Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 26, 2014, 02:30:07 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81267 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print
Author Topic: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, etc.  (Read 63491 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #300 on: October 09, 2012, 10:30:54 AM »

"We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections." --John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #301 on: October 10, 2012, 08:10:39 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/10/new-project-veritas-vids-say-obama-staffer-is-it-okay-if-i-vote-twice/

New Project Veritas vids: Say, Obama staffer, is it okay if I vote twice?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #302 on: October 10, 2012, 08:20:33 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/10/new-project-veritas-vids-say-obama-staffer-is-it-okay-if-i-vote-twice/

New Project Veritas vids: Say, Obama staffer, is it okay if I vote twice?

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/10/10/latest-okeefe-video-shows-obama-campaign-voter-fraud/?singlepage=true

Latest O’Keefe Video Shows Obama Campaign Voter Fraud
October 10, 2012 - 8:06 am - by J. Christian Adams     
 
James O’Keefe has done it again — this time capturing video of a paid Obama Organizing for America director in Houston, Texas, assisting a double-voting scheme directed toward Florida. In the video, an undercover Obama “volunteer”  tells Organizing for America’s Stephanie Caballero that she wanted to vote twice to help reelect President Obama.

The undercover “volunteer” tells Caballero, “I’m going to vote by ballot and then I have mine here too.”

After the volunteer tells Caballero her plan, Caballero volunteers to help the double voter get the forms to request an absentee ballot in Florida. “I’ll print that out and you just have to mail it back,” Caballero says.

The undercover “volunteer” says, “I don’t want to get in any trouble, but like I said, if no one’s gonna know.”

The paid Obama Organizing for America director’s response: [Laughter] “Oh my God this is so funny! It’s cool though!”



The response from the campaign staffer should have been: “That’s illegal. I’ll have no part in it.” But alas, the video reveals otherwise.

Later, when the plan to vote twice is put into effect, Caballero coyly and laughingly asks: “Are you going to do what I think you are going to do?” — namely vote twice. When the volunteer says, “Well, if no one is going to know.” Caballero then prints out and gives the forms to the volunteer to vote twice.


Stephanie Caballero
Obama campaign attorney Robert Bauer should be emailing memos to every paid staffer detailing 42 USC 1973i(e) and 42 USC § 1973gg–10(2). The former federal law makes it illegal to vote twice. The latter law prohibits fraudulent voting in a federal election. 18 USC 2 makes it illegal to aid and abet election fraud.

The new O’Keefe video raises the question — how many other undercover videographers have penetrated the Obama campaign? O’Keefe obviously reached the heart of one operation. Who knows how many more Obama campaign offices are full of “volunteers” on the lookout for criminal behavior by other Obama campaign staffers?

O’Keefe provides a clue and taunts journalists, daring them to call this an “isolated incident.”



Encouraging voter participation of marginal legality is nothing new for the Obama campaign. In 2008, they had an elaborate web portal for college students, encouraging some to register to vote where they went to school, discouraging others. The overall goal was to get students attending college in battleground states registered to vote in those states regardless of their actual domicile. If students from a battleground state went to college in a safe red or blue state, they were encouraged to keep their registration in their home battleground state.

The Obama campaign website in 2008 never told the students to cancel their original voter registration. Nor did it provide guidelines for what constituted bona fide domicile.

Currently, voter watchdog groups like True the Vote are conducting data crunching to determine who may have violated federal election law in 2008 by voting in two states for president. If someone does it again in 2012, it will eventually be caught thanks to the efforts of private parties combing voter rolls.

A final note about Stephanie Caballero. This paid Obama staffer is a radical’s radical. She was active in the Students for a Democratic Society in Houston. The most shocking thing about that is that the SDS still exists. The second most shocking thing is that someone from this leftover Marxist organization would be a paid staffer with the DNC. I’ll bet that didn’t happen on Bill Clinton and Don Fowler’s watch. Caballero also does photography work for the openly socialist Workers World magazine. This is the propaganda arm of the Workers World Party.

Now we have yet another reason to explain why some Democrats so aggressively oppose election integrity efforts and accuse election integrity watchdogs of phony “voter suppression.” They don’t want anyone, it seems, to know what they are really up to.

And the next time someone accuses the Obama camp of socialist tendencies and actively supporting voter fraud, a new video by James O’Keefe provides some evidence.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #303 on: October 27, 2012, 08:17:32 AM »


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331798/ithe-new-yorker-si-voting-myths-hans-von-spakovsky

also,

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/26/is-voter-fraud-being-committed-in-ohio/#.UIv7AD1ZtMI.facebook
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 10:21:10 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #304 on: October 31, 2012, 07:04:17 PM »



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/more-electronic-voting-machines-changing-romney-votes-to-obama-we-looked-into-it-and-heres-what-a-vendor-told-us/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #305 on: November 01, 2012, 04:28:48 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-are-some-states-dumping-their-electronic-voting-machines-and-going-back-to-paper/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #306 on: November 03, 2012, 10:02:54 PM »

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/11/03/breaking_naacp_takes_over_polling_station_advocates_for_president_obama_at_houston_polling_location
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 85


« Reply #307 on: November 03, 2012, 10:53:37 PM »

Not surprising... some people will do anything to stay on the public tit.
Logged

We all die. The second one accepts that, only then are they capable of living.
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #308 on: November 05, 2012, 05:56:14 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/virginia-voter-fraud-case-expands-to-focus-on-gop-firm/2012/11/02/76285252-24eb-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #309 on: November 05, 2012, 07:57:22 AM »

BD:  If guilty, nail them and jail them.  

=====================

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/us/politics/candidates-make-final-dash-as-race-winds-down.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121105
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 08:17:51 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #310 on: November 06, 2012, 08:49:59 AM »

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams (1781)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #311 on: November 13, 2012, 07:40:16 PM »

In a strange set of coincidences, Pres. Obama lost in all states that require Voter ID.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #312 on: November 13, 2012, 07:55:03 PM »

In a strange set of coincidences, Pres. Obama lost in all states that require Voter ID.

Strange indeed. I'm sure Eric Holder will look into it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #313 on: November 14, 2012, 01:00:17 AM »

Good point Doug.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #314 on: November 14, 2012, 08:33:39 AM »

Previously I've posted on the Allen West voter fraud/recount story on the Congress thread, I now start posting on it here with a simple fundraiser letter which also contains some numbers.  Again, I have given some money to this effort.
==============

Urgent: Allen West Wins If We Force a Full Recount
 
Dear Fellow American:
 
I am outside of the St. Lucie County elections office where Allen West is getting ‘railroaded’ again this morning.
 
Inside of the elections office sits Democrat Gertrude Walker, the ‘non-partisan’ Democrat elections boss who admits, “mistakes were made” on election night.
 
It’s not entirely clear if these “mistakes were made” before or after Allen West’s 2,000-vote lead magically swung to a 2,500-vote defeat at 2 a.m.   
 
But if one gives Walker the benefit of the doubt (and I don’t), she clearly runs the most incompetent ‘Banana Republic’ elections board in the country.
 
Otherwise, this just might be nothing short of a Chicago-style fraud operation.
 
The bottom line is that Walker refuses to give Allen West a full recount.
 
This is an outrage, if not a criminal fraud of the highest order.
 
Just what is Walker hiding?
 
The fact is we need to ramp-up the pressure on Walker – big time.
 
Nothing ever happens in politics until you start pushing – hard.
 
This is why the conservative President Downgrade PAC has planned an all-out radio ad blitz to demand Gertrude Walker give Allen West the full recount he deserves.
 
The conservative President Downgrade PAC still has an urgent need for donations to pay for these radio ads.
 
Please click here now to show your support, whether it’s a donation of $5, $25, $100, $250, $500 or more.
 
In our radio ad, we ask listeners to call Gertrude Walker at (772) 462-1500 and to demand a full recount.
 
And please call Walker yourself, and email me back to tell me what she says!
 
But if you want to do even more --- if you want this feckless ‘non-partisan’ Democrat to buckle under the pressure, please consider donating.  Go Here Now
 
I must tell you, I am absolutely convinced Allen West wins if we force a full recount of ‘early vote’ ballots.
 
Allen West picked-up 535 votes in the “sham” partial recount of ballots from 3 out of 8 early voting days.
 
He now only trails Murphy by 1,907 votes, or 0.57%.
 
Let’s recount the remaining 5 days!
 
Before the end of today, I’ll need to begin placing the ad buys on local radio for our campaign.
 
Please consider supporting our efforts with a donation of $5, $25, $100, $500 or more.
 
Unlike political campaigns, there is no limit on how much you can give.
 
Thank you for your generous support.
 
Yours for America,
 
Bob Adams
Founder & Chief Strategist
 
P.S. – The President Downgrade PAC has planned a radio ad blitz to demand a full recount for Allen West. In our radio ad, we ask listeners to call Gertrude Walker at (772) 462-1500 and to demand a full recount. Please click here now to help us run these radio ads, whether it’s a donation of $5, $25, $100, $500 or more. 



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #315 on: November 16, 2012, 10:29:59 AM »

https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=UZBCVO17DBYZ
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #316 on: November 19, 2012, 10:03:38 AM »

Allen West’s ‘Nuclear Option’
 
Dear Fellow American:
 
On Sunday afternoon, the Palm Beach Post and several other media outlets reported that St. Lucie County failed to submit its certified election results to the State before a 12-noon legal deadline.
 
In a brazen act of incompetence or fraud, the Democrat-run election board simply ran-out the clock.
 
This not only nullified the full recount underway since Saturday morning, but also certified by default the “sham” partial recount results from last week.
 
However, less than two hours after this bombshell (while the West campaign sought an emergency hearing), the Democrat-run election board announced “preliminary” results from the recount. 
 
