Archive for Election

Voting Early and Often

As North Carolina goes, so goes the nation:

State elections officials said Wednesday that they’re investigating hundreds of cases of voters who appear to have voted in two states and several dozen who appear to have voted after their deaths.

Strach said North Carolina’s check found 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to match registered voters in other states on their first names, last names, dates of birth and the final four digits of their Social Security numbers. Those voters appear to have voted in North Carolina in 2012 and also voted in another state in 2012.

“Now we have to look individually at each one,” Strach said. “Could there have been data error?”

The crosscheck also found 35,570 voters in North Carolina who voted in 2012 whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states in 2012, but whose Social Security numbers were not matched.

Strach also said a “10-year death audit” found 13,416 deceased voters who had not been removed from voter rolls as of October 2013. Eighty-one of those individuals, she said, died before an election in which they are recorded as having voted.

Strach cautioned that about 30 of those 81 voters appear to have legally cast their votes early via absentee ballot and then died before Election Day.

However, she said, “There are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that’s not possible.”

“I think the big bombshell today is that you have documented voter fraud that has occurred,” said Rep. Tim Moore, R-Cleveland. “We have over 36,000 people who apparently voted in this state illegally and committed felonies.”

And you want to deny the dead and felonious the right to vote? Fascist!

Comments (1)

It’s Constitutional, Bitches!

The First Amendment, I mean.

Isn’t that how one traditionally announces SCOTUS verdicts?

The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision frees the nation’s wealthiest donors to have greater influence in federal elections.

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics. It’s the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The case pitted the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government’s interest in preventing political corruption.

And the First Amendment won. Imagine that.

From the opinion:

Roberts said the aggregate contribution limits do little, if anything, to address the permissible objective of battling corruption, “while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process.”

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts said in his opinion.

The Left keeps challenging the Bill of Rights. Let’s hope they keep losing.

Comments (1)

Oh, Look. The NY Times Reports About Corruption In The Obama Election Campaign

He’s not our shiny new President any more.

The donations kept pouring in: hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to President Obama and more than a dozen members of Congress, carefully routed through the families of two wealthy brothers in Florida.

They had good reason to be generous. The two men, Roberto and William Isaias, are fugitives from Ecuador, which has angrily pressed Washington to turn them over, to no avail. A year after their relatives gave $90,000 to help re-elect Mr. Obama, the administration rejected Ecuador’s extradition request for the men, fueling accusations that such donations were helping to keep the brothers and their families safely on American soil.

“The Isaias brothers fled to Miami not to live off their work, something just, but to buy themselves more mansions and Rolls-Royces and to finance American political campaigns,” President Rafael Correa of Ecuador told reporters last month. “That’s what has given them protection,” he added, an allegation the Obama administration and members of Congress reject.

You mean that the 1% propped Obama up? Seriously?

But beyond the political hostilities between the two nations, campaign finance experts say, the extensive donations in the Isaias case create the appearance of a financial conflict of interest that hangs over Washington’s decisions on the brothers’ fate. While the contributions were not illegal, analysts say they have opened the already politicized nature of extradition requests to greater scrutiny and raised questions about the access to power the donations provide.

Some analysts have even questioned whether fund-raisers have specifically sought out the two men for contributions because it was clear they were in trouble and would be more likely to give.

:-0 I. Am. Shocked.

“There is a certain mercenary aura on the Hill when it comes to overlap of fund-raising from wealthy individuals with problems,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a research group. “The key elements are all there: They are wealthy and have problems that are solved by the discretionary judgment of someone in the administration. They have tons of money and are willing to write checks all over the place.”

Donations from the relatives of criminal suspects have proved vexing before. In 2012, Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign said it would return more than $200,000 raised by relatives of a Mexican casino magnate who had fled charges in the United States and sought a pardon to return.

The White House says that the decisions in the Isaias case are not influenced by donations.

Phew. Because if decisions were influenced by donations, that would be wrong. And the Most Transparent Administration Evah™ wouldn’t do something wrong.

