in 30 counties for investigation between 2008 and 2009."
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHO YOUR SOS IS. MAKE SURE YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILIES ARE INFORMED.
TO CONTACT YOUR SECRETARY OF STATE OR OTHER OFFICIALS, CHECK HERE.
3. MAIL IN BALLOT FRAUD
Absentee ballot fraud coming to a state/town near you. Absentee or mail in ballot fraud is increasingly becoming the most rampant form of voter fraud. In my state, Texas, this has been going on for years in south Texas and is now spreading across the state. It is common knowledge that ACORN and other far left organizations are targeting Texas in order to seat more Democrats and elect Bill White for governor. It is also well known that the left will engage in illegal tactics to win at any cost.
I can't emphasize enough how devastating this can be to an election. Here is a story that just happened in my neighboring city of Fort Worth. As you can see, mail-in ballots were the deciding factor in this election. :
"Charlotte Hogan-Price lost her bid to be the next Justice of the Peace for Precinct 8 to Lisa Woodard. But Woodard's win immediately prompted questions over the results. Usually, the candidate with the most in-person votes ends up winning the election. Hogan-Price won the early vote and election-day vote by 181 votes, or 56 percent to 44 percent. But she lost the race because she trailed in the mail-in vote by a wide margin: 652 to 335, or 66 percent to 33 percent."
"Among the issues in the trial is how more than 60 ballots reached the TarrantCounty Elections Center even though they lacked stamps or had stamps but none of the markings that show it was processed by the postal service.
Hammett argued that the postal service is instructed to prioritize political mail in an election season.
Wyde suggested those ballots were hand-delivered to the Tarrant County Elections Office, which is illegal.
Lydia Thomas, a Forest Hill Councilwoman who worked for the Postal Service for 25 years including seven years in Fort Worth, told the court that the chances of dozens of mail-in ballots being delivered but lacking stamps or postal markings was “slim to none.”
Another issue was mail-in ballots in which the two signatures didn't match."
Mail in ballot fraud has been rampant in South Texas. A watchdog organization, Texas Watchdog, has been following these stories. Check out their video:
Source: Election Journal
Mail in ballot fraud in New Jersey was incentivizedby paying off voters with a prepaid calling card in exchange for an absentee vote. Last year, The New Jersey Attorney General’s Officeindicted Councilman Marty Small and 13 of his campaign workers for election fraud. In an investigative report obtained by the Press of Atlantic City, it has been revealed that investigators had an informant inside of Small’s campaign, Edward Colon Jr. Not only did he provide information to law enforcement authorities, he secretly videotaped meetings and taped telephone conversations.
Crumble: “I just have the people bring the ballot to me and I fill them out. I just did it myself, that way I knew.”
Storr: “Just get the ballot and have them sign it,”
Crumble: “Make sure you don’t let nobody sees (sic) you.”
Storr: “Right, because that’s not … you’re not allowed to do that.”
What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overriden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be...'
Visit David Horowitz TV for more videos: http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal warns America on the next trick from the Obama administration.
According to Fund, the Democrats aim to pass a Federal mandate to force all states to register everybody to vote-welfare beneficiaries, illegal aliens, convicted felons-everybody.
ACORN will be by-passed, the Federal Government will do their corrupt work for them.
The Dems know that the wider the franchise, the better chance they have in 2010 and 2012. Damn the long term consequences to the country.
UPDATE:In the video, John Fund states that Barney Frank was going to introduce legislation in January to push universal voter registration through. Barney Frank has denied those charges in an article to The Hill.
While, that may be true, it does not mean that Universal Voter Registration is a myth. Quite the contrary. The Brennan Center for Justice, has published a 16 page publication titled Voter Registration "Modernization". (Don't you love how the left use words to make things sound so warm and fuzzy) What this publication should be titled is "How to steal elections through chaos in the election process."
As recently as March of this year, another 14 page publication, Modernizing Voter Registraion: Momentum in the states was published highlighting the step states have taken and continue to take to register voters.
"The past year has seen gathering momentum in the states to modernize the voter registration system. In various ways, states have begun to move toward a system in which voters are automatically and permanently added to the rolls, with fail-safes in case of government mistakes."
While the Brennan Center for Justice uses the phrase "Bi-partisan" throughout their propaganda, you must understand who they really are. You will notice all of the "code" words used to describe this "bi-partisan" organization. Words like "economic justice", "think tank", "living Constitution", "progressive", "democracy", "justice" and "social justice". Do you really believe they are bi-partisan?