These “preliminary” results showed Allen West losing even more votes!
 
One must seriously consider if it is even remotely possible for Colonel Allen West to ever receive a fair and accurate recount from this “banana republic” of an election board.
 
However, Allen West has another option outside of Florida. This is what I call “The Nuclear Option”.
 
Under the Federal Contested Elections Act, Congressman Allen West can take this election to the U.S. House of Representatives, who have the final word.   
 
A majority vote by John Boehner’s GOP-controlled House alone can force a recount, call for a new election, or even just seat Allen West as the victor outright - "game over".
 
There is not a single thing Obama-Reid-Pelosi, and especially the Democrat-run St. Lucie County election board, can do to stop it.
 
Revive America PAC is conducting an Urgent National Survey on this important question:
 
Allen West’s “Nuclear Option”: Should Congressman West Bypass the Democrat-Run St. Lucie County Election Board to Challenge the Election Before the Republican-led Congress?
 
Should Allen West Just “Press the Button”?
 
Please Go Here Now to Cast Your Vote on this Urgent National Survey
 
I also encourage you to forward this National Survey to family and friends. You can do so by clicking here now.
 
There are many other serious questions about this election still unanswered, such as the 900 voters who cast ballots in Precinct 93, where only 7 voters are registered. Can you say, “Acorn”?
 
Allen West is up against some of the most vile and corrupt liberal Democrats in the country.
 
Allen West needs to know that we’ve got his back.
 
Revive America PAC is one of the very few national conservative groups fighting for Allen West.
 
If Colonel West is forced to take it to the floor of Congress, we’ll stand with him every step of the way.
 
If you think this is the right thing to do, and you are able to help, please consider making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, or $1,000 to support our work.
 
Thank you for everything you do.
 
Yours for America,
 
Bob Adams
Founder
 
P.S. – Revive America PAC is conducting a National Survey - “Allen West’s ‘Nuclear Option’: Should He Just 'Press the Button'”? Go Here Now to Cast Your Vote.
Help Support Our Work


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #317 on: November 27, 2012, 06:11:22 PM »



http://www.westernjournalism.com/fox-news-reports-on-voter-fraud/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=528614c1a0-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #318 on: November 29, 2012, 11:14:49 PM »

Civil Rights Reactionaries Nostalgia and the Voting Rights Act.
By JAMES TARANTO

A left-liberal outfit called the Constitutional Accountability Center wants the U.S. Supreme Court to sustain a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but its argument is based on little more than an appeal to emotion--specifically, on nostalgia for the heroism of the civil rights movement half a century ago.

The center's Doug Kendall and Emily Phelps find a news peg in the death of Lawrence Guyot, 73, after a series of illnesses. As a young man, the New York Times notes in its obituary, Guyot "was repeatedly challenged, jailed and beaten as he helped lead fellow members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and student volunteers from around the nation in organizing Mississippi blacks to vote."

In a particularly harrowing 1963 incident, Guyot went to a Mississippi jail to post bail for three activists who'd been arrested for entering a whites-only section of a bus station. "When he asked questions about their rough treatment, nine police officers beat him with the butts of guns, made him strip naked and threatened to burn his genitals. . . . Mr. Guyot was taken to a cell and beaten some more."

Kendall and Phelps write that Guyot's death "reminds us just how little time has passed since it took genuine, physical courage even to seek the right to vote in certain parts of the United States." That's very true, but it also reminds us just how dramatically things have changed in less than half a century. It is precisely because of the speed with which that change occurred that the court may strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

For a pair who work for something called the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kendall and Phelps don't have a lot to say about the constitution. Their defense of Section 5 is purely sentimental, with lots of intensifying adjectives and adverbs. Shelby County v. Holder, they exclaim, is "a monumentally important challenge to a key part of the Voting Rights Act, the iconic law for which for which [sic] Mr. Guyot shed blood."

Section 5 prohibits certain states and localities--but not others--from making changes in "any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" without advance permission from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal trial court in Washington. Proposed changes may be implemented only after federal certification that they neither are intended to nor will in effect discriminate against minorities.

The constitutional issue, as the high court explains in its order granting review, is "whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution."

The 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870, guarantees that the right to vote "shall not be abridged or denied . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" and provides that "the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." In a friend-of-the-court brief for the lower court that considered the Alabama county's case, the Constitutional Accountability Center observes repeatedly that that is a "broad" power.

Indisputably it is, but it is not an unlimited power. The question is whether Section 5 is appropriate legislation. If not, then it is clearly an infringement of state sovereignty under Article IV and the 10th Amendment, which define the basic structure of federal-state relations.

As Loyola Law School's Justin Levitt notes in a helpful Web-based fact sheet, Section 5 "applies where a 'test or device' was used to screen would-be voters, and where fewer than half of the eligible voters either registered or voted in 1964, 1968, or 1972." That is, the test is based on information that is at least 40 years old.

That is the heart of the challenge to Section 5, as Shelby County explains in its petition to the Supreme Court (citations omitted):

In 2006, Congress reauthorized the VRA for another 25 years without easing the preclearance burden or updating the coverage formula. Congress found "that the number of African-Americans who are registered and who turn out to cast ballots ha[d] increased significantly over the last 40 years, particularly since 1982 [the last time the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized]. In some circumstances, minorities register to vote and cast ballots at levels that surpass[ed] those of white voters." It also found that "the disparities between African-American and white citizens who are registered to vote ha[d] narrowed considerably in six southern States covered by the temporary provisions . . . and . . . North Carolina." Thus, "many of the first generation barriers to minority voter registration and voter turnout that were in place prior to the VRA ha[d] been eliminated."
The Supreme Court has upheld Section 5 in the past, after both its initial enactment in 1965 and its earlier re-enactment in 1982. The question is whether the facts that made it "appropriate legislation" then are sufficient to do so now (or were in 2006).

Enlarge Image


Close
Associated Press
 
Lawrence Guyot in 2004
.
Kendall and Phelps rest much of their argument on mere sentiment: "The presence among us of civil rights heroes such as John Lewis--and until this week Lawrence Guyot--ought to serve as a living conscience as the Court considers these issues. The Civil Rights era is not just a historical abstraction." Fair enough, but the Voting Rights Act, however "iconic" it may be, is no mere commemoration. If it were, there would be no dispute.

They go on to assert: "Conservatives argue that this iconic law"--ha, there they go again!--"is no longer necessary because the South is a different place today than it was when the law first passed. That argument gets things exactly backwards. The South is a different place today because of the Voting Rights Act." Although that last claim is no doubt true, to conclude therefore that Section 5 remains "appropriate legislation" is analogous to saying that a patient who's been saved from a deadly infection ought to take antibiotics for the rest of his life.

Here is their strongest argument in favor of Section 5:

In 2012, conservative legislators and election officials in states throughout the country tried to change election rules to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. These voting changes--imposing restrictive ID requirements, shortening early voting hours and making it more difficult to register to vote--had the greatest impact on young, minority, elderly and poor voters. . . .
Voter suppression laws that were held back by Section 5 rulings this year (summarized here) included a strict Texas ID law, which a three-judge panel found was tantamount to reviving the poll tax, and a shortened early voting calendar in Florida that a judge found would be akin to "closing polling places in disproportionately African-American precincts." Equally important, laws that ultimately did "clear," like South Carolina's ID law, which was approved for use beginning in 2013, did so because Section 5 made lawmakers more careful to avoid problematic outcomes, as one conservative judge observed.
There are two problems here. First, the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact legislation dealing only with the abridgement of voting rights based on "race, color, or previous conditions of servitude." If, as Kendall and Phelps imply, the federal government is using Section 5 to protect the interests of "young, . . . elderly and poor voters," that would seem on its face to be an an overstepping of constitutional authority. (That said, the Voting Rights Act also protects "language minorities.")

More important, when the authors assert that what they call "voter suppression laws" have been enacted in "states all over the country," they elide that not all of those states are covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. As the New York Times reported last month:

Voter ID laws have been taken off the table in Texas and Wisconsin. The Justice Department has blocked such a law in South Carolina, which has appealed in federal court. In Florida and Ohio, early voting and voter-registration drives have been largely restored. New Hampshire is going ahead with its law, but voters who do not have the required document will be permitted to vote and have a month to verify their identity.
Strict voter ID laws remain in Kansas, Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee, but they are not seen as battleground states. And while Pennsylvania seems likely to institute a version of its law in the coming year, it will not affect this election.
Among these 11 states, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and parts of Florida and New Hampshire are covered by Section 5. But Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Wisconsin are not. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's strict ID law against a challenge claiming it was unconstitutional on its face. In Ohio, a federal judge struck down a change in early voting rules on equal-protection grounds. In Pennsylvania a state judge enjoined enforcement of the voter ID law until next year, and a Wisconsin judge held that voter ID violated the state constitution.

The merits of these rulings are a subject for another day. The relevant point here is that even if the high court holds that Congress exceeded its authority by reauthorizing Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, there will be ample remedies for voters facing allegedly discriminatory practices. Among these is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which, as the Justice Department's website notes, "prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in [certain] language minority groups." Section 2, unlike Section 5, applies everywhere in the United States.

"As we mark the passing of a civil rights warrior who wore his scars proudly, Lawrence Guyot's story should serve as a reminder of the truly heroic efforts that were necessary to win passage of iconic [!] laws such as the Voting Rights Act," Kendall and Phelps conclude. Paying tribute to the heroes of the past is entirely fitting, but clinging to the policies of the past is reactionary.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #319 on: November 30, 2012, 05:52:28 AM »

"Although that last claim is no doubt true, to conclude therefore that Section 5 remains "appropriate legislation" is analogous to saying that a patient who's been saved from a deadly infection ought to take antibiotics for the rest of his life."