- Aggier

Comments

Is She Cherokee Too?

If I can revive the Austin-Boston axis for a moment, may I advise our Lone Star friends that they can provide all the chapters and verses they want to prove that the lovely and talented Wendy Davis is a lying self-promter in pink tennis shoes.

Minus the tennis shoes, so was Elizabeth Warren. Who is now the Senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

You have been warned:

[I]t turns out that part of Wendy Davis’s tale is fictionalized and the rest is told selectively.

She was divorced when she was 21, not 19, which wouldn’t matter, except maybe for the fact that she testified to it in federal court. But single teen mother fits so much better in a headline. It also wouldn’t be worth mentioning that she really only lived in a trailer for a few months—if she had actually been raised in poverty. Wendy’s family was middle-class, it turns out. Other details about her upbringing were also fudged. Her parents divorced, true, but her dad remained in her life. As for her mother’s supposed sixth-grade education, that was hard to square with recently unearthed yearbook photos of her in high school.

Wendy’s own marital history isn’t the feminist saga embraced by the media. After divorcing her first husband, she married a friend of her father’s, a man 13 years her senior named Jeffrey Davis. She had a child with him and then left both her daughters—Davis’s and her first husband’s—in his care while she went off to school.

Jeff Davis paid her tuition at TCU and Harvard—cashing in his retirement savings to do so—but Wendy apparently met someone at Harvard and the couple divorced. Jeffrey cited adultery in his original divorce petition. The final decree makes no mention of that, but a judge awarded Jeffrey custody of their daughter. The other one elected to stay with him.

“It was ironic,” Wendy’s second ex-husband told Wayne Slater. “I made the last [tuition] payment, and it was the next day she left.”

Look, who am I to people how to vote? I voted for Jimmy Carter. Twice. But I do think people should be acquainted with they candidates for whom they vote. Elizabeth Warren slipped into and out of her entirely fabricated Indian identity like it was a terry bathrobe. Her casual and intermittent ethnic impersonation struck some of those who were the real thing as “spiritual genocide” (oversensitive, perhaps, but walk a mile in their moccasins). In supporting abortion, Wendy Davis is in favor a rather more real genocide, though one the Supreme Court has managed to find protected by the Constitution.

That’s enough to win her the majority of women and liberals—hopefully not a majority of the Texas electorate. A few lies, whoppers, howlers, and resume embellishments won’t dissuade her Democrat base. In fact, the more absurd the lie, the more likely they are to believe it. Like our fellow Bay Staters who believed that someone whiter than Taylor Swift was Sacagawea on the inside. On the basis of cheekbones.

Hey, if we believe the president was born in Hawaii (and we do, we do), we’ll believe anything.

Comments

What if They Held a Campaign Appearance and Nobody Came?

Obama is dangerous to Democrat Senators and other living things:

Do you ever wonder, though, if this guy imagined even in his darkest moments in the Hopenchange-y summer of 2008 that he’d one day be so toxic to the other party that red-state Dems would duck him when he came to town? That’s par for the course for any president, but not every president is a would-be post-partisan messiah.

[T]here’s no reason to be grumpy about Hagan pulling the “Barack who?” routine at this point. Why hand the Americans for Prosperity ad team another soundbite to use against her just because she wouldn’t give them a photo op to use?

I have it on good authority that Sen. Kay Hagen actually scheduled elective root canal and gum grafting for yesterday rather than be seen with this dill weed. (And she’s already got dentures!) If she had another appendix, she would have had that taken out too.

Obama couldn’t be more toxic to Democrat candidates if he gulped a Polonium milkshake, wore a suit spun from the wool of an anthrax-infected sheep, and French-kissed Typhoid Mary. To Southern voters, he is the southern pole of a magnet, repelling anyone who approaches him.

And he is such a spoiled petulant brat that he can’t leave the snub untouched. He would rather take her down with him than act mature (act, I said) and let it lie. That’s another reason he can’t be ex-President: besides not wanting to leave his precious legacy in the hands others less virtuous than he. No one truly gets him but him.