On Tuesday (Innauguration day) , all eyes and ears will be turned to the man whose oratorical skills have been compared to Abraham Lincoln’s, Franklin Roosevelt’s and John Kennedy’s. What does Barack Obama need to do in his inaugural address? We asked William Safire and other former presidential speechwriters for their ideas.
Here's what Michael Waldman had to say:
Add a Bit of Militancy
Michael Waldman, former director of speechwriting for President Bill Clinton, worked on two inaugural addresses and four State of the Union Addresses. He is author of “My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Presidential Speeches From George Washington to George W. Bush” and the executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
When I was working on Bill Clinton’s first inaugural address in 1993, I taped some rules above my computer screen. “No quoting dead people.” “No reversible raincoat sentences.” (Ask not, etc.) Every one of the rules was broken by the time we were done drafting the address. So I hesitate to give advice to a speaker who has such a clear sense of self and moment.
As we know, few inaugural addresses have been memorable. What made FDR’s inaugural, Lincoln’s, Jefferson’s exceptions? Eloquence yes, but context mattered more. Crisis? Collapse? War? Anxiety? At the very least, Barack Obama has the raw materials for a memorable speech.
“This is also a chance to repudiate a failed governing philosophy.”
He has wielded oratory as a political weapon in a way not seen since Reagan, and he’s shown impressive discipline, fitting the style to the occasion. For his convention speech, the political imperative demanded not a soaring talk, but a meat-and-potatoes list of promises. (A senior Obama campaign staff member told me at the time that “all the Lexington and Concord stuff” got cut for length.) This speech, of course, calls for far more vivid writing, bigger themes and a touch of formality.
Inaugural addresses tend to fall into two categories: those that demand “action now,” as F.D.R. did, or those that seek unity and summon the “better angels of our nature,” as Lincoln’s did. Much suggests he will give a “bring us together” speech. But personally, I crave a bit of militancy and a compelling argument.
Perhaps there’s a generation gap in how such speeches are heard. I suspect younger listeners might find calls for unity the heart of his appeal. But this is also a chance to repudiate a failed governing philosophy.He should consider replying to Reagan, who declared in his first inaugural address, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” With the world listening, what better time to make a forceful argument for activist government? We need the balm of unity, but we also need a passionate president able to take on the chaos now enveloping our economy.
5. AMNESTY
The Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants, a former Bush administration official who spoke with at least three people involved in those talks told FoxNews.com. Check out what's going on today with this administration.
The former official said it's unclear what specific avenues the administration is considering, but that one potentially feasible option would be to use either deferred action or parole to legalize at once the millions of immigrants who have overstayed their visas -- not necessarily those who crossed the border illegally. The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States -- the Pew Hispanic Center, which has a similar count, estimated in
2006 that at least 4 million of them overstayed their visas.
BREAKING NEWS: DOJ FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ARIZONA FOR PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
"Accusing Arizona of trying to "second guess" the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy -- claiming the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and "must be struck down." Read More: Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law
To think that our tax dollars and the state of Arizona's tax dollars are having to be used to defend their right to protect their borders and citizens absolutely makes me want to SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. OPERATIVES PLANTED
Democrats have been known to run a third candidate just to take votes away from the opposition candidate. These third candidates are called 'faces.' They're shills. Just a face that's thrown in as a bogus candidate. This is one of the greatest games played in Chicago. Today, the most powerful alderman in Chicago brags about having phony candidates run in certain races to take away votes that would otherwise go to an opponent.
In an article today in American Thinker, a whistleblower warns Sharon Angle to be on guard in her election against Harry Reid in Nevada. His accounting of tactics used to win elections through FRAUD is chilling. Please read this article to get a better understanding about just how evil these people are. To think that our votes are no longer legitimate because fraud and criminal acts are being used to win elections should send chills down your spine!
"You can bet that any third-party candidate in the race between Reid and Angle will be used to take votes away from Angle."
What follows is a non-verbatim account of an interview with Mr. X. His exact language is in quotes. Mr. X was deeply involved in Chicago Machine politics for many years. He has intimate knowledge of those responsible for manipulating the Cook County electoral process toward the outcome intended by the Machine. He eventually went undercover for the FBI and testified in trials that resulted in multiple convictions. He now lives outside Illinois. Mr. X has reason to believe that Nevada GOP Senatorial Candidate Sharron Angle, who is running against Sen. Harry Reid, will face a level of corrupt electioneering practices equal to what he witnessed for many years in Chicago. This is his warning to the Angle Campaign.
