Author Archives:

Democratic National Committee launches new offensive against voter integrity laws, including photo ID

The DNC is also launching a new Voter Expansion Project, centering the pushback against ID requirements and other voting laws within the party. Starting long before Election Day, central staff will train campaign workers around the country on restrictions and rules and what to do about them, deploying lawyers and other experts full time in states to fight back, in the field and in courts.

The DNC is trying to go on the offensive as well, mounting campaigns against new voting laws in an attempt to turn its Capitol Hill headquarters into a nexus of information, education and organizing tools for state activists and lawyers — some of whom will be coming on to the official payroll. It will be promoting the new effort heavily, starting with a Thursday morning announcement to supporters built around a launch video from Bill Clinton.

“It’s not enough anymore to be against these new voting restrictions,” he says, in a sign of Clinton attention to the national party. “This project, through legislation, education, registration and good old-fashioned advocacy and organizing, we’ll protect and extend the franchise.”
More at Politico.  Anything similar from the RNC to defend and push voter integrity laws?

“Federal Court Rejects Green Party Attack on Voter ID”

 Link to PJ Media story.


“Judge Greer echoes what sensible Americans already understand: its no big deal for a state to require you to prove you are who you say you are when you go to vote.


This isn’t a racist plot by southern white male legislators or the Ku Klux Klan version 2.014. It’s common sense.


Judge Greer’s opinion upholding Tennessee’s voter ID law was all about common sense.


No plaintiff has ever successfully challenged a voter ID law in federal court. All of the cases have been characterized by the same comic flaw: the person who can’t obtain a photo ID cannot be found.  The elusive snow leopard is easier to find than someone who can’t get a photo ID.


The recurring void was no different in the Tennessee case. From Judge Greer’s opinion:



“Defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint does not identify a single injured person [or] allege that one injured person is a member of the Green Party.”


The case is a warning to the plaintiffs challenging Texas and North Carolina Voter ID. Bluster, sound bites and talking points only go so far. The country isn’t under the boot of structural racism perpetrated by conniving Republicans in North Carolina and Texas (and Democrats in Rhode Island).”

Comments: “Registration Fraud, Not Voter Fraud”

I normally don’t ascribe much weight to comments to articles.  Some writers think that comments represent an underlying trend and are worthy of building a story around.  I don’t. 

But I couldn’t help but notice in comments to Deroy Murdock’s story at National Review about the illegal activities of Battleground Texas a comment that this was “registration fraud” and not “voter fraud.” 

Put aside the fact the comment represents the familiar phenomena among activist groups and academics to excuse criminal behavior.  The more important observation is that it doesn’t matter whether it is “registration fraud” or “voter fraud.”  Both are corrupting influences over the process of clean elections.  Both deserve to be stamped out.  Both compliment each other.

The atmosphere of lawlessness inside Battleground Texas was a shock, and as usual James O’Keefe captured it on video for all to see.  But pay attention to the subsequent acceptance of lawlessness by those attempting to differentiate between “registration fraud” and “voter fraud.” 

Fraud is fraud, and it has no place in the electoral process.  Power flows from the process, and as we have seen for the last 5 years, abuse of power justifies steps to remove fraud from the process.

UPDATE: Deroy Murdock emails me: (used with his permission): 

“Yes, the Leftists just excuse one crime after another, don’t they?

Say someone loosens the lock on the back door of a bank. And you and I accuse this person of bank robbery.

“That’s not bank robbery, you liar!”

OK, maybe not precisely. But if the goal is to come back and rob the bank at 2:00 AM, we’re supposed to overlook and excuse (perhaps even applaud?) the lock-picking at 7:00 PM?

Times on the Speech Regulators

“Liberals back in the day liked to champion free speech and the First Amendment rights — even of those with whom they disagreed or found obnoxious.

They stood up for the rights of communists and other despised minorities. Famously, the American Civil Liberties Union even went so far as to defend the right of Nazi sympathizers marching in Skokie, Ill.

Today’s liberals or progressives are a different breed. They seem to think that the First Amendment is there to protect their speech, but that those with whom they disagree should be silenced by whatever means necessary to advance their version of the public good, and they are involved in what amounts to a national campaign to deny First Amendment rights to their opponents.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, has no qualms about using the power of the state to silence his political adversaries. He proudly took credit for writing to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) before the last election cycle urging that steps be taken to silence Tea Party and other advocacy groups on the right.”

Washington Times

“Obama’s Radical Nominee”

National Review: “Adegbile is a passionate advocate for racial quotas in hiring and university admissions, and also urges that employers not be permitted to do background checks on potential hires — presumably because more African Americans have criminal records than other applicants. He has encouraged the president to nominate judges who recognize that “ratified treaties” are the law of the land. Well, no argument there, but he goes further. Adegbile wants judges who will decree that “customary international law” is the law of the United States as well, asking for God only knows what mischief. Who would decide what “customary international law” is? By what authority would it be imposed on Americans? Investor’s Business Daily reports that Adegbile supports George Soros’s campaign to create a new “progressive” constitution. If that doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you’re not paying attention. 

It was Adegbile’s role in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal that incurred the wrath of Justice Department employees, though. The union representing FBI agents, which rarely expresses itself on nominations, along with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law-enforcement groups, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest Adegbile’s nomination.”