Comments

Against the Family

Today, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of Hillary Clinton:

Aides on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign kept a detailed list of party colleagues who staffers believed had betrayed her during the long and bitter primary battle with President Obama, a new book reveals.

The list included rankings, with those who were considered the most egregious traitors by Clinton loyalists receiving the worst possible score of 7 on a point scale.

Then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who would ultimately succeed Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those receiving the blackest of black marks, according to the book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Politico’s Jonathan Allen.

So too was Kerry’s Senate colleague from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, who died in 2009. Also on the political hit-list were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) and Baron Hill (D-Ind).

The book makes clear the depth of the wounds inflicted during the primary struggle.

“Years later,” Parnes and Allen write, Clinton aides “would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them. ‘Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,’ one said to another. ‘Ted Kennedy,’ the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’”

Can’t argue with that. Ted Kennedy is still dead, and Barack Obama still isn’t “getting him coffee”.

But why a seven-point scale? What else uses seven points? I see Denmark uses seven different grades in its education system, but except for Danish porn, why would the Clintons know or care?

Given the unfortunate outcomes of the other rats, this concern is understandable:

The ill-feeling between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was at one point so intense that the Missouri Democrat told a friend that she was scared of getting stuck alone with the former first lady.

“I really don’t want to be in an elevator alone with her,” McCaskill told the friend, according to the forthcoming book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Politico’s Jonathan Allen.

The deep tension between Clinton and McCaskill first formed after McCaskill made remarks on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that struck raw nerves for both Hillary and President Clinton.

In 2006, McCaskill was debating then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) on the Sunday morning political show. The two were in the midst of a campaign that McCaskill ultimately won, and the Clintons had given her strong backing.

But when the subject of Bill Clinton came up, McCaskill said, “He’s been a great leader but I don’t want my daughter near him.”

You think that’s a little paranoid? Just remember Vince Foster and Juanita Broderick, and you’d wear kevlar and a chastity belt when near this pair.

I hope Chris Christie gets what he deserves, no more, no less. I hope the same for Hillary.

Comments

NY Times Goes After Clinton Foundation?

Oh well. The election is a long way off.

Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.

The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.

Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.

It’s a long article, but the implication is that the Clintons are corrupt! I’m shocked!!!

And as long time readers of this blog know, my opinion is that the media is corrupt, the government is corrupt and, sadly, the legal system is corrupt. Honestly, I didn’t always believe this, but it is difficult to escape this conclusion four and a half years into the Obama presidency. So here’s my prediction: Hillary Clinton will be the first female president of the United States. She will win in 2016. God help us all.

PS: Learn more about their “charity” here.

- Aggie

Comments (1)

Riddle

How is ObamaCare different from a nationwide Democrat campaign commercial, just in time for the 2014 midterms?

It’s not! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! Get it?

You will.

It will make you stronger. It will give you peace of mind and make you feel like a winner. Health insurance is what the whole country has been talking about, so don’t be left out.

Sound like a sales pitch? Get ready for a lot more. As President Barack Obama’s health care law moves from theory to reality in the coming months, its success may hinge on whether the best minds in advertising can reach one of the hardest-to-find parts of the population: people without health coverage.

The campaign won’t come cheap: The total amount to be spent nationally on publicity, marketing and advertising will be at least $684 million, according to data compiled The Associated Press from federal and state sources.

You can buy a lot of votes for $684 million. Mine, for instance.

AP research from all 50 states shows the amount of government spending will range from a low of 46 cents per capita in Wisconsin, which has ceded responsibility for its health insurance exchange to the federal government, to $9.23 per capita in West Virginia, which opted for a state-federal partnership.

About $4.8 million in public money will be spent trying to sign up New Jersey’s 1.3 million uninsured, for example, compared to the nearly $28 million spent reaching out to Washington state’s much smaller 960,000.

Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation, three times more than Illinois. But only a fourth as much public money will be spent on getting people enrolled in Texas.

Let’s see: Wisconsin and Texas have conservative Republican governors, so they get a pittance; West Virginia and Washington are friendlier to the regime, so they make a fortune. If this were just about educating people, the money would be proportionate. But it’s not. It’s about buying votes. President Obama is using hundreds of millions of federal dollars to finance a national congressional campaign for the Democrat Party.

Sleazy even for him.

Comments

Weiner 13″!

I’m sorry, that should read: Weiner ’13! I regret the error.

As a jaded New Yorker who’s lived through 9/11, I feel like I’ve seen it all. There have been exuberant highs, painful lows and absurdities galore — from Snooki ringing the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange to Jimmy McMillan running for mayor to the Naked Cowboy running for President.

But now, the people of our great city have finally managed to throw me for a loop: Anthony Weiner is ahead in a mayoral poll.

When I read the news, I rubbed my eyes and checked again — and sure enough, there he was: sitting pretty with 25% of registered Democrats in his corner, according to The Wall Street Journal/NBC New York/Marist poll, a full 5 points ahead of the former front-runner, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

Why, New York, why?

Oh, come on! You have to ask? Once Gotham had a mayor named “Little Flower” (Fiorello); now it’s poised to elect one who likes to Tweet his “Little Flower”. (All right, sir, it’s a veritable Rafflesia arnoldii.) What better reflection of the downfall of civilization (or at least the Democratic Party)?

Oh, and speaking of reflections of parties:

Poll: Clinton tops Bush, Rubio among Hispanic voters for 2016

Rubio, unsurprisingly, would begin with a major deficit in a head-to-head matchup with Clinton. According to the poll, Clinton would win Hispanic voters 66-28 percent, with 6 percent remaining undecided.

Rubio, a bilingual Cuban-American, who represents Florida, who is the perfect role model for Latino immigrant families, whose work on immigration “reform” has earned him the wrath of conservatives (like me), can’t even muster half the support of Hillary Clinton, who is about as Hispanic as my navel lint. Politics trumps all other identity, at least among liberals.

I told you this the other day when I noted that Gabriel Gomez, Rubio’s Mini-Me in Massachusetts, lost 3/4 of the vote in the city of Lowell—which is 3/4 Hispanic. Republicans who think they can avoid losing elections by trying to be more like the other guy should note that the electorate can tell who’s the Democrat. Gomez, like Rubio, couldn’t have been less threatening to the Latino community, but that (R) after his name couldn’t have been more so. Maybe we should just stand for the rule of law and secure borders because we believe in them. Political expediency doesn’t seem to be working.

Comments

Post-Election Thought

So Ed Markey beat Gabriel Gomez. Disappointing, but hardly surprising. If anything, our representation has improved by losing seniority in the Senate.

Untitled

But I found one interesting note in the town-by-town breakdown of the vote. Eastern Mass, Boston, the suburbs, and the Capes (Cod and Ann) largely went for Markey. No surprise. Western Mass, the Berkshires, also went for Markey. Also predictable. But Gomez picked up almost everything in between—significantly more towns, if significantly fewer people.

And now for the exception: Lawrence, Mass went for Markey, though it was surrounded by towns who voted for Gomez. And Lawrence, Mass is almost three-quarters Latino. So, a largely Latino town in a largely GOP belt bucked the trend and voted overwhelmingly Democratic (almost three-to -one).

When the Republican nominee was named Gomez, campaigned bilingually, was more centrist than conservative, was a Navy SEAL, etc. Gomez was perhaps not an ideal candidate, but if ever a Republican nominee was positioned to pry Latino votes away from the Democrat Party, Gomez was it. And a town 3/4 Latino voted 3/4 Democrat. It’s as if Gomez didn’t get a single Latino vote.