So the South has built up immunity to the VRA? If so, perhaps a new, stronger law is order? I am not sure I understand the author's analogy here.

"Among these is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which, as the Justice Department's website notes, 'prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in [certain] language minority groups.' Section 2, unlike Section 5, applies everywhere in the United States."

So, in conclusion, the VRA should remain law of the land, even though I just an entire article about how it doesn't apply. Amici can be important, but need not offer the strongest legal argument. Sometimes it is the voice that matters, not necessarily the precision of the legal argument. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #320 on: November 30, 2012, 08:17:28 AM »

The analogy seems logical enough to me.  That a medicine was needed in the past does not mean it is needed now.

As far as Sections 2 and 5 go, I understand the argument to say that the special standards and remedies of one, applied to a particular region of the country, are no longer necessary or appropriate, and that should any problems ever arise, there is sufficient remedy in the other, which applies to the country as a whole.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #321 on: November 30, 2012, 08:29:30 AM »

The analogy seems logical enough to me.  That a medicine was needed in the past does not mean it is needed now.

As far as Sections 2 and 5 go, I understand the argument to say that the special standards and remedies of one, applied to a particular region of the country, are no longer necessary or appropriate, and that should any problems ever arise, there is sufficient remedy in the other, which applies to the country as a whole.


Then, perhaps a different medicine with different long term effects would make an even better anology. It seems like pain killers, which have addicitive qualities, for example, might make the point better.

So, if section 2 covers the entire country, what is the complaint about the smaller, more focused section 5?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #322 on: November 30, 2012, 08:38:05 AM »

The analogy seemed reasonable and clear enough to me, but yours would have worked too  smiley

The problem with Section 5 is precisely that it imposes different standards and intrudes more on the sovereignty of particular states with the assertion being that they no longer deserve this heightened scrutiny.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #323 on: November 30, 2012, 08:41:38 AM »

The problem with Section 5 is precisely that it imposes different standards and intrudes more on the sovereignty of particular states with the assertion being that they no longer deserve this heightened scrutiny.


Despite the history? Why extend the national government's scope to the entirity of the nation when there is little to no evidence that there has been a systematic effort to limit voting rights elsewhere? I thought you were a small government, states' rights type. I think I am missing your point, but it seems like like subjecting 50 states, rather than 11, makes government bigger and steps on the rights of more states, right?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #324 on: December 29, 2012, 05:11:29 PM »



http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121224003-dem-voter-fraud-face.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #325 on: January 26, 2013, 02:02:30 PM »

Charles Blow can be quite the blowhard; is there any merit in anything he says here?

Rig the Vote
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: January 25, 2013 271 Comments
If you can’t win by playing fair, cheat.



That seems to be the plan of Republican lawmakers in several battleground states that stubbornly keep going for Democrats during presidential elections. Thanks in part to gerrymandering, many states already have — and will continue to have in the near future — Republican-controlled legislatures.

Republican lawmakers in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin are considering whether to abandon the winner-take-all approach to awarding Electoral College votes and replace it with a proportional allocation.

That change would heavily favor Republican presidential candidates — tilting the voting power away from cities and toward rural areas — and make it more likely that the candidate with the fewest votes over all would win a larger share of electoral votes.

One day I will have to visit the evil lair where they come up with these schemes. They pump them out like a factory. Voter suppression didn’t work in November, and it may even have backfired in some states, so they just devised another devilish plan.

Pete Lund, a Republican state representative in Michigan, “plans to reintroduce legislation that would award all but two of Michigan’s 16 Electoral College votes according to congressional district results,” said an article Friday in The Detroit News.

The paper continued, “The remaining two would go to the candidate winning the statewide majority.”

Lund, who proposed a similar bill in 2012, made Republicans’ intentions completely clear, saying, according to the article: “It got no traction last year. There were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him.”

These bills are a brazen attempt to alter electoral outcomes and chip away at the very idea of democracy, to the benefit of Republican candidates.

The Detroit News also reported that, according to an analysis by Mark Brewer, the state Democratic Party chairman: “Romney would have gotten nine of Michigan’s electoral votes and Obama would have received seven in 2012 under Lund’s proposal. Instead, Obama garnered all 16 Michigan electoral votes en route to his national tally of 332.”

Meanwhile, Obama beat Romney in the state by a margin of nearly 450,000 votes.

Virginia’s bill is further along than Michigan’s. It’s already being debated.

For reference, although Obama won the state of Virginia and all of its electoral votes last year, as he did in 2008, according to The Roanoke Times on Friday, “If the system had been in effect for the 2012 election, Republican Mitt Romney would have won nine of Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, and President Barack Obama would have won four.” Keep in mind that in November, Obama won the state by almost 150,000 votes.

Republicans in Virginia are just as forthright about their intention to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the sponsor of Virginia bill’s, Charles W. Carrico Sr., a Republican, “said he wants to give smaller communities a bigger voice.” Carrico told The Post, “The last election, constituents were concerned that it didn’t matter what they did, that more densely populated areas were going to outvote them.”

Yes, you read that right: he wants to make the votes cast for the candidate receiving the fewest votes matter more than those cast for the candidate receiving the most. In Republican Bizarro World, where the “integrity of the vote” is a phrase used to diminish urban votes and in which democracy is only sacrosanct if Republicans are winning, this statement actually makes sense.

David Weigel of Slate explained the point of the Virginia plan this way: “Make the rural vote matter more and make the metro vote count less.”

Luckily, as the Roanoke paper noted Friday, Ralph Smith, the powerful Republican Virginia state senator, isn’t on board:

“Smith said this morning that he opposes the legislation, calling it ‘a bad idea.’ Smith sits on the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, which will hear the bill next week. Without Smith’s support, it’s unlikely the bill could get to the Senate floor.”

Paul Bibeau, who writes “a blog of dark humor” from Virginia, points out a numerical oddity about the effects of the Virginia law that turns out, upon reflection, to be more stinging than funny: “This bill counts an Obama voter as 3/5 of a person.”

That is because, as Talking Points Memo says, “Obama voters would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population — 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote.”

This is not where we should be in 2013, debating whether to pass bills to reduce urban voters to a fraction of the value of other voters and hoping that someone with the power to stop it thinks it’s a “bad idea.”
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #326 on: January 26, 2013, 02:57:33 PM »

Rig the vote?  I heard the liberal uproar to Virginia doing that.  Romney would have had 9 votes instead of zero.  In a better year, the Republican would win all of Virginia and the Dem wishes for the split.  I don't recall the liberal uproar when Nebraska made that change in 1992 or Maine in 1972.  If both methods are acceptable, why is one cheating?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #327 on: February 06, 2013, 05:36:16 PM »

A Jersey Lesson in Voter Fraud
My grandmother died there in 1940. She voted Democratic for the next 10 years..
smaller Larger 
By THOMAS FLEMING
WSJ

Some youthful memories were stirred by the news this week that the president plans to use his State of the Union speech next Tuesday to urge Congress to make voter registration and ballot-casting easier. Like Mr. Obama, I come from a city with a colorful history of political corruption and vote fraud.

The president's town is Chicago, mine is Jersey City. Both were solidly Democratic in the 1930s and '40s, and their mayors were close friends. At one point in the early '30s, Jersey City's Frank Hague called Chicago's Ed Kelly to say he needed $2 million as soon as possible to survive a coming election. According to my father—one of Boss Hague's right-hand men—a dapper fellow who had taken an overnight train arrived at Jersey City's City Hall the next morning, suitcase in hand, cash inside.

Those were the days when it was glorious to be a Democrat. As a historian, I give talks from time to time. In a recent one, called "Us Against Them," I said it was we Irish and our Italian, Polish and other ethnic allies against "the dirty rotten stinking WASP Protestant Republicans of New Jersey." By thus demeaning the opposition, we had clear consciences as we rolled up killer majorities using tactics that had little to do with the election laws.

My grandmother Mary Dolan died in 1940. But she voted Democratic for the next 10 years. An election bureau official came to our door one time and asked if Mrs. Dolan was still living in our house. "She's upstairs taking a nap," I replied. Satisfied, he left.

Thousands of other ghosts cast similar ballots every Election Day in Jersey City. Another technique was the use of "floaters," tough Irishmen imported from New York who voted five, six and even 10 times at various polling places.

Equally effective was cash-per-vote. On more than one Election Day, my father called the ward's chief bookmaker to tell him: "I need 10 grand by one o'clock." He always got it, and his ward had a formidable Democratic majority when the polls closed.

Other times, as the clock ticked into the wee hours, word would often arrive in the polling places that the dirty rotten stinking WASP Protestant Republicans had built up a commanding lead in South Jersey, where "Nucky" Johnson (currently being immortalized on TV in HBO's "Boardwalk Empire") had a small Republican machine in Atlantic City.

By dawn, tens of thousands of hitherto unknown Jersey City ballots would be counted and another Democratic governor or senator would be in office, and the Democratic presidential candidate would benefit as well. Things in Chicago were no different, Boss Hague would remark after returning from one of his frequent visits.

I have to laugh when I hear current-day Democrats not only lobbying against voter-identification laws but campaigning to make voting even easier than it already is. More laughable is the idea of dressing up the matter as a civil-rights issue.

My youthful outlook on life—that anything goes against the rotten stinking WASP Protestant Republicans—evaporated while I served in the U.S. Navy in World War II. In that conflict, millions of people like me acquired a new understanding of what it meant to be an American.

Later I became a historian of this nation's early years—and I can assure President Obama that no founding father would tolerate the idea of unidentified voters. These men understood the possibility and the reality of political corruption. They knew it might erupt at any time within a city or state.