Democrats in Congress are pushing for a new law that would allow nearly 4 million people currently banned from voting to cast their ballot, and most of those millions, studies show, will vote Democrat.
And where will these new voters come from? From the ranks of convicted felons. A House subcommittee heard testimony on H.R. 3335, the "Democracy Restoration Act." The bill seeks to override state laws, which vary in how they restrict when convicted felons released from prison can vote.
"Deborah J. Vagins, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel adds, "Felony disfranchisement laws are rooted in the Jim Crow era and were intended to bar minorities from voting. To this day, they continue to have a disproportionate impact on minority communities. Moreover, revoking the right to vote for millions of citizens is not only undemocratic, it is counterproductive to the rehabilitation and reintegration into society of those released from prison."
This article gives a play by play of the tactics the left will use in order to undermine the next elections. All of the points of this plan are already in the works.
In the wake of the Department of Justice's New Black Panther Party scandal, a second former DOJ attorney has now come forward, blasting the department for failing to protect American soldiers' right to vote.
What's even more alarming, the attorney claims, is that despite congressional mandates passed in 2009 to ensure military personnel overseas can participate in elections, the DOJ's Voting Section is ignoring the new laws and may allow thousands of ballots to slip through the cracks uncounted in November.
M. Eric Eversole is a former litigation attorney for the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice and an advocate for military voters. In an opinion piece in The Washington Times, Eversole explains how soldiers in the field may be disenfranchised in the 2010 election.
"Absentee ballots must be sent to overseas military voters at least 45 days before an election to give those voters sufficient time to receive and return their ballots," Eversole explains. "The Military Postal Service Agency goes one step further and recommends that absentee ballots be sent to war zones 60 days before an election."
But legal complaints, news stories and studies all showed dozens of states failing to give soldiers enough time to vote in the 2008 election – resulting in tens of thousands of soldiers' mailed ballots that arrived too late to be counted, perhaps enough to swing, for example, Minnesota's closely contested election of Democrat Senator Al Franken.
For many Americans, the 2008 presidential election was historic, both in its outcome and the number of citizens who voted, many for the first time. The overall turnout of the votingeligible population was 61.7 percent, the highest turnout since the 1964 presidential election.[1] Local election officials in many states reported high levels of voting by many individuals who have not traditionally participated in the election process. The same, however, cannot be said for America's military members and their votingage dependents ("military voters"). For these voters, especially those serving in dangerous combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 presidential election was an embarrassing reminder of the difficulties faced by America's men and women in uniform when they attempt to vote.
Military voters have long been disenfranchised -- both at the state and federal level -- by a voting process that fails to recognize the unique challenges created by a military voter's transitory existence or the delays associated with delivering an absentee ballot to a war zone halfway around the world. Given these soldiers' daily sacrifices and their willingness to defend this nation's freedom, it is incumbent on Americans to remedy this problem and provide U.S. soldiers with the same rights they are being asked to protect. Unless Congress (and the states) finally act to remedy this problem, military personnel will continue to be the largest group of disenfranchised voters in the United States.
Current Law All military personnel and their dependents, as well as overseas citizens, are guaranteed the right to vote by absentee ballot in federal elections by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA).[2] President Ronald Reagan designated the Department of Defense (DOD) to administer the statute, and the department organized the Federal Voting Assistance Program office (FVAP) to provide support to UOCAVA voters.[3] Enforcement of the UOCAVA is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In short, the UOCAVA requires all states to "permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and runoff elections for Federal office."[4] The UOCAVA does not specify the exact number of days prior to the election that absentee ballots must be mailed to overseas voters. However, since 1988 the Department of Justice has filed 35 civil lawsuits against states and local governments arguing that the statute's guarantee of the right to vote by absentee ballots requires states to mail out such ballots in time to be received and returned by overseas voters.[5] In 1986, Congress found that "[b]ased on surveys of the U.S. Postal Service and of military postal authorities, ballots should be mailed to overseas addresses at least 45 days prior to an election in order to ensure adequate time for a ballot to reach a voter and be returned."[6] The U.S. Election Assistance Commission recommended the same 45day transit time in 2004 when it released a report on the best practices for facilitating voting by overseas citizens covered by the UOCAVA.[7]
Disenfranchised Heroes Despite many states reporting record turnout in 2008, data from the election demonstrates a shockingly low level of participation among military voters.[8] Take, for example, the treatment of military voters in Minnesota. In a state that prides itself on the nation's highest voter participation rate -- 78.2 percent of the eligible population participated in the 2008 presidential election -- only 15.8 percent of Minnesota's 23,346 military members and their votingage dependents were able to cast an absentee ballot in the same election.[9] To make matters worse, even if the military voter in Minnesota cast his or her absentee ballot, that ballot was nearly two times more likely to be rejected by local election officials, as compared to other absentee voters statewide.[10]A vast majority of the rejected military and overseas ballots -- nearly 70 percent -- were rejected because the ballot was returned after the election deadline, whereas only 10 percent of non-military and regular absentee ballots were rejected for being received after the deadline. Ultimately, only 14.5 percent of Minnesota's eligible military voters were able to cast a vote that counted in the 2008 presidential election.
Military personnel move frequently and receive scant assistance from both the military and state voting officials. Consequently, the absentee ballot request rate is extremely low. In the three states with the largest number of military voters -- Florida, Texas, and California (accounting for nearly 40 percent of all military voters) -- data from each state shows that less than a quarter of military voters and their dependents requested an absentee ballot for the 2008 presidential election. Florida had the highest number of requests with 27.8 percent of nearly 324,000 military voters requesting an absentee ballot. Texas was second with 22.9 percent and California was third with 17.8 percent. All told, of the estimated 943,879 military voters in these three states, only 23.4 percent or 220,595 requested an absentee ballot to vote in the 2008 presidential election. The rate of return of those same absentee ballots was even lower. Only 11.3 percent of the eligible military voters in California actually returned their ballots compared to 20.6 percent in Florida and 13.1 percent in Texas.
These low participation rates, however, were not isolated to Florida, Texas, and California. Other states, like Alaska, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, and Pennsylvania -- all of which have significant military populations -- experienced similar levels of disenfranchisement. The number of military voters that requested an absentee ballot in these five states ranged from 18.5 percent in Alaska to 25.2 percent in Pennsylvania. However, the number of military voters that were able to cast and have their absentee ballots counted was much lower, ranging from 11.9 percent in Maryland to 19.1 percent in Pennsylvania. Said another way, nearly 80 to 85 percent of military voters were unable to cast an absentee ballot that counted during the 2008 presidential election and, thus, were likely disenfranchised during the election. This low participation rate is as severe as any in the nation's recent history, including that which resulted in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to strike down the barriers to registration and turnout that kept black Americans out of the polls.[11]
The state data further shows that a large number of ballots were mailed, but never returned by the absentee military voter or were returned undelivered to local election officials because they had the wrong mailing address. For example, in California, Florida, and Texas, nearly 34.8 percent of the military absentee ballots that were requested were not returned to the local election official or were returned because of an undeliverable address (i.e., the military voter no longer lived at that address). According to a recent study by the Overseas Vote Foundation (OVF), many of these overseas military ballots may have been lost or significantly delayed by the postal service. The OVF found that nearly 22 percent of respondents to a survey, which included military and overseas voters, never received their requested absentee ballot for the 2008 presidential election.[12] In addition, 10 percent received their absentee ballots less than seven days before the election and 1 percent received their ballots after November 4, 2008. In other words, the 2008 OVF Report found that nearly onethird of its respondents either did not receive their absentee ballot or received it with insufficient time to return it to election officials.
Unfortunately, the 2008 presidential election was not an anomaly. Data collected by the Defense Manpower Data Center and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission showed a similar pattern of disenfranchisement of military voters in the 2006 election. In particular, the Defense Manpower Data Center stated that only 22 percent of active duty military members (which does not include military dependents) voted in the 2006 election.[13] Of that 22 percent, approximately 16 percent attempted to vote by absentee ballot and 7 percent voted in person.[14] This data corresponds with data collected by the Election Assistance Commission, which found that only 16.5 percent of the estimated 6 million eligible military and overseas voters requested an absentee ballot and only 5.5 percent of these ballots were returned and counted.[15] As was the case in 2008, many military and overseas absentee ballots (nearly 70 percent) were not returned by the voter or were returned as undeliverable.[16] The Election Assistance Commission also found that many ballots were rejected because they were received after the deadline for receipt.[17]
"This blog or any content... on my facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."
