Election Integrity: It Matters – Katie Pavlich – TownHall.com

Election Integrity: It Matters – Katie Pavlich – TownHall.com

In 2009, Catherine Engelbrecht of Houston volunteered to be a poll watcher. From that moment forward, her life changed.

During her time as an election volunteer, she saw people come in with duplicate registrations and people coming into the polling place to vote only to find out someone else had already voted for them through the mail.  This, among other reasons, is why Engelbrecht founded True the Vote, a non-profit organization dedicated to ending voter fraud. True the Vote started with the intention of working locally, but quickly expanded to more than 35 states in just three short years.

“When you just talk to average American voters, they’re concerned which is why True the Vote has become such a national movement in a short period of time,” Engelbrecht said, stressing that currently only half of the necessary poll watchers needed are available, which is why True the Vote plans to mobilize one million volunteers for Election Day 2012.

Thursday, The Heritage Foundation held a summit about voter fraud and Voter ID featuring Engelbrecht, Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, South Carolina Secretary of State Alan Wilson and former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of voters believe voter fraud is a problem while nearly 70 percent believe the requirement of photo ID to vote makes sense, yet the Obama Justice Department headed by Attorney General Eric Holder has been attacking state based Voter ID laws for months.

“There is a disconnect between what the voters want and what the politicians want,” Engelbrecht said. “A confident, engaged electorate leads to a united America.”

Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach recently lead the effort to get the SAFE program or Secure and Fair Elections Act passed by both Republicans and Democrats in his state.  The act was passed in April 2011 and early results of the SAFE act are already positive. In the first six months after the law went into effect, the state held 53 local elections. During those elections, 68,000 votes were cast and of the 68,000 voters just 84 people showed up at the polls without photo ID although most of those people actually had ID but chose not to bring it to the polls for one reason or another. Out of 1.6 million registered voters, only 32 people in the entire state took advantage of the free photo ID offer from Kansas’ government.

But why is Voter ID necessary? It stops double voting, voter impersonation and a number of other fraudulent activities.  It also prevents the legal vote of eligible voters from being stolen.

“When voter fraud is allowed to persist, it dilutes everybody’s vote,” Gessler said.

Former Congressman and former Democrat Artur Davis explains Voter ID in historic terms.

“This is a Virginia driver’s license, also known as a state issued photo ID, it’s pretty innocuous looking,” Davis said while holding up his ID to the audience. “This is not a Billy club. It is not a firehouse……It’s not some kind of a weapon or club that southern sheriffs used to keep people from voting.”

Recently, the NAACP took their case against voter ID to the United Nations Human Rights Council, something unamusing to Davis who pointed out countries like Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia sit on the council, all countries that have never held a free election.   

“Reasonable people shouldn’t disagree on one point: We have had our share of suppression, particularly in the American south, there is no question about that, but this [Voter ID] is not suppression,” Davis said.  “How can it be a burden to ask people to do something they do all the time?”

Holder’s DOJ is currently suing a number of states over their Voter ID laws. Ironically, the latest state to come under attack is Pennsylvania, where video footage showed New Black Panther Party members intimidating voters while wielding Billy clubs outside of a Philadelphia polling station in 2008. Holder and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division refused to press charges against the Panthers and dismissed the case.  (For more on this, read Injustice by DOJ whistleblower Christian Adams.).

President Bobblehead – Tea Party Nation

President Bobblehead – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

As President Obama’s head moved robotically from left to right and back again while his eyes followed the scroll of text on the teleprompters, I began to think about this ever-present factor for all his speeches and why this man is president at all.

It’s not that he isn’t in a world of trouble two-and-a-half years into his first and mercifully last term in office. All presidents “inherit” a variety of problems from their predecessor, but not all presidents—none in fact—spend all their time blaming their predecessor. If there are problems, the presumption is that they were elected on their promises to solve them.

Ronald Reagan asked “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The voters said no and he served two memorable terms. The nation is now immeasurably worse off than just two-and-a-half years after Obama’s election.

Obama has exacerbated the problems he encountered that first day in the Oval Office and added several horrors, not the least of which is called Obamacare.

Behind the avalanche of words regarding Barack Obama is the central issue of whether he should be president. Anyone else would have been impeached by now. The news media of the 1970s that revealed the corruption of the Watergate scandal, with notable exceptions, now remain silent on this issue.

On July 22, Jeffrey T. Kuhner, writing in The Washington Times, bluntly said “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors…Mr. Obama should be impeached” and was met by wall-to-wall indifference. It wasn’t even a topic for the cable news 24/7 chattering class.

Earlier this year, after reading Dr. Jerome R. Corsi’s book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, I opined that Obama would likely be forced to resign based on the weight of evidence that he was not only ineligible to hold the office under the terms set forth in the U.S. Constitution, but that there was ample evidence that even the Social Security number he was using was fraudulent.

That’s how naïve I am, but I should have realized that the U.S. court system has systematically dismissed cases brought to expose his ineligibility, mostly on the basis that the complainant had no “standing” to do so. If a citizen, operating under the same Constitution as the President has no standing, who does?

Most certainly the Obama administration’s Department of Justice would not take any action. If it prefers to sue the State of Arizona for trying to defend its own border with Mexico, and wouldn’t prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped trying to intimidate white voters, the likelihood of the DOJ doing anything involving a constitutionally ineligible President is slim to none.

Corsi’s book, 392 pages of fact-piled-on-fact, begins by asserting that “no legal authority has ever verified Barack Obama’s legal eligibility to be president, that glaring inconsistencies and blackouts in his life narrative has caused widespread doubts among the American populace, and that, in fact, a compelling body of evidence exists that Obama is not a natural-born citizen as is required of all presidents by Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution.”

“No usurper of the office of the president of the United States can be tolerated if the Constitution is to have enduring authority,” said Corsi.

“The test in the upcoming presidential election of 2012,” said Corsi, “is whether or not President Obama will get a second pass on having to present his eligibility credentials to the American public.” Most certainly the birth certificates he has offered thus far either do not meet that test or are complete forgeries.

There is no greater peril to the nation than to have its guiding legal instrument casually ignored. This is written prior to the Republic candidate’s Iowa debate on Fox News Channel, but I would bet the subject of Obama’s ineligibility and usurpation of the office of the presidency will not be mentioned.