The president's party—which is still my party—has inspired countless Americans by looking out for the less fortunate. No doubt that instinct motivated Mr. Obama in his years as a community organizer in Chicago. Such caring can still be a force, but that force, and the Democratic Party, will be constantly soiled and corrupted if the right and the privilege to vote becomes an easily manipulated joke.

Mr. Fleming is a former president of the Society of American Historians.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #328 on: February 09, 2013, 09:47:09 AM »



The Coming Battle Over the Ballot Box A voting-rights veteran talks about the liberal campaign to expand the electoral rolls—and why Obama is on board
By JAMES TARANTO
WSJ

When President Obama declared victory last November, you might have missed the way he spun his voter-turnout triumph into a grievance: "I want to thank every American who participated in this election, whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time," he said on election night, adding: "By the way, we need to fix that."

He returned to the subject at his inauguration: "Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote." And in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the president is expected to call on Congress to enact new voting legislation. Several liberal Democrats have already introduced a bill styled the Voter Empowerment Act of 2013.

The effort is a cynical partisan undertaking, according to election lawyer Hans von Spakovsky. In December, some "three dozen of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups, including union organizations," held a strategy session, he says, citing a report from the liberal magazine Mother Jones. They agreed to "oppose all voter integrity efforts, things like voter ID," to push for federal legislation requiring states to permit voter registration on Election Day, and to institute "automatic" voter registration.

"They basically want to use the government to do Democratic voter outreach and voter registration for them," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "They believe that if they can get, for example, everyone registered to vote who is currently getting government benefits like welfare . . . then that will somehow get them more votes at the polls and make it easier to win elections."

The Voter Empowerment Act would also mandate automatic registration of individuals on motor-vehicle, tax and university rolls, many of whom are aliens or have multiple addresses in different states: "You're basically going to be registering lots of people who are ineligible and leading to many duplicate registrations." The groups pushing such efforts—among them the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU and the NAACP—include "the same organizations that have been filing lawsuits over the past few years trying to prevent states from verifying the accuracy and eligibility of people on their voter-registration databases," Mr. von Spakovsky says.

All this to solve what he argues is a nonexistent problem. "The number of people who don't vote or don't register because they have some kind of problem with registration is a tiny, tiny percentage. It is so easy these days to register to vote, including the fact that many states now allow online registration, that . . . it is not going to increase turnout."

Which would be just as well if, as Mr. Obama claims, polling places are too crowded. That problem too, in Mr. von Spakovsky's view, "has been widely exaggerated."

A Pew Center study found that in 2008—when, as Mr. von Spakovsky reminds me, "we had the highest turnout in a presidential election since the 1960s"—the average wait time was 10 to 20 minutes." In 2012, according to an MIT study, Florida had the longest average wait time, 45 minutes. Long waits can be a problem in big cities, but officials "can easily fix that themselves, without any federal help, by reducing the precinct sizes."

Hans Anatol von Spakovsky, born in Alabama in 1959, is a first-generation American. "My father was Russian," he says, and "my mother grew up in Nazi Germany." They met at a camp for displaced persons after World War II. "My childhood was filled with stories from them of what it's like living in a dictatorship, living with the secret police. I very early understood the importance of our democratic process and how important it is to protect our right to vote."

As a young Atlanta lawyer in the late 1980s, he was appointed to the Fulton County Board of Registrations and Elections. "That's where the rubber meets the road," he says in his Southern drawl. "That taught me a lot of lessons about how our elections are run and things that we could do to improve their accuracy and integrity."

He tells a story from the field: "The very first thing I ever did was to be a poll watcher in a local election. I walked into a polling place—this was in a housing project in Atlanta—and discovered that the local election officials who were working the desk where people checked in to vote were asking people coming in whether they were a Republican or a Democrat. This was in a general election, where you don't have to answer a question like that. . . . I called it in, I complained about it, and they sent an official down to stop this from happening."

In 2000 he served as a recount observer for the Bush campaign in Florida. He later joined the Justice Department's Civil Rights division as a career lawyer (that is, not a political appointee), where he had "four years of very intense experience" working on the enforcement of voting laws. In January 2006, Mr. Bush gave Mr. von Spakovsky a recess appointment to the Federal Election Commission, where he "learned the other side of the coin, which is our campaign finance rules." When Senate Democrats balked at confirming him for a full term, he withdrew his nomination. In 2008 he joined the Heritage Foundation, where he runs the Civil Justice Reform Initiative.

Mr. von Spakovsky is a vigorous critic of Attorney General Eric Holder, whom he accuses of politicizing the Justice Department by enforcing voting laws selectively. The bill of particulars starts with a sensational case: "They threw out and dismissed the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, and that was one of the most obvious cases of intimidation that I have ever seen." On Election Day 2008, two members of the group, wearing paramilitary garb, had stood outside a polling place and shouted racial slurs. One of them was armed with a billy club.

The Justice Department dismissed the case, Mr. von Spakovsky says, "because they did not believe, and did not want, the Voting Rights Act used to protect white voters or to prosecute black defendants. We know that's the case because political appointees within the Justice Department said that in front of witnesses, and those witnesses eventually testified under oath."

Mr. Holder has also "fought every effort to improve the integrity of our election process." The then-chief of the Justice Department's Voting Section, a career lawyer, had "recommended at least eight states be investigated because it looked like they were not properly cleaning up their voter registration rolls by taking off people who had died or moved or otherwise become ineligible. He was told, again by an Obama political appointee, that they had no interest whatsoever in enforcing that law . . . [or] in doing anything that doesn't increase the registration and turnout of minority voters."

In this context, "minority" means "nonwhite," even when whites are a minority. In 2008 voters in Kinston, N.C., a majority-black city of 22,000, approved a ballot measure to establish nonpartisan elections for mayor and City Council. The following year, the Justice Department overrode those citizens by denying the city "preclearance" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

"Their entire concern in the case was not for the actual racial minority there, which is whites, but for the blacks who were the majority," Mr. von Spakovsky says. The Justice Department "objected, saying that it was discriminatory to do this—even though black voters had voted for it—because black voters wouldn't know who to vote for if party labels weren't next to the names on the ballot." In the face of a court challenge, the department reversed itself and granted preclearance in 2012.

"The left is constantly working on these voting issues," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "They have dozens of organizations, with a lot of money." The goal, he says, is "to change the rules to give them an advantage in elections. The other side of the political aisle just doesn't do that."

The left often accuses the right of seeking to rig voting rules in its favor, often adding the additional poisonous charge of racism. "They keep trying to scare black voters into thinking that these voter ID laws are an attempt to take away the right to vote," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "We know that's not true. The experience of states that have had voter ID laws in place for [several] years, like Georgia and Indiana, shows that it does not suppress the vote of black voters; it doesn't in any way keep them out of the polls."

The liberal website TalkingPointsMemo.com reported that in December Chanelle Hardy of the National Urban League boasted that efforts to institute voter ID had (in the reporter's paraphrase) "flipped a switch with the African-American vote . . . rekindling whatever enthusiasm had waned after 2008's historic Obama win."

Far from being racist, Mr. von Spakovsky argues, "voter ID is just a basic measure to protect the integrity of the voter-registration process. . . . A lot of times, the victims of voter fraud are in fact black voters and people in poor communities. They are the ones who often are taken advantage of, particularly by some Democrats, because they are less likely to complain or find out that their vote has been stolen."

Example: In the 1990s, 11 defendants from 80% black Greene County, Ala., were convicted in a voter-fraud conspiracy whose aim, Mr. von Spakovsky says, was "to prevent reformers from winning elections." The reformers, also black Democrats, were challenging incumbents in primaries. "Those reformers wanted to clean up local government, which was very important to the well-being of African-American residents in this very poor community." The defendants received support from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

On the other hand, Mr. von Spakovsky acknowledges the partisan motives of Republican lawmakers in Virginia and elsewhere who have recently floated proposals to allocate their states' electoral votes by congressional district. That would enable GOP presidential candidates to carry a portion—in some cases a majority—of the state's electoral vote while losing the statewide popular vote.


'I think it's a horrible idea," Mr. von Spakovsky says. "We have enough problems right now with the way congressional districts are gerrymandered. Particularly, we have a real problem with racial gerrymandering in our congressional districts. Well, if state legislatures were suddenly given the opportunity to influence the outcome of a presidential election dependent on how they drew up congressional districts, that would make the kind of gerrymandering we see now look tame in comparison."

Mr. von Spakovsky says it's "disappointing" that voter issues have become a partisan flash point. "It's too bad that some folks try to use this to scare voters and to raise money. It should be a bipartisan effort. The best kind of election is one in which the losing candidate says, 'Well, I lost the election, but it was a fair election.' . . . That's the kind of elections we should be striving for."

President Obama, who has won two such elections himself, could do worse than to take heed.


Mr. Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #329 on: March 08, 2013, 12:03:09 PM »

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/07/report-james-okeefe-to-pay-100k-settlement-to-f/192958

According to court documents obtained by Wonkette, conservative activist James O'Keefe has agreed to a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed against him by Juan Carlos Vera, a former employee of ACORN. Vera filed the suit against O'Keefe in 2010, alleging O'Keefe had illegally taped their conversation at an ACORN office in California as part of his fraudulent "exposé" of the community activist group.

Vera was one of the ACORN employees portrayed in O'Keefe's videos as offering assistance in setting up a nonexistent child prostitution ring. After his encounter with O'Keefe, Vera contacted the police to report "possible human smuggling," unaware that he had been duped. Vera claims he lost his job as a result of O'Keefe's deception after the conservative's video of their encounter was posted on a Breitbart website.

According to the settlement documents obtained by Wonkette, O'Keefe has agreed to "pay Vera $100,000.00," and that "as part of this settlement O'Keefe states that at the time of the publication of the video of Juan Carlos Vera he was unaware of Vera's claims to have notified a police officer of the incident. O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."

After the ACORN prostitution hoax fell apart, O'Keefe and his Project Veritas group released a series of heavily edited undercover sting videos attempting to document voter fraud, most of which collapsed under scrutiny, sometimes spectacularly so.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #330 on: March 08, 2013, 03:24:58 PM »

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/07/report-james-okeefe-to-pay-100k-settlement-to-f/192958

According to court documents obtained by Wonkette, conservative activist James O'Keefe has agreed to a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit filed against him by Juan Carlos Vera, a former employee of ACORN. Vera filed the suit against O'Keefe in 2010, alleging O'Keefe had illegally taped their conversation at an ACORN office in California as part of his fraudulent "exposé" of the community activist group.

Vera was one of the ACORN employees portrayed in O'Keefe's videos as offering assistance in setting up a nonexistent child prostitution ring. After his encounter with O'Keefe, Vera contacted the police to report "possible human smuggling," unaware that he had been duped. Vera claims he lost his job as a result of O'Keefe's deception after the conservative's video of their encounter was posted on a Breitbart website.

According to the settlement documents obtained by Wonkette, O'Keefe has agreed to "pay Vera $100,000.00," and that "as part of this settlement O'Keefe states that at the time of the publication of the video of Juan Carlos Vera he was unaware of Vera's claims to have notified a police officer of the incident. O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."

After the ACORN prostitution hoax fell apart, O'Keefe and his Project Veritas group released a series of heavily edited undercover sting videos attempting to document voter fraud, most of which collapsed under scrutiny, sometimes spectacularly so.



Media Matters? You really want to use that as a source, BD?  rolleyes
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #331 on: March 08, 2013, 03:28:59 PM »

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/mediamattersagendasandactivities.html

Media Matters: Agendas, Activities, and Worldviews

By Jacob Laksin
Discover The Networks
2005


Established in May 2004, Media Matters is a self-styled "Web-based, not-for-profit…progressive research and information center" whose animating mission is to "systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation." Falling under the category of "misinformation," however, is not merely "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible," but also that which "forwards the conservative agenda."

Functioning, in effect, as a clearinghouse for leftwing outrage, the organization's stock in trade is feigning outrage at perspectives that clash with the far-left prejudices of its directors. As a consequence, Media Matters has a well-earned reputation for portraying honest differences of opinion as lies or worse.

In this, the organization takes its cues from its founder and CEO, the self-described former "right-wing hit man" turned left-wing hit man, David Brock. A former dirt-dishing reporter for the conservative magazine The American Spectator in the 1990s, Brock today claims to have undergone a political epiphany. He has renounced his past writings, critical of liberal figures from Anita Hill to President Bill Clinton, as a confection of lies and slanders. But the evidence suggests that while he now identifies with the political left, his modus operandi is unchanged. As his tell-all books, Blinded By The Right and The Republican Noise Machine demonstrate, dishing dirt and distorting the facts remain his stock-in-trade.

A case in point is Brock's justification for Media Matters. In Brock's judgment, and against all evidence, the mainstream media has fallen under the sway of conservative ideology, thus explaining, in Brock's conspiratorial view, the many discussions about "liberal bias" in prominent media outlets. "The right wing in this country has dominated the debate over liberal bias. By dominating that debate, my belief is they've moved the media itself to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right," Brock says. Hence the supposed need for Media Matters: "I wanted to create an institution to combat what they're doing."

During a February 2005 talk at the leftwing Center for American Progress, Brock said: "We have seen the mainstream media increasingly accommodating conservatism and this is not an accident. This is the result of coordinated and financed effort by the right wing to pressure, push and bully the media to do that. The media today is a political issue. I believe it is conservatives that have politicized it." The same theme pervades Brock's 2004 book, The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy, in which he claims that the "most important sectors of the political media—most of cable TV news, the majority of popular op-ed columns, almost all of talk radio, a substantial chunk of the book market, and many of the most highly trafficked Web sites," provide a "structural advantage for the GOP and conservatism." It does not seem to occur to Brock that such alternative media outlets, unlike the ostensibly non-partisan news media that they charge with liberal bias and that reach many times the audience, are designed specifically to express conservative opinions.

Although polls indicate that Americans overwhelmingly reject the assertion that mainstream media outlets espouse a conservative bias, the claim has found an enthusiastic audience among increasingly bitter Democrats and leftwing political operatives eager to account for the diminished fortunes of the Democratic Party and the dwindling appeal of welfare-statism and liberal appeasement attitudes as a governing ideology. So when Brock announced his intention to counter the supposedly bullying influence of conservatives on the media, leftwing billionaires lined up to bankroll his cause.

Standing behind Brock was John Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton administration and the head of the "progressive" Washington DC think tank, the Center for American Progress. Beyond helping Brock develop Media Matters, Podesta provided Brock with office space in the capitol for his fledgling outfit. Well-to-do liberals followed in short order. Media Matters received over $2 million in seed donations from a roster of affluent donors. (This was a sum larger than a ten year budget for a site like www.frontpagemag.com.)

The list of Brock's donors included Leo Hindery Jr., a former cable magnate; Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the fashion company Esprit and a close ally of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York; James Hormel, a San Francisco philanthropist who nearly served as ambassador to Luxembourg during the Clinton administration; Bren Simon, a Democratic activist and the wife of shopping-mall developer Mel Simon; and New York psychologist and philanthropist Gail Furman. Media Matters, which can accept tax-deductible contributions under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, has also benefited from the patronage of Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp. Lewis, a longtime consort of leftwing financier George Soros, has disbursed more than $7 million to so-called "527s," activist groups that affect political neutrality in order to solicit unlimited contributions under a provision of the Internal Revenue Service tax code.

Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. The tactic met with success until December 1, 2004, when conservative journalist and author David Horowitz published a column in Front Page Magazine connecting Media Matters to Soros. Horowitz's allegations prompted an indignant response from Media Matters, subtlely titled "Proven Liar Horowitz said Media Matters Ignores the Facts," accusing him of dealing in "outright falsehood." Wrote Media Matters: "Horowitz asserted that Media Matters has received funding from billionaire philanthropist George Soros. To date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated." (emphasis added)

But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) had detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress and Soros confederate Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, Media Matters was forced to retreat from its phony defense (but did not offer any apologies to Horowitz). A Media Matters spokesman cautiously explained that "Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros" (emphasis added), a transparent evasion.

Nor were groups cited by CNC the only connection between Media Matters and Soros. As investigative journalist Byron York has noted, another Soros-affiliate that bankrolled Media Matters was the New Democratic Network. In addition, Soros is reported to be involved in the newly formed Democracy Alliance, a partnership between some 80 affluent leftwing financiers who have each vowed to contribute $1 million or more in order to build up an ideological infrastructure of leftwing thinks tanks and advocacy groups. News reports reveal that one of the main beneficiaries of the Alliance's funding will be Media Matters. Brock, for his part, has no hesitation about conscripting his organization into the embryonic movement that aims to amplify the agenda of the political left. "I view Media Matters as part of a large machine that's being built," Brock told an interviewer in August of 2004. The organization's budget has kept pace with its escalating importance to the political left. By August of 2004, Media Matters' operating budget had already doubled to $4 million.

Much of this success is attributable to Media Matters' nakedly partisan mission. That mission is essentially to smear and defame every conservative spokesperson, reporter, TV anchor or public figure that comes in its sights. Typically Media Matters labels any conservative viewpoint as "a lie" "false" "a smear" "racist" or some other anti-intellectual epithet designed to discredit rather than dispute its political opposition. Media Matters compiles an archive of these distortions which the leftwing network spreads throughout the Internet.

An August 19, 2005 posting on the Media Matters website was headlined "The Angry Right Smears Cindy Sheehan." It focused on remarks made by conservative commentators critical of the anti-war activist. Notably, however, Media Matters made no effort to rebut the arguments advanced by those commentators, evidently deeming it axiomatic that the mere reproduction of conservative opinion was sufficient demonstration of its falsehood. Indeed, the only "smear" that appeared on the site was the one hurled by a Media Matters writer at David Horowitz, whom the organization denounced as "reliably offensive." Earlier, in December of 2004, Media Matters had attempted to convict Horowitz of "racial insensitivity." The organization provided no evidence for the incendiary charge. Instead, it adduced several instances in which Horowitz had criticized public figures, including Democratic Party figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for expressing racist opinions themselves.

Besides Horowitz, Media Matters nurses a special contempt for conservative and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh. Inevitably in its zeal to shatter Limbaugh's credibility, Media Matters routinely engages in unwarranted attacks. In June of 2005, for instance, the organization lashed out at Limbaugh for his opinion on the so-called Downing Street memo, which accused the Bush administration of manipulating evidence and otherwise fudging facts in order to promulgate its policies. "Limbaugh baselessly suggested Downing Street memo 'may be a fake,'" screamed a Media Matters headline. Yet, as Media Matters was forced to acknowledge in the compass of its attack, Limbaugh's remarks, far from being "baseless," were actually derived from a report that had appeared in the Associated Press. Moreover, Media Matters itself was unsure of the veracity of the AP's account, describing it tentatively as an "apparently inaccurate AP account." This did not lead it to exonerate Limbaugh, however.

It is a measure of Media Matters' disdain for Limbaugh that the organization has put its website at the service of his most virulent critics. When liberal MSNBC host Keith Olbermann pronounced host Rush Limbaugh the "worst person in the world" in August of 2005, Media Matters gleefully splashed the slander on its website. In 2004, David Brock even hired Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin to conduct a survey focusing on, among other media-related topics, public perceptions of Limbaugh. Journalist Byron York recounted the survey's not quite earth-shaking revelations: "Among other things, Garin found that a majority of those surveyed believe Limbaugh often presents views that are biased, 'rather than impartial and balanced.' Garin also found that a large part of Limbaugh's audience is politically conservative." York noted that Media Matters assigns two full-time researchers to monitor Limbaugh's statements and transcribe his program. That's something money can definitely buy.