Now, Lawrence is a basket case of a town. It is thoroughly bankrupt, fiscally and spiritually, as corrupt a municipality as there is. Only Democrats would let them get away with their crap, and only in exchange for votes. So, it may not be a model. But my point is still valid. Republicans couldn’t have run a more respectable candidate (who happened to be of Colombian descent), and he garnered essentially zero Latino support. Doesn’t that suggest complete capitulation on illegal immigration and amnesty in exchange for votes is a futile gesture—not to mention a spineless one?

Comments (1)

The Face of Voter Intimidation

2008:

2012:

James Taranto explains:

President Asterisk

This column is not alone in thinking it’s possible the Internal Revenue Service stole last year’s election. Economist Stan Veuger describes new research he conducted with colleagues at Stockholm University and Harvard:

[We] set out to find out how much impact the Tea Party had on voter turnout in the 2010 election. We compared areas with high levels of Tea Party activity to otherwise similar areas with low levels of Tea Party activity, using data from the Census Bureau, the FEC, news reports, and a variety of other sources. We found that the effect was huge: the movement brought the Republican Party some 3 million-6 million additional votes in House races. That is an astonishing boost, given that all Republican House candidates combined received fewer than 45 million votes. It demonstrates conclusively how important the party’s newly energized base was to its landslide victory in those elections. . . .

President Obama’s margin of victory in some of the key swing states was fairly small: a mere 75,000 votes separated the two contenders in Florida, for example. That is less than 25% of our estimate of what the Tea Party’s impact in Florida was in 2010. Looking forward to 2012 in 2010 undermining the Tea Party’s efforts there must have seemed quite appealing indeed. . . .

It might be purely accidental that the government targeted precisely this biggest threat to the president. It may just be that a bureaucracy dominated by liberals picked up on not-so-subtle dog whistles from its political leadership. Or, it might be that direct orders were given.
As we’ve repeatedly emphasized, the possibility that the IRS was acting under orders from the White House, as alarming as it is, is far less so than the “dog whistle” alternative. If the IRS did the bidding of the party in power without having to be ordered, then the federal government itself, not just the current administration, is so corrupt as to call into question the very integrity of American democracy.

Mark Steyn has made the same point:

[L]et’s take the president at his word that the existence of this shadowy IRS entity working deep within the even shadowier U.S. Treasury planted in deep cover within the shadowiest conspiracy of them all, this murky hitherto unknown organization called “the Executive Branch,” that all this was news to him. What that means then is not that this or that elected politician is corrupt but that the government of the United States is corrupt.

Hundreds and hundreds of groups were consigned to the purgatory of “pending” — a term for IRS customers not as favored as Malik Obama can stretch leisurely from six months to ten to twenty to thirty, and beyond. When the most lavishly funded government on the planet comes after you, eventual guilt or innocence is irrelevant: The process is the punishment.

Americans are fearless if some guy pulls some stunt in a shopping mall, but an IRS assault is brutal and unending. Many activists faded away, and the media began writing stories about how the Tea Party had peaked; they were over; they wouldn’t be a factor in 2012. And so it proved. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out the other day, the plan worked.

More accurately, this was the face of voter suppression 2012:


Hey, bitter clingers! How’s my a** taste?

Comments (1)

This Presidency IS a Cancer

It’s now all but confessed that the IRS targeting of conservative groups exclusively was a massive effort to suppress the vote. Stung in 2010 midterm elections, the administration was determined to choke off and intimidate the Tea Party and allied movements. The evidence is also clear that it worked.

But earlier efforts by Team Obama suggest this was not a bug but a feature of this administration—and liberalism in general—from the beginning:

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.”

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”

The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign’s high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary. “There’s going to be a reckoning here,” he had warned publicly. “It’s going to be rough—it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it’s at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions.”

Intimidating donors and voters during a campaign is bad enough—and very bad indeed—but continuing that intimidation with the machinery of government—not least the biggest and baddest of all government machinery, the IRS—is unconscionable.

And yet it happened. It was known by, and carried the seeming approval of, the people at the very top. Because this sort of behavior is in the very DNA of the contemporary Democrat Party.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »