By George Burns
Charges of voter fraud
are a recurring issue leading up to and following elections. Ample
evidence supports these charges. Many government officials are fully
aware of the problem but do little or nothing about it, especially if it
favors their respective political interests. A current example is
provided by the state of Florida.
Florida
election officials have found evidence of significant election fraud in
their state. Notably, a review of DMV data indicates that they may
have as many as 180,000 illegal immigrants registered to vote. Repeated
requests by Florida's Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, for federal
support in verifying these figures via Department of Homeland Security
databases have been ignored.
According
to the 3 June 2012 edition of the Miami Herald, the federal Justice
Department (DOJ) lead civil rights lawyer, T. Christian Herren Jr, sent a
letter to Florida election officials ordering them to "halt a systemic
effort to find and purge the state's rolls of non-citizen voters." The
DOJ's letter asserts that Florida's initiative may be in violation of
certain provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1993 National
Voting Registration Act. It is hard to understand the Justice
Department's position since those laws protect the voting rights
of eligible US voters. Florida officials argue that their targets are
ineligible voters, felons, dead people and non-citizens.
Other
examples suggest that the current DOJ is seemingly a voter fraud
enabler. As former DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams, writes in his
book "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department,"
Attorney General Holder ordered a halt to the prosecution of black
panthers who during the 2008 elections harassed white voters outside a
Philidelphia polling site. Adams resigned his position in protest. His
book itemizes other cases where orders were given to drop prosecutions
involving black voter fraud and intimidation. Adams has testified under
oath before Congress regarding his claims. As Thomas Sowell writes in
his NewsMax article of 1 June 2012 "If Mr. Adams is lying, he has taken a
huge risk in citing individuals by name and quoting them directly. Yet,
despite the fact that most of those he accuses are lawyers, apparently
no one has sued him." Sowell also notes that Mr. Holder "recently told a
group of black clergymen that the right to vote was being threatened by
people who are seeking to block access to the ballot box by blacks and
other minorities. This is truly world-class chutzpah, by an Attorney
General who stopped attorneys in his own Department of Justice from
completing the prosecution of black thugs who stationed themselves
outside a Philadelphia voting site to harass and intimidate white
voters."
Because
of past voter fraud charges by both Republicans and Democrats, many
states have undertaken measures to strengthen their respective voter ID
requirements. This, too, is facing strong DOJ opposition. The DOJ
claims requiring voter IDs disenfranchises black and latino voters, the
poor, and the elderly - constituencies typically loyal to the Democratic
party.
This
DOJ charge is hard to sustain. Consider, for instance, that in order
to get into the Supreme Court a photo ID is required. Oddly, it was
recently revealed that our Attorney General was not aware of this
requirement. Another example is provided by the First Lady. While the
"Obama administration has done its best to oppose states from
instituting new, stricter voter ID laws, complaining that many minority
voters lack photo identification. But those same folks it wants voting
in November are apparently not welcome anywhere near the First Lady's
book signings." As John Bates writes in his 6 June article "customers
must "submit their social security number and show an official ID
(driver's license, passport) to a Secret Service agent, and they will be
issued a wristband to the First Lady's event on June 12." These two
examples pale in comparison to the numerous other occasions where we are
required to show a photo ID. Why, then, is it discriminatory for
voter's to do so at polling stations but not to gain entrance to the
Supreme Court, a First Lady's book signing, or a multitude of other
occasions?
Could it be that the DOJ wants voter fraud to continue at least through the November elections?
Bibliography:
No comments:
Post a Comment