Media Matters' zeal to bury conservative viewpoints under a mountain of smears is not surprisingly accompanied by a disdain for the First Amendment. In August 2004, Tim Chavez, a columnist for The Tennessean, reported receiving an email from a Media Matters employee named Melissa Salmanowitz. In it, Salmanowitz, a Deputy Director of Media Relations at Media Matters, pressed Chavez to write about Media Matters' efforts to get chain book retailers to ban sales of Unfit for Command, a book critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Chavez did not comply. Media Matters launched a month-long assault on Unfit for Command and the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," the group responsible for the book, devoting its website to a blitz of denunciatory articles that attempted to discredit its members as, alternatively, Republican shills and liars.

Driving Media Matters' fusillades against the Swift Boat veterans was its partisan support for Democrat John Kerry. Even as it paid lip service to fairness, stressing that "honest scrutiny of [John Kerry's] record might be 'fair game,'" its provenance as a Democratic Party hit squad made the Media Matters team's gesture of objectivity seem even more empty than usual. Media Matters spent the months leading up to the 2004 presidential campaign dismissing conservative criticism of Kerry as nothing more than "distortions." To take one example, Kerry's critics disproved his claims that he spent Christmas of 1968 "sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia." Rather than making a concession to this reality - which was generally conceded -- Media Matters brazenly portrayed all attacks on Kerry's record as "unfounded, contradictory, and discredited." The leftwing Tides Foundation, evidently impressed by Media Matters' willingness to place pro-Democratic partisanship above accuracy, gave Media Matters $100,000 in 2004 for what it described as "voter education."

The length to which Media Matters went to protect Kerry from conservative critics was representative of its intimacy with the Democratic Party, whose operatives, led by Podesta, were in fact responsible for its creation. Prior to founding Media Matters, David Brock met with a number of leading Democratic Party figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and former Vice President Al Gore. Today, more than a few of the organization's roughly 30 staff members are Democratic operatives. To cite just a handful of examples, Dennis Yedwab, the chief communications strategist for Media Matters, is the erstwhile director of strategic resources at Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Similarly, Brock's personal assistant, Mandy Vlasz is a Democratic pollster and a veteran consultant to Democratic campaigns, including the 2000 Gore/Lieberman campaign. Katie Barge, the director of research at Media Matters, formerly presided over opposition research for Senator John Edwards' unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign.

In its short history, Media Matters has established itself as one of the most vocal and irresponsible combat organs of the Democratic Party. In 2004 the organization boasted that its website had elicited some 150,000 comments in its discussion forums and that over 22,000 subscribers had registered to receive its e-mail alerts. Brock has also become a regular feature on leftwing radio stations like Air America, where he appears every Wednesday. The show, according to Brock, "is a great means for us to be able to disseminate our material…" More specifically, programs like those of Air America provide Brock with a venue to defame conservatives as individuals who "are simply willing to lie," and who "are not necessarily trying to win these arguments on a factual level" - a perfect self-description. Media Matters staffers are also favorites of such supposedly non-partisan radio programs as National Public Radio's On The Media, which invites them to complain, as Media Matters senior advisor Jamison Foser did during a July 2005 appearance, that media coverage of the Bush administration is insufficiently critical.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #332 on: March 08, 2013, 03:40:05 PM »

"After the ACORN prostitution hoax fell apart, O'Keefe and his Project Veritas group released a series of heavily edited undercover sting videos attempting to document voter fraud, most of which collapsed under scrutiny, sometimes spectacularly so."

You want to stand behond that BD? Go to the youtube channel below and you can view the uncut Project Veritas videos unedited. You'll note that the MSM never posts the uncut video of anything they do. Yes?

http://www.youtube.com/user/veritasvisuals
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #333 on: March 08, 2013, 09:11:03 PM »

Very pertinent responses GM, but the question remains as to why O'Keefe is coughing up $100,000.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #334 on: March 08, 2013, 09:24:05 PM »

Very pertinent responses GM, but the question remains as to why O'Keefe is coughing up $100,000.

Per their website, it was cheaper to settle rather than continue prolonged litigation. Which is a viable scenario.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #335 on: March 08, 2013, 09:38:15 PM »

That is plausible, and unfortunate in more than one way , , , as BD post illustrates , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #336 on: March 08, 2013, 09:40:52 PM »

Soros money buys a lot of lawyers.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2137


« Reply #337 on: March 09, 2013, 05:44:46 AM »

GM, I would like to apologize for using the MediaMatters website. I won't again. But, the damned thing is I can't find on FOX. Weird, huh?



James O'Keefe Pays $100,000 To ACORN Employee He Smeared-Conservative Media Yawns

Remember James O’Keefe?

That would be the same James O’Keefe who brought down community organizing and voter registration organization ACORN in his march to becoming a conservative icon for his alleged ‘good works’.

Matthew Phelan and Liz Farkas over at Wonkette have broken the story about the first bit of blowback resulting from O’Keefe’s brand of ‘journalism’.

It seems that the master of the cleverly edited—if highly deceptive—video reel is now being required to pay the sum of $100,000 to Juan Carlos Vera, a one time California employee of ACORN. Mr. Vera had been portrayed by O’Keefe as being a willing participant when O’Keefe and his accomplice, Hanna Giles, proposed smuggling young women into the United States to work as prostitutes.

While Mr. Vera had no idea he was being surreptitiously video taped—which is not surprising given that California law expressly bars the secret recording of one’s voice or image—there was also something Mr. O’Keefe did not know until after he released the damaging video of his conversation with Vera for broadcast.

As soon as O’Keefe and his partner-in-crime left the ACORN location, Mr. Vera called the police to report the entire incident. It turns out that Vera had been playing along with O’Keefe in an effort to ensnare O’Keefe and Giles whom Vera believed were in the act of breaking the law by proposing to engage in the importing of young women to become prostitutes.

Oops.

As part of the settlement, Mr. O’Keefe was required to say that he “regrets any pain” he caused Mr. Vera—although I have some doubts as to whether O’Keefe has been losing any sleep over his illegal behavior and the harm he did to Mr. Vera.

Why might I feel that way?

Because Mr. O’Keefe’s lawyer—Los Angeles attorney Michael Madigan—wasted no time in characterizing the $100,000 payment as a “nuisance settlement.”  Apparently, when releasing videos smearing an innocent man by suggesting he is willing to participate in the flesh trade turns out to do that individual serious damage, it counts as nothing more than a nuisance to Mr. O’Keefe and his attorney.

A report issued by the California Attorney General in 2010 revealed that O’Keefe and Giles were given immunity from prosecution (a serious mistake in my opinion) in exchange for turning over the complete and unedited tapes that O’Keefe shot in Los Angeles, San Francisco and National City where O’Keefe worked his magic on Juan Carlos Vera.

The AG’s report highlighted how Mr. O’Keefe edited his videos to appear as if he was engaging in his ACORN hi-jinks wearing “stereotypical 1970’s pimp garb”, the intent being to suggest that ACORN employees would willingly do business with someone dressed in this manner. However, it turns out that O’Keefe was actually wearing a coat and tie when he entered the ACORN offices. The report also stated that ACORN employees “may be able to bring a private suit against O’Keefe and Giles for recording a confidential conversation.”

Here’s hoping that Mr. Vera is but the first of many to take advantage of the opportunity to bring such a legal action.

Oddly, a Google scan revealed no coverage of the settlement in Breitbart.com or any of the other conservative media who so enjoyed Mr. O’Keefe’s exploits.

Go figure.

 rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes Indeed.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #338 on: March 09, 2013, 08:13:48 AM »

Looks like BD is making a fair point here-- though I would give a few days for it to trickle across the frontiers of ideology before definitively jumpin on FOX et al.

Given that JCV did call the police promptly, it would appear that O'Keefe has come up quite short in a matter of integrity.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #339 on: March 09, 2013, 08:18:23 AM »

California is a two party state, when it comes to audio taping. It would be interesting to read the statute and the AG's report.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #340 on: March 09, 2013, 12:29:07 PM »

If true, I also find the post helpful.  I did not know one ACORN office had already called the police. It would be nice if they added to the report the timing of that and the actual police report if it is public information.  There were many ACORN offices approached in that film, did they all call the police?

That film was beyond bizarre. Entertaining perhaps, but not among the original allegations levied against ACORN.

If Fox misses this update after playing up the original story then shame on them.  Mark it against them on their career scorecard.  The other main conduits are missing much bigger stories every day IMHO.  I resent having to go to right wing sources for basic facts and I appreciate when Bigdog or anyone else helps set the record straight.  It does not advance a partisan political agenda to be repeating a falsehood, (unless you are liberal).


Going back a step on ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now was founded in 1970.

1) My first allegation against ACORN is strictly political.  They are highly funded, highly organized, EXTREMELY left wing and highly effective at getting their message out in urban areas to people vulnerable to that message.  They were so highly targeted that they operated under the radar of nearly everyone not running in those circles.  I was shocked to discover them in my inner city operations and how far off of mainstream they really were.  So far so good, there is nothing wrong with being left wing, extreme, political, organized and effective.  As a matter of politics I think people who favor economic freedom ought to be aware of the operations of these extreme groups in order to expose their extreme views and counter them politically with a more hopeful message than shaking down others for money.  Jump forward to the Obama reelection campaign of 2012 and remove the tarnished name ACORN, these organizations perhaps delivered the political victory more than almost any other factor.

One of their their main political and legal causes was to cause more housing resources to go to people who could not afford them, a big factor leading to the collapse in housing, banking, employment and the economic prospects for the people they purport to help.  Here is a video, not of ACORN, but of their view represented at the highest levels, then Sec. of Housing (HUD) a youthful Andrew Cuomo in 1998 admitting these federally backed housing loans would not be made on creditworthiness criteria and yes "there will be a higher risk and I'm sure there will be a higher default rate...": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlYmLAMbrw&feature=player_embedded

2) ACORN merged its extreme left wing political activities with community do-gooding.  Nothing wrong in concept with that.  A non-profit operating to help a community in need ought to be able to have a political voice too, like businesses and unions should.  IRS questions come up because they are subsidized by the taxpayers in the form of tax deductible donations for different purposes.  Are they political, are they charity, does it matter?

3) ACORN mixing political activism with charitable work receives direct taxpayer support - big time.  To this, I object.  We shouldn't have taxpayer money supporting a political message.  They were funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, almost unmeasurable, and they were funded in different names after congress voted to revoke their funding.  Because they know their political operations shouldn't be taxpayer funded, they built the FIREWALL.

4) A FIREWALL that separates all charitable work from all political activities, if you believe that!  I watched the head of ACORN tell us on the PBS News Hour, posted somewhere in this thread, that taxpayer money cannot bleed over into political operations because of the FIREWALL.  I will offer a reward for an authentic photograph of the firewall or information that would lead to the discovery of its exact location.  I believe it may sit right next to the social security lockbox - or in the safety deposit box area of Gringotts.

5) And then we have the criminal, electoral corruption of ACORN, enough to have put this operation in the category of an organized crime ring IMO, also documented in this thread.  


http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/?singlepage=true

October 14, 2008    ACORN Voter Fraud Guide

...a national community organizing group is being investigated in at least 14 states and several swing states for massive irregularities. This news would make headlines anyway, but what made it worse was that Barack Obama was a key player in this organization, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in the past. Obama trained its local leaders, represented the organization in court, and worked to funnel funds to the organization. The Obama campaign also donated $800,000 this year to an ACORN affiliate.

What is ACORN?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a community-based organization that advocates for low and moderate income families founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Rathke, one of the most powerful hard-Left activists in America, is a former member of a radical 1960s group, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The Weathermen terrorist group split off from the SDS in 1969. ACORN says its priorities include better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools.

ACORN is also known for its voter registration efforts.  This year alone (2008) ACORN has registered 1,315,037 voters.

Although the organization prides itself for its registration efforts, it also has a long history of scandal. In the state of Missouri in 1986, 12 ACORN members were convicted of voter fraud. But that case was not an isolated incident in the state. In December 2004, in St. Louis, six volunteers pleaded guilty of dozens of election law violations for filling out registration cards with names of dead people and other bogus information. Authorities launched an earlier investigation after noticing that among the new voters was longtime St. Louis alderman Albert “Red” Villa, who died in 1990. The volunteers worked for “Operation Big Vote” — a branch of ACORN — in St. Louis.

On February 10, 2005, Nonaresa Montgomery, a paid worker who ran Operation Big Vote during the run-up to the 2001 mayoral primary, was found guilty of vote fraud. Montgomery hired about 30 workers to do fraudulent voter-registration canvassing. Instead of knocking on doors, the volunteers sat at a St. Louis fast food restaurant and wrote out names and information from an outdated voter list. About 1,500 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in.

In October 2006, St. Louis election officials discovered at least 1,492 “potentially fraudulent” voter registration cards. They were all turned in by ACORN volunteers.

In November 2006, 20,000 to 35,000 questionable voter registration forms were turned in by ACORN officials in Missouri. Most all of these were from St. Louis and Kansas City areas, where ACORN purportedly sought to help empower the “disenfranchised” minorities living there. But the ACORN workers weren’t just told to register new voters. The workers admitted on camera that they were coached to tell registrants to vote for Democrat Claire McCaskill.

In 2007, in Kansas City, Missouri, four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud. In April of this year eight ACORN employees in St. Louis city and county pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting bogus voter registrations.

And, that was just Missouri.

This year there have been several accusations of fraud against ACORN. Over a dozen states are investigating the organization already. Here is a complete list of the ongoing investigations:

North Carolina — State Board of Elections officials have found at least 100 voter registration forms with the same names over and over again. The forms were turned in by ACORN. Officials sent about 30 applications to the state Board of Elections for possible fraud investigation.

Ohio — The New York Post reported that a Cleveland man said he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times. The complaints have sparked an investigation by election officials into the organization, whose political wing has supported Barack Obama. Witnesses have already been subpoenaed to testify against the organization.

Nevada — Authorities raided the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now on Tuesday October 7, 2008, after a month-long investigation. The fraudulent voter registrations included the Dallas Cowboys starting line-up.

Indiana — More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana’s Lake County filled out by ACORN employees turned out to be bogus. Officials also stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.

Connecticut — Officials are looking into a complaint alleging ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in Bridgeport. In one instance, an official said a card was filled out for a 7-year-old girl, whose age was listed as 27. 8,000 cards were submitted in Bridgeport.

Missouri — The Kansas City election board is reporting 100 duplicate applications and 280 with fake information. Acorn officials agreed that at least 4% of their registrations were bogus. Governor Matt Blunt condemned the attempts by ACORN to commit voter fraud.

Pennsylvania — Officials are investigating suspicious or incomplete registration forms submitted by ACORN. 252,595 voter registrations were submitted in Philadelphia. Remarkably, 57,435 were rejected — most of them submitted by ACORN.

Wisconsin — In Milwaukee ACORN improperly used felons as registration workers. Additionally, its workers are among 49 cases of bad registrations sent to authorities for possible charges, as first reported by the Journal Sentinel.

Florida — The Pinellas County Elections supervisor says his office has received around 35 voter registrations that appear to be bogus. There is also a question of 30,000 felons who are registered illegally to vote. Their connections with ACORN are not yet clear.

Texas — Of the 30,000 registration cards ACORN turned in, Harris County tax assessor Paul Bettencourt says just more than 20,000 are valid. And just look at some of the places ACORN was finding those voters. A church just next door is the address for around 150 people. More than 250 people claim a homeless outreach center as their home address. Some listed a county mental health facility as their home and one person even wrote down the Harris County jail at the sheriff’s office.

Michigan — ACORN in Detroit is being investigated after several municipal clerks reported fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications coming through. The clerk interviewed said the fraud appears to be widespread.

New Mexico – The Bernalillo County clerk has notified prosecutors that some 1,100 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by ACORN.

Other links:
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/22/morning-bell-the-lefts-fraudulent-embezzzling-illegal-vote-stealing-machine/
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003806904_webvotefraud26m.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Reform-group-turned-in-2-000-suspicious-voter-1229151.php
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/86913867.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/region/7-acorn-workers-charged-with-forgery-341234/
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/23/ex-acorn-official-gets-probation-voter-registratio/
http://www.lvrj.com/news/acorn-pleads-guilty-to-felony-compensation-for-registration-of-voters-119367839.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/judge-fines-acorn-5-000-for-voter-registration-scheme-127467598.html
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/media-center/2008-news-releases/october-14-2008-2

Give CNN credit for this excellent piece:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gkUKOSnv2zY
« Last Edit: March 09, 2013, 02:49:54 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #341 on: March 09, 2013, 12:34:56 PM »

http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-releases-report-detailing-litany-problems-acorn-no-criminality

Brown Releases Report Detailing a Litany of Problems with ACORN, But No Criminality


Thursday, April 1, 2010



Contact: (415) 703-5837




SAN DIEGO – California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today released a report, including newly obtained videotapes, that shows some members of the community organizing group ACORN engaged in “highly inappropriate behavior,” but committed no violation of criminal laws.
 
Brown’s report also uncovered “likely violations” of state law, including dumping 500 pages of confidential records into a dumpster, failure to file a 2007 tax return, and four instances of possible voter registration fraud by ACORN in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election, as well as other irregularities in the group’s California operations. These irregularities have been referred to the appropriate authorities.
 
“A few ACORN members exhibited terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the investigation,” Brown said. “But they didn’t commit prosecutable crimes in California.”
 
Last September, Gov. Schwarzenegger asked Brown to investigate the activities of ACORN in California. His request was triggered by tapes made by undercover videographer James O’Keefe III that purported to show ACORN employees providing advice on how to conduct a prostitution ring and commit other serious crimes.

But new, unedited videotapes discovered through Brown’s investigation, as well as other evidence, shed clearer light on interactions between O’Keefe and the now-defunct ACORN.
 
Videotapes secretly recorded last summer and severely edited by O’Keefe seemed to show ACORN employees encouraging a “pimp” (O’Keefe) and his “prostitute,” actually a Florida college student named Hannah Giles, in conversations involving prostitution by underage girls, human trafficking and cheating on taxes. Those videos created a media sensation.

Evidence obtained by Brown tells a somewhat different story, however, as reflected in three videotapes made at ACORN locations in California. One ACORN worker in San Diego called the cops. Another ACORN worker in San Bernardino caught on to the scheme and played along with it, claiming among other things that she had murdered her abusive husband. Her two former husbands are alive and well, the Attorney General’s report noted. At the beginning and end of the Internet videos, O’Keefe was dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, presented himself as a law student, and said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress. He never claimed he was a pimp.
 
“The evidence illustrates,” Brown said, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.”
 
The original storm of publicity created by O’Keefe’s videotapes was instrumental in ACORN’s subsequent denunciation in Congress, a sudden tourniquet on its funding, and the organization’s eventual collapse.

In New Orleans, O’Keefe faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison and a fine of $5,000 on reduced federal charges related to misrepresentation in gaining access to the Louisiana office telephones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.

Brown’s report found numerous faults with ACORN’s activities in California, including:
 
• Failure to “recruit, train and monitor its employees to ensure compliance” with state law.
 
• Likely violation of state civil laws designed to protect personal information when employees of the San Diego office disposed of 20,000 pages of records in a dumpster. These violations could result in private litigation if any of the victims were injured by disclosure.

• Four instances of “possible voter registration fraud in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election.”
 
• Failure to file a 2007 state tax return, an omission the Franchise Tax Board is pursuing.
 
• Sloppiness in its handling of charitable assets, although no misuse of those assets was found. The California Attorney General will monitor investigations into ACORN’s overall finances by the IRS and Louisiana Attorney General.
 
ACORN announced that it is closing its operations nationwide today. While a successor to ACORN in California called ACCE emphasizes that it is no longer part of ACORN, the Attorney General’s report notes that ACCE is “run by the same people, raising concerns about its ability to cure the defects in the organization.” The report notes that the Attorney General will closely scrutinize ACCE’s operations.

The full Attorney General’s report is attached. The unedited O’Keefe videotapes from California are available on the Attorney General’s website at http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/multimedia/index.php. Tapes from other states are available on request.

You can get the PDFs by going to the above URL
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #342 on: March 09, 2013, 12:48:53 PM »

Liability Under California Law for Making Covert Recording of Confidential Conversation

California law generally prohibits the recording of confidential communications without the consent of all participants where there is an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. To meet the Governor’s request to investigate ACORN, this Office needed the complete, unedited video and audio recordings made by O’Keefe and Giles, who are not in California. O’Keefe and Giles agreed to produce the full recordings if the Attorney General agreed not to prosecute them for violations of California’s privacy laws. This Office determined that the fastest and most efficient means to comply with the Governor’s request was to agree not to prosecute.
In light of this limited grant of immunity, we did not focus on the circumstances surrounding the conversations to determine if the recordings themselves violated California law. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to note the legal principles governing clandestine recording of conversations in California. Whether a recording of a conversation is unlawful depends on the circumstances of the conversation and the expectations of the parties. In 1967, the California Legislature adopted the Invasion of Privacy Act, codified at Penal Code sections 630 through
638. The Act is designed to protect the right of privacy by requiring the consent of all parties before a confidential conversation is recorded. (Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 768-769 (Flanagan).) The eavesdropping and recording provision, section 632, provides that any person who intentionally and without consent of all parties to a confidential communication records such conversation is guilty of an alternate felony/misdemeanor. (Penal Code, § 632(a).) A private cause of action also exists for any person injured by a violation of the Act.20 (Id., § 637.2.) Section 632 defines confidential communication to include “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto.” (Id., § 632(c).) A communication made in a public place or “in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded” does not qualify as a confidential communication under the statute. (Id.) Confidentiality “appears to require nothing more than the existence of a reasonable expectation by one of the parties that no one is ‘listening in’ or overhearing the conversation.” (Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th at pp. 772-773.) The fact that the subject matter of the conversation might later be discussed with a third party has no bearing on a finding of confidentiality under the statute. (Coulter v. Bank of America (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 923, 929.) Although the Act contains exemptions for particular individuals or circumstances, no exemption exists for filmmakers, the media, or journalists.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #343 on: March 09, 2013, 09:13:51 PM »

Doug, GM:

Excellent work gentlemen!

Marc
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #344 on: March 11, 2013, 11:37:44 AM »

Shocking.  Detroit ex-Mayor found guilty of corruption.

Wonder if the Pravda's will fit party affiliation into the headline.  
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 12:26:07 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11815


« Reply #345 on: March 12, 2013, 07:01:03 PM »

They had O'Keefe dead-bang busted, yet they granted him immunity. Why? They didn't need the original footage. The video posted online coupled with sworn statements from the ACORN employees would be enough for a grand jury or information to be issued. They could have gotten the original footage for trial through a grand jury subpoena or search warrant.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #346 on: April 11, 2013, 11:40:21 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-obama-takeover-of-election-regulation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #347 on: May 13, 2013, 12:37:20 PM »

The IRS targeting scandal is about cheating in elections, preventing opponents from organizing and acting in the same ways that your own campaign and supporters are organizing and acting.

GM: "There should be criminal investigations regarding this conduct."

Undermining our elections, to me, is treason, extreme acts against one's nation.  Beheading, after a fair trial, comes to mind as a remedy that might discourage similar acts in the future.

If these were "low-level" employees, how much do we pay people who decide how to allocate resources in the IRS?  Minimum wage?  Were they laid off, considered no more essential than air traffic controllers, during the sequester?  I don't think so.

This one tip of a big iceberg, with no one looking under it.  There is no way this was the only cooperation between the Obama Executive Branch of our government and the Obama campaign.  There is no question in my mind that the "data mining" and turnout operations of the campaign were getting welfare and program recipients lists from inside the federal government.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30617


« Reply #348 on: May 21, 2013, 07:01:31 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/group-fighting-voter-fraud-among-those-waiting-on-/
Group fighting voter fraud among those waiting on IRS; reams of documents still not enough
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Monday, May 20, 2013


A Texas group dedicated to combatting voter fraud applied for tax-exempt status in 2010 and has suffered three years of delays, been through four different IRS agents, undergone six FBI inquiries and submitted thousands of pages of documentation — and its still hasn’t been approved.

True the Vote is just one of the dozens of groups caught up in the IRS plan to give extra scrutiny to conservative groups in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

SEE RELATED: Carney: White House aides insulated Obama from IRS scandal

As Congress delves into the question of whether the burgeoning scandal was bureaucratic malfeasance, as the IRS now acknowledges, or a more sinister political witch hunt, as some Republicans believe, True the Vote’s experience is poking holes in the IRS‘ version of events, and lending credence to the nefarious explanations.

In one example, the IRS asked other Texas-based tea party groups what their relationship was with True the Vote — a fishing expedition that group President Catherine Engelbrecht didn’t learn about until the IRS scandal burst onto front pages.

“It suggests that they are trying to construct some kind of web in which to trap groups that they believe are somehow working together,” Ms. Engelbrecht said.

Enlarge Photo

The IRS‘ inspector general released a report last week that found the IRS targeted conservative groups for added scrutiny beginning in 2010, looking particularly at those that used “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their names.

The IRS acknowledges asking inappropriate questions but bristles at other charges. Acting Commissioner Steven Miller said the agency was trying to weed out groups engaging in political activity in violation of tax laws. He said the scrutiny was enhanced because of a surge of new groups after the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.

The IRS also said that the actions were taken by employees in an Ohio office, and that the agency has been taking steps to curtail inappropriate information requests in 2011.

But most of those claims appear to be untrue, based on the experience of True the Vote and other groups subjected to extra scrutiny.

Both Ms. Engelbrecht and True the Vote’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, said they had conversations with IRS agents who indicated that the files were being scrutinized in Washington, not in the Cincinnati office blamed by the IRS.

“More than one agent in Cincinnati has advised me that his/her instructions regarding the processing of my ‘tea party’ related organization client(s) were coming from the Washington, D.C., office,” Ms. Mitchell said in a letter to the IRS earlier this month.

And the probing letters continued well after the time the IRS said it began curtailing them, with the most recent inquiries to True the Vote coming in November and again in March.

Conservative target

True the Vote stemmed from Ms. Engelbrecht’s experience in the 2008 and 2009 elections, when she said she worked the polls and saw everything from administrative dysfunction to situations that looked like they could lead to fraud.

In July 2010, she and other supporters formed King Street Patriots under the tax code’s section 501(c )(4), which allows groups to do some politicking as long as it’s not their primary purpose.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5810


« Reply #349 on: May 21, 2013, 12:33:05 PM »

Talk about a drip, drip, drip, the story of IRS political badgering is not going to go away anytime soon.  And it wasn't an isolated case of a low level employee in a faraway outpost affecting just a few groups.  It was something far larger, intended to intimidate and affect elections.  Conservative college interns pose a threat to revenue collections?!?!

We should cut a hundred IRS agent jobs for every infraction discovered until the bias inside the agency changes to even-handedness.

IRS targeted conservative college interns

Daily Caller 05/20/2013
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/irs-targeted-conservative-college-interns/

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) demanded information about conservative groups’ college-aged interns, prompting outrage from one of the country’s top conservative activist organizations and leading one former intern to wonder whether his family’s pizza parlor would be endangered.

The IRS requested, in an audit, the names of the conservative Leadership Institute’s 2008 interns, as well as specific information about their internship work and where the interns were employed in 2012, according to a document request the IRS sent to the Leadership Institute, dated February 14, 2012.

The IRS requested:

“Copies of applications for internships and summer programs; to include: lists of those selected for internships and students in 2008.
– In regards to such internships, please provide information regarding where the interns physically worked and how the placement was arranged.
– After completing internships and courses, where were the students and interns employed?”

The Arlington, Virginia-based Leadership Institute is a conservative activist training organization founded in 1979 by Virginia Republican National Committeeman Morton C. Blackwell, the youngest elected delegate to the 1964 Republican convention that nominated Barry Goldwater. The institute was audited in 2011. As The Daily Caller has reported, at least two different IRS offices made a concerted effort to obtain the group’s training materials.

The Leadership Institute’s audit, which was conducted by the IRS’ Baltimore office and which ended with no determination of wrongdoing but cost the conservative group $50,000 in legal fees, only covered the year 2008, leading employees to speculate that the IRS’ primary interest was figuring out how the group operates during a presidential election year.

“They were very interested in seeing what conservative organizations were doing in 2008, and where the interns from 2008 were now employed,” Leadership Institute vice president of programs David Fenner told the Daily Caller, adding that he “absolutely” believed the IRS audited information from 2008 because it was an election year.

“We declined to give them the names” of former interns, Fenner said